The Curse of the Living Corpse

In the year of our Lord, 1964, the horror genre already underwent a metamorphosis. Films like "Psycho" and "Peeping Tom" gave a new meaning to terms like tension and terror, pioneers like Hershel Gordon-Lewis were experimenting with extreme splatter, and across the Atlantic Ocean geniuses, like Mario Bava were savagely butchering fashion models in the first Gialli. Why this little history lecture? Well, because "The Curse of the Living Corpse" was released in the same year, but it still looks and feels - deliberately - like a horror production of the 30s or early 40s.

Okay, admittedly, it's a more Grand Guignol than in the thirties, with severed girls' heads on a plate and close-ups of burned corpses, but "The Curse of the Living Corpse" is basically a standard "old dark house" chiller, and I expected Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi to pop out from behind the curtain at any given moment. Everything else is there: the death of a rich but tyrannical patriarch, the atmospheric reading of the will, insufferably greedy relatives bickering with each other, eerie family vaults, peek-holes through the eyes of portraits, quicksand puddles, redundant comic relief characters, etc.

All this isn't criticism, you know. I love hammy guff like this, especially when the main characters are as loathsome as the Sinclair brothers, and when the death traps are sadistically linked to the victims' deepest fears. Director Del Tenney maintains a good pacing, the ensemble cast is more than amiable (including the debut performance of none other than Roy Scheider), the women are beautiful, and the end-twist is acceptable.

Old Rufus Sinclair wasn't a nice man, so it's no surprise that when he dies, no one in his family mourns the loss. Rufus had a condition that made him appear to be clinically dead, so he was terrified of being buried alive; so much so that his will contained explicit instructions for his family to carry out--or they would each be killed by a method that frightened them the most.

Oldest son, Robert Milli, who looks like he's doing a seductive Rhett Butler imitation, is bad at gambling, but good at having his way with the maids and his brother (Roy Scheider)'s wife..he's pretty despicable..and Scheider isn't much better as the always inebriated Phillip, who thinks his dark sarcasm makes him the clever one. Rufus actually preferred his nephew, Dino Narizzano who is dull as dishwater. Scheider's wife, Margot Hartman is conniving, and Narizzano's girlfriend (Candace Hilligoss) is just plain vapid.

As promised, we see the coffin lid open...and then we see a figure in black, only his eyes visible. Rufus? Zorro? Hard to tell. The bodies stack up, and the police are called..and that's too bad. The police inspector and his assistant are comic relief in a picture where it just doesn't fit.

Is it awful? No, in fact, compared to most of the B-made for the drive-in set movies of the period, this one has some good points. It does have some thoughtful cinematography, and actually could pull off the Victorian horror if the buffoonery of the police hadn't put a halt to it. Except for a couple of actors, the performances were pretty amateurish, but I guess my low expectations were met. So so..but of course, you may be scared to death by it..don't believe me? Just watch the cheesy trailer!

The film begins with a funeral for a rich old man. However, soon after the man is locked away in his crypt, family and servants are killed off or maimed and it appears as if the man is very much alive...or is he? Okay, folks,...I KNOW that this isn't a great film nor is it a great work of art. The acting by several of the "actors" is extremely poor and too many of the parts seem almost "cartoony" in their simplicity and one-dimensionality (such as the police man and the lady who gets beheaded). But despite the general cheesiness of the film and the very, very familiar plot (sort of like an "old dark house" style film), the overall effort is still fun and entertaining. Some of this is due to the good special effects but most of it is because even some of the dumb characters (such as the oldest son) are so funny and over-the-top that you can't help but watch.

Has the patriarch of a turn-of-the-century New England family actually returned from the dead to start murdering his relatives, one by one? Believe me, by the time you get to the end of this low-voltage horror film, you won't really care anymore. Of interest only as the film debut of Roy Scheider, as well as the second movie appearance by "Carnival of Souls" star Candace Hilligoss.

While this film is by no means a thriller on par with anything Mario Bava directed or anything Edmond O'Brien starred in, it still is a pretty decent watch. The acting is overdone, the comic relief (if one can call it that) is so pitiful that I was seriously hoping the Constable (the "funny" character) was the next beheaded.

THe story surrounds a New England family of status and money. Their abusive and controlling father dies, leaving an inheritance for each member of the family provided they fulfill the stipulations of the will. Upon the first reading of the will, we learn that everyone has already violated the terms, wow. Way to cut out a lot of story. The murders are pretty predictable and leave little tension. The killings each pertain to said victims' fear (drowning, fire, etc) and are admittedly pretty graphic for 1963/1964. The beheading, the drowning scene, etc are very violent and there is no sparing the gore. That isn't to say that it looks completely realistic, but nonetheless at the time it must've caused quite a stir.

The murderer is allegedly the dead father returned from the grave to revenge his disobedient family. I won't spill the beans but you can probably guess the twist about a half and hour into the film.

Roy Scheider makes his screen debut and chews the scenery with vigor.

At the end of the film the explanations don't really justify the "how" and if you've scene the film, and know the character I'm talking about, his "disability" wouldn't have allowed him to do what he did.

Through and through there are points of interest, it's not complete fodder but I wish the police men had been cut from the film. They made the viewing less pleasurable for me. It's not complete fodder and OK for a double feature (as it's released with Horror of Party Beach) when you just want a bit of "fun" and non-introspective entertainment,