Benutzerrezensionen

Dr. Nicholas (Jack Hawkins) arrives at the insane asylum run by the eminent Prof. Tremayne (Donald Pleasence) to hear his absolutely bizarre theories as to how four of his patients ended up there.

The first is young Paul (Russell Lewis), who lived with quarrelling parents Sam and Fay (Donald Houston, Georgia Brown), and who had concocted an imaginary friend dubbed Mr. Tiger. Or is he imaginary?

Next is Timothy (Peter McEnery), whose newly acquired penny farthing - it's a sort of bicycle - is able to transport him back in time, all while a leering portrait of his uncle Albert (Frank Forsyth) watches over him.

Then we meet Brian (Michael Jayston), who frustrates his wife Bella (Joan Collins) by bringing home - and falling in love with (I kid you not) - a tree. A creepy looking tree that seems to be named Mel.

Finally, in the tale that takes up most of the movies' running time, the story of Auriol (Kim Novak) is told. She's having to deal with a rebellious daughter, Ginny (Mary Tamm) while entertaining a writer named Kimo (Michael Petrovitch).

Only the fourth tale, "Luau", has any real kick to it. And it's an appreciably twisted tale indeed. But overall, the segments of "Tales That Witness Madness" are bland and lack style. A shame, given that director / cinematographer Freddie Francis *could* do solid work in this format. Things get a little too silly a little too often, especially in the sequence with Brian and Bella, and the endings are rather predictable. Certainly this excellent cast of familiar faces does some good work; Pleasence is a pleasure to watch as always. And the movies' final moments come complete with yet another twist before the end credits start rolling.

However, if you're looking for a good horror anthology from this period, check out "Asylum" or "Tales from the Crypt" instead.

Five out of 10.

This stylish horror anthology, made by the same guy who directed the equally effective TALES FROM THE CRYPT a year before, packs a real punch. Each of the four stories are ghoulish and chillingly memorable. The first, MR. TIGER, concerns a little boy who introduces his feuding parents to his "imaginary" tiger. The second, PENNY FARTHING, is about an old-fashioned bicycle which sends its new owner back in time to unveil a sinister crime. The third, MEL(My favorite), has the beautiful and sexy Joan Collins struggling to keep her husband's wandering eyes on her and her alone. The twist is her competition is a tree!!!!! The fourth and final segment, LUAU, is a grisly tale of murder and voodoo rites. Truthfully, the last segment, even though it's the goriest, is probably the weakest, and is notable mainly for the presence of the lovely and talented Kim Novak(VERTIGO) whose first film this was in four years. But each tale is worth viewing, and good fun!

A vintage horror film financed by World Film Services/Norman Priggen with a great British cast and formed by several episodes full of creepy events , chills, thrills , gore and guts . An anthology terror movie formed by four segments professional but uneven realized and ordinarily played by known actors . Dealing with a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) tells stories of four special cases to a colleague (Jack Hawkins) . In the tradition of Edgar Allan Poe......Is it just your imagination or your Sanity that's in question? An orgy of the damned! It happens beyond madness - where your mind won't believe what your eyes see. As they receive fantastic visions about their future . And now ...who is next....

It deals with 4 segments titled: "Mr. Tiger" , "Penny Farthing" , "Mel" , "Luau" , all of them are filled with mystery , suspense , terror , grisly killings , cannibalism, twisted events and horrible happenings . Most stories are inspired by American comic books as Tales of Crypt from EC comics . It includes the following ones : 1º : a young son of prominent but constantly bickering parents , befriends an imaginary tiger ; 2ª : A businessman innherits a penny-farthing bicycle which seems to have time travel capabilities ; 3ª : A man displays a human-shaped dead tree at home as a piece of found art , angering his jealous spouse ; 4ª : a wealthy literary agent hosts a new client who seems more interested in her beautiful daughter resulting in fateful consequences . The stories are really uneven, suffering from some weak incidents and of varying quality, packing nice as well as fleeble moments. Taking its cue from the popular portmanteau style of the classic "Dead of Night" made some years before , being "Dr Terror" the first Amicus -from producers Milton Subotsky, Max J Rosenberg- big hit series of terror story compendiums ; however , this one being financed from inferior production company : .World Film Services. The British star-studded results to be pretty good with a plethora of notorious actors such as : Jack Hawkins , Donald Pleasence, Joan Collins , Michael Jayston, Georgia Brown , Donald Houston, Suzy Kendall , Peter McEnery , Charles Gray , Kim Novak , and Mary Tamm's debut .

It packs colorful , adequate cinematograhy by Norman Warwick , shot on Locations in Binfield Manor, Forest Road, Binfield, Bracknell, Berkshire, and Burwood Park, Onslow Road, Hersham, Walton-on-Thamesat and at Shepperton studios , Surrey , England . It was compellingly accompanied by a thrilling and suspenseful musical score by Bernard Ebbinghouse .The motion picture was regular but professionally directed by Freddie Francis who had a long cinematic career . He was an expert cameraman who photographed prestigious films such as : ¨The straight story¨ , ¨Cape fear¨ , ¨Glory ¨, ¨Dune¨, ¨The elephant man¨ , ¨Night must fall¨ , The innocents¨, ¨Room at the top and ¨Hell in Korea¨ . He also directed some movies , many of them terror films, such as : ¨Dark tower¨ , ¨Doctor and the devils¨ , The ghoul¨ , Legend of werewolf¨ , ¨The creeping flesh¨ , Trog¨ , ¨Torture garden¨ ,¨The skull¨ , ¨House of horrors¨ , ¨The evil of Frankenstein¨ , ¨Nighmare¨ , ¨Paranoiac¨ , The brain¨ and directed ¨Tales of the Crypt¨ TV series , episode 2 season 7 , titled ¨Last respects¨. Rating : 5.5/10. Average , but passable and acceptable . The motion picture will appeal to terror movies fans .

This was actually the first UK portmanteau chiller of the 1970s I saw (on late night TV in the early 1980s). It hooked me into the genre and afterwards I loved seeing Asylum, The House that Dripped Blood, Vault of Horror, etc.

This one is cool and elegant. The tales are all fun and suspenseful, and the excellent framing story (featuring Donald Pleasence acting kind of loopy) lifts things.

The actors are great and seem to be having a ball. The story 'Mel' works especially well, and Joan Collins is great in it. Kim Novak and Mary Tamm are fun in 'Luau' too.

This is not one of those Amicus anthologies which present unexpected twists: three out of the four stories are utterly predictable from their initial set up. But then it's like one of those fairground rides - you see what you're going to get (eg a 25 foot vertical drop), but if you're into that sort of thing you can still get a thrill out of the ride (the last story in particular is quite unpleasant - watching it is like watching an unavoidable car accident in slow motion). While none of the acting is quite on the level that you get from Peter Cushing in particular in anthologies like 'The House that Dripped Blood' or 'Tales from the Crypt', it is consistently good (Joan Collins actually being more believable than in the silly story she appears in for 'Tales from the Crypt'), and Freddie Francis directs these with a good sense of atmosphere and character. One I wouldn't mind seeing again.

Despite an excellent cast and good production values this (supposed) horror film commits the ultimate sin: it doesn't scare... It's like watching some sit-com level "Twilight Zone" rip-off episode(s)... If you want to enjoy the real thing see one or all of the following: "Tales from the Crypt" (1972) "Asylum" (1972) or "Vault of Horror" (1973)

Visited by colleague Dr. Nicholas (Jack Hawkins), Dr. Tremayne (Donald Pleasence) explains his amazing and controversial theories as to why each of his four patients went mad... cue four distinct tales each with a different set of characters!

I love anthologies and was therefore instantly interested in this one. My only disappointment was that there were four segments. At 90 minutes, there should probably only have been three. We just never have time to fully develop the stories... (Although, I have to say a decent job was done here.)

Hooray for director Freddie Francis, best known for his work with Hammer. And hooray for Kim Novak, perhaps best known for "Vertigo". The Encyclopedia of Horror says the film "avoids farce and develops a nicely deadpan style of humour which is ably sustained by the excellent cast in which only Novak appears unable to hit the right note." Not sure why they singled her out... I thought she did fine.

Interestingly, this was the last film of both Frank Forsyth and Jack Hawkins, and Kim Novak had been semi-retired when she replaced Rita Hayworth to take her role here.

British studios made a number of anthology horror flicks in the '60s and '70s, and "Tales That Witness Madness" is one of them. It depicts a futuristic asylum in which the owner (Donald Pleasence) tells his colleague (Jack Hawkins, who died right before the movie got released) about the patients and how they went insane.

I didn't like this one as much as movies like "Dr. Terror's House of Horrors" and "The House that Dripped Blood", but it's still entertaining. The tree segment is the neatest one. It just goes to show that horror flicks - even if they're not particularly scary - are best when they're not just scenes of people crawling around making scared faces. I will say that Kim Novak's character seems kind of flat, but the rest of the movie makes up for that. Also starring are Joan Collins and the recently deceased Mary Tamm.

So yes, does anyone love me?

Horror films were a major feature of the British cinema in the sixties and seventies, and portmanteau horror anthologies, combining several stories in a single film, were a recognised sub-genre during this period. And this is a good example. Most of these anthologies were produced by Amicus Productions, Hammer's main rivals in the horror stakes, but "Tales That Witness Madness" was produced by World Film Services. Joan Collins, who appears here, had the previous year featured in an Amicus anthology, "Tales from the Crypt".

The five stories are linked together by a framework in which Dr Tremayne, a psychiatrist in a mental asylum, reveals to a colleague, Dr Nicholas, the case histories of four of his patients. In "Mr Tiger", Paul the young son of unhappily married and constantly quarrelling parents, has an invisible tiger as his imaginary friend.

In "Penny Farthing" Timothy, an antiques dealer, inherits from his aunt a portrait of an elderly gentleman whom he names "Uncle Albert" and a penny farthing bicycle. Both these items appear to have strange properties. Uncle Albert's eyes seem to follow Timothy around the room, and whenever he climbs on the bicycle he travels back in time to the Victorian era where he becomes Albert as a young man and his girlfriend, Ann, becomes Albert's sweetheart Beatrice.

In "Mel" a young man finds an old dead piece of wood, with a vague resemblance to the shape of a human being, in his garden. He brings this object, which he names "Mel", into his house, much to the disgust of his wife. And in "Luau", a literary agent named Auriol falls in love with her handsome new client, a native Hawaiian, but he seems more interested in her attractive teenage daughter.

Auriol was originally to be played by Rita Hayworth, but she dropped out soon after shooting started. (Her part was taken by another big-name American star, Kim Novak). She probably dropped out after reading the script, because this is a Film that Witnesses Madness if there ever was one. Madness, that is, on the part of the scriptwriter who came up with it and of the producer, director and actors who agreed to have anything to do with it. Of the five stories, the only one which makes any sort of sense is "Luau", and even that only makes sense if one is prepared to swallow the racist idea that native Hawaiians are all practitioners of devil worship, human sacrifice and cannibalism. The other three case histories, and the framework story about the two psychiatrists, seem completely lacking in any internal logic or any satisfactory explanation for their final denouements.

This was the last film of Jack Hawkins, a popular British actor of the fifties and early sixties. He had lost his voice after an operation for throat cancer in 1965, but continued acting with his parts being voiced by other actors, here by Charles Gray. He was to die soon after making this film, and it must be said that he deserved a better swan-song. Something like "Tales from the Crypt" is often lurid and shocking, but can also at times be compelling and watchable. "Tales that Witness Madness", by contrast, is almost throughout virtually unwatchable, except by those masochistic film buffs who enjoy watching bad movies so that they can laugh at just how bad they are. 3/10.

Creepy British movie has four scary tales about an invisible man eating tiger, a picture that comes alive, a tree that is alive and the last and worst one is about voodoo. Joan Collins is great as a woman fighting for her husband's affection over a tree! The tiger and the picture episodes are good too. Altogether a good creepy movie .

Although little-seen and dismissed by Kim Newman as "unreleasable", this attempt to jump on the Amicus bandwagon was ambitious enough to cast Kim Novak. Produced by a company appropriately called Lioness it's written by a woman and includes such formidable femmes as Georgia Brown, Joan Collins and Miss Novak.

As a an actress Miss Jayne always looked as if she had something on her mind and her script shows clear evidence of a ghoulish wit and an enthusiasm for fantasy, sci-fi and old horror movies; although heaven only knows just what she was getting out of her system in the episode in which Miss Collins affections are alienated by a tree!

Calling this creepy would be an exaggeration but the stories have a more or less compelling charm that I'm struggling to find in the genre these days.

The wraparound is a bit confusing and marred by a glaringly obvious dubbing.

But the stories are distracting enough with their varied settings and subject matter. More like weird fiction back in the day than horror.

I don't think any of the directors were really prepared for the project. They seem to be ready for a news item but they are a but flaccid in the way they visualize the stories and it can feel a bit blunt without any build up and I know the script gave some opportunities to do that.

The stories themselves don't exactly keep their cards close to their chest. They're not subtle and the last one seems like unambitious gore porn.

Not a winner exactly but it goes the distance.

Freddie Francis directed a lot of the best omnibus films that Amicus had to offer; but unfortunately, this isn't one of them. It would seem that the studio was running out of ideas after the likes of The House that Dripped Blood and The Vault of Horror, as every story in this film feels like an afterthought. The wraparound revolves around a mental home, where Doctor Tremayne is showing someone around his various patients. We then get treated to the story behind how they all got there. These films normally start off with a lacklustre tale, and this one is no different as the first features a young kid with a tiger. Nothing particularly of note for this tale, except for the fact that you'll be hoping it gets better. It does, but only slightly. The second story is completely stupid and also rather boring as we follow an antique store owner who gets a penny farthing bicycle and finds that it's a time machine and he can go back into the past, under the watchful eye of a painting of 'Uncle Albert'. Again, there's nothing particularly of note here and the way it plods out is far from interesting.

The third tale is undoubtedly the best, and is the weird story of a man who falls in love with a tree stump. Aside from the obvious fact that you simply wouldn't bring an old piece of wood into the house (even if you are in a film about madness), this story is pretty good; it's funny enough and interesting in all the right places. It's not enough to save the film in its own right, but had all the segments been as good as this one; Tales That Witness Madness would have been a decent film. The final tale is extremely tedious and succeeds only in bring a slow end to the movie. The final tale follows a weird bloke who is involved in some kind of devilish sorcery. I know I won't remember what happened for long. These films almost always conclude their wraparound stories, and Tales That Witness Madness is no exception. However, like the rest of the film; the conclusion to the wraparound feels a lot like an afterthought and doesn't succeed in bringing any intrigue to a film severely lacking in it. Overall, Tales that Witness Madness features one decent story and three limp ones, and Amicus have certainly done a lot better.

Psychiatrist Donald Pleasence shows sceptical colleague Jack Hawkins around a modern mental asylum and tells him four stories about four patients, Mr Tiger is about a young boy whose well off parents are constantly arguing. He has an imaginary pet tiger, his mum despairs, the story ends with a silly but fun conclusion. Penny Farthing is about an antique dealer called Timmy who comes into possession of a Penny Farthing bicycle and a portrait of his dead Uncle Albert. Tim is transported back in time ending in tragedy. Not a lot to see here. Mel was my favourite segment. Brian takes home a piece of a tree that has a remarkable human form, his sexy wife Joan Collins is not pleased. Finally Luau is a tale of human sacrifice to a Polynesia deity. It takes a while to get going but the ending is grim and may account for the film being BBFC rated 18 in the UK. Amicus Productions were known for making British horror anthology movies, they were the masters of it. Many people, myself included, mistake TTWM for an Amicus film but it was actually made by World Film Services Ltd. Director Freddie Francis did however make films for both Amicus and Hammer, he was a very talented man but sadly this movie is not one of his better ones. As a horror anthology I found it alright but could have been better, apart from Mel none of the stories are particularly good and the wraparound is too similar to the far superior Amicus 1972 film "Asylum". This was Hawkins last movie, he had already lost his voice to cancer and here he is very obviously dubbed by Charles Gray.

Although often mistaken for an Amicus Production, (creators of most of those terrific portmanteu horror films from the 60's and 70's Tales From The Crypt, Vault Of Horror etc...), this is actually not related to that production company, however, it was directed by Hammer and Amicus stalwart, Freddie Francis. I like Francis as a director, really dig Joan Collins and love horror anthology movies in general. But it still took me 3 separate viewings to finish this one. It was just so dull.

Donald Pleasence is dry and monotonous as usual in the framing segment as he takes another doctor on a tour of the mental hospital where he works. He introduces him to four patients, each of whom has a "tale that is supposed to witness madness". These include: a young boy with constantly bickering parents who creates an imaginary playmate - a ferocious lion. A man who receives a penny farthing bicycle that is a time machine. Joan Collins and a rotting piece of tree fighting over a man. And a luau party thrown by a woman who does not realize that her own daughter is the sacrificial guest of honor.

None of the four stories were particularly interesting, the wraparound was dry and there was little to no gore (not that that is so important but at least it would have provided some entertainment). Don't go out of your way to track this one down. It's pretty bad.

The portmanteau/anthology format is very hit and miss with many examples of the genre having at least one weak tale hidden amongst the good ones, or vice versa. Tales That Witness Madness, however, is fairly unique in that every segment—including the bizarre wraparound story—is a dud, meaning that usually dependable horror director Freddie Francis and his seasoned cast of character actors can do very little to prevent the film from being a crushing bore.

Jennifer Jayne's nonsensical script sees Dr. Nicholas (Jack Hawkins) arriving at a futuristic hospital for the insane, where psychiatrist Dr. R.C. Tremayne (Donald Pleasance) is convinced that he has discovered what caused four of his patients to go mad. In order to convince his doubtful colleague, he recounts the details of each case: loony number one is Paul (Russell Lewis), a young boy whose imaginary friend Mr. Tiger proves to be very real indeed, devouring the lad's constantly bickering parents; patient number two, Timothy Patrick (Peter McEnery), loses his marbles after taking a trip into the past on a supernatural penny-farthing that is controlled by the ever-changing portrait of his Uncle Albert; fruitcake three, Brian (Micheal Jayston), kills his gorgeous wife (Joan Collins) in order to get it on with the malevolent tree trunk he brings into his home; and the last nutter is literary agent Auriol Pageant (Kim Novak) whose latest client, Hawaiian writer Kimo (Micheal Petrovitch), is planning a special feast with Auriol's tasty teenage daughter as the main course.

After telling his unbelievable (and dreadfully dull) tales to a still sceptical Dr. Nicholas, the seemingly unhinged Tremayne is escorted to one of his own padded cells; shortly thereafter, Dr. Nicholas is paid a visit by Mr. Tiger!!! Dull, uninspired and cursed with some very lame 'twist' endings, this collection of dreadful tales offers horror fans very little to get excited about—with the exception of one scene that may be of particular interest to Evil Dead fans: Joan Collins' character is attacked by trees and creepers in the middle of a forest, the branches ripping off her clothes and groping her (body double's?) breasts. Sound familiar?

3.5 out of 10, rounded up to 4 for presence of the lovely Joan Collins.

This horror anthology closely follows the Amicus template without actually being an Amicus production itself. In other words it features a number of short horror vignettes wrapped around with an inter-linking story which has a twist in its tail as well. Truthfully, this is not a stellar example of this sort of thing. The main issue being that the screen-play is pretty weak, with the stories being either half-hearted, predictable or senseless. All that said, it still remains likable on account of its early 70's feel and the cosy nature of this particular sub-genre. It also benefits from some performances, especially Joan Collins in a charismatic and aggressively sexy performance where she interacts with a bit of wood.

This was the last of the British horror anthology flicks from the late 60's/early 70's that I still had to see, and I intensely searched for it because I've always been a great fan of the Amicus formula. Some of their versatile portmanteau film rank highly among my list of favorites, like "The House that Dripped Blood" and "Asylum", and even the lesser qualitative efforts were nevertheless still very enjoyable. I don't know what exactly went wrong with the stories and set-up of "Tales that witness Madness", but it's a very inferior and severely disappointing film in comparison with all the other British anthology horror films from that era. The main issue lies in Jennifer Jayne's screenplay, which comes up with supernatural-themed stories full of absurd gimmicks, paradoxes and downright crazy situations. It already begins with a wannabe mysterious wraparound story in which a peculiarly behaving doctor – played by Donald Pleasance – guides a fellow doctor through the psychiatric ward of a mental institution and stops to elaborate on four of his heaviest cases. The first story is about an unhappy 8-year-old boy who seeks imaginary friendship with a tiger (!) because his parents continuously argue and neglects his needs. The boring and predictable build-up of the story is more or less compensated through a bloody climax, but "Mr. Tiger" nevertheless remains a senseless and dull quickie that appears to have been improvised at the spot by the actors. The second story opens potentially atmospheric and sinister, with an antique dealer slowly going deranged due to the evil influence of an ancient portrait that he baptized Uncle Albert. The portrait is somehow telepathically linked to a penny-farthing. Whenever the eyes of Uncle Albert force Timothy to ride the hi-wheeler, he gets teleported back in time and reincarnates as the man from the painting. I presume the initial set up was that the guy in the painting wanted him to witness 'something' in the park, but it never gets that far because Timothy's girlfriend sets fire to the penny-farthing. This segment slowly evolves from interesting into infuriatingly bad and ridicule, with time paradoxes and nonsensical symbolism about reincarnation. The third segment is a load of rubbish as well, but at least it's rubbish starring Joan Collins. Her husband develops a strange obsession for a piece of tree that he takes home and puts in the middle of the living room. I don't think that any woman would like a piece of rotting and moist wood in her house, but whenever Bella comes near the thing she suffers from nightmarish visions in which she gets raped in the woods. "Mel" is arguably the best story of the four, but still very silly and unmemorable. The final segment is possibly even twice as boring and inept as the three previous ones combined. By this time, my interest in the film had already vanished, but I seem to remember something about a really ugly guy sacrificing the virgin daughter of a wealthy high- society lady to a phallic statue and serving her flesh at the diner table. Sounds gruesome enough, but the story itself is slow-paced and unimaginably pretentious. "Tales that witness Madness" was one of my personal biggest disappointments ever. None of the stories can hold a candle to even the weakest segments of any other Amicus production and even the experienced veteran director Freddie Francis can't make the film remotely interesting.