Labyrinth der Angst

A psychiatrist's (Paul Michael Glaser) patients are being killed using their own phobias. Who's doing it...and why? Well...the tag line of the movie gives away the entire plot! I caught this mess back in 1981 on cable TV LATE at night. I watched it because I was bored and love horror movies. Well...it WAS horrible! For one thing Glaser (who can be good) walks through his role like he's on Valium. The murders aren't even well-done and the identity of the killer is very obvious from the very beginning.

You really got to wonder why John Huston picked this to direct. He's good at dramas--not psychological horror films. Whenever he tried to direct something different it was always a disaster. Remember--he directed "Annie" which is considered one of the worst musicals put on film. In this one he seems unsure of how to shot a suspenseful scene or pace the film. This is dragged out and very very dull.

This is basically a forgotten film--let's hope it stays that way! Even Glaser said this was terrible. A 1 all the way.

The late, great John Huston apparently went on a bender and woke up in Canada where they plopped him in the director's chair to helm a tax-shelter "psychological" horror flick remarkably similar to "Schizoid", a slightly better Klaus Kinski vehicle released the same year. An unorthodox psychiatrist finds that his patients are being murdered, ironically in ways that play to their greatest phobias. So who could be the killer? Well, I won't spoil it, but all you have to do is looking at the frickin' tag line.

Besides being generic and dull, the main problem here is the male lead. Canadians do tend to have an inferiority complex sometimes, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't have found a greater thespian talent in that entire country than "Hutch" (or was it "Starsky"--I get confused?). Paul Michael Glaser gives a central performance that is every bit as compelling as paint drying. As for Huston, this fortunately wasn't his swan-song--he ended his life with an impressive troika of films, "Under the Volcano", "Prizzi's Honor", and "The Dead". This was merely an unfortunate misstep for him.

The only good thing I can say about this (and I'm really clutching for straws here), is that, also like "Schizoid", it does have a surprising and uncharacteristic nude scene by a young lovely of the Canadian tax shelter era. With "Schizoid" it was Donna Wilkes; here it is Lisa Langlois, who was in Claude Chabrol's "Blood Relatives" and any number of Canadian films better than this (maybe THAT was the whole reason I watched this years back--who knows?). Other than that small favor though its eminently forgettable

This certainly is not a great thriller (and it never aspired to be), but if you like low-budget B-movies, then you're likely to agree that it isn't THAT bad, either. I happen to think that all whodunits are inherently interesting if they're executed with at least a minimum level of competence, and "Phobia" was directed by the legendary John Huston himself! Far from his best work, yes, but he managed to keep my attention. The "surprise" ending, though, is predictable. (**)

If some movie magazine ever comes up with the bright idea of putting together a list entitled "the top 100 most idiotic ways to spoil a movie", than the number 1 spot is undoubtedly reserved for "simply reading the tagline for John Huston's Phobia!". Seriously, if you are considering to watch this film and you haven't yet paid any attention to reading the tagline, well then … DON'T! I mean, guessing the denouement of the film isn't exactly quantum physics, but the stupid tagline just gives away the end twist. Other than that "Phobia" honestly wasn't as bad as I was led to believe, in fact. I almost exclusively read reviews and user comments stating that "Phobia" is a terribly boring thriller effort and undeniably the absolute low point in John Huston's overall magnificent career. Well okay, in spite of all the warnings, I still desperately wanted to see it for two reasons. First and foremost, it might be an inferior John Huston film but it's still remains a John Huston film and they should always be worth checking out! Besides, this is the only horror movie Huston directed, even though he starred in a couple of weird Italian ones like "Tentacles" and "The Visitor". Secondly, and this is truly a personal weakness of mine, the movie poster very much appealed to me. The simply image of a face, half covered in darkness and half depicting people's death struggles is already a lot scarier than the entire content of most other thrillers.

In all honesty, I'm really glad that I took the effort of tracking down "Phobia" and I would definitely encourage other people not to base your judgment on the negative reviews. This isn't a terrific thriller, obviously, mainly due to the slow pacing and continuous predictability of the script, but it nevertheless contains a few good ideas and even a handful of genuinely suspenseful and macabre moments. I found the basic subject matter to be very interesting and full of horrific potential, maybe partly because I have a couple of bizarre and inexplicable phobias myself. Paul Michael Glaser (yes yes, the original Starsky!) plays the acclaimed but slightly controversial psychiatrist Dr. Peter Ross. With the support of his hospital, he started a project to help a test group of five patients get over their various phobias including heights, crowded places, drowning and snakes. Dr Ross' methods are unorthodox and even dangerous, as he literally forces his patients to confront their fears and pushes them quite far into them. Shortly after having received the media's attention, Ross' patients start dying under mysterious circumstances and each one according to their own phobia.

I've been watching horror practically my entire life and I really think that there aren't enough movies that deal with people's fears. "Phobia" is not a great or highly memorable effort, but at least it's decent and attempts to thrive on slow-brooding tension instead of on cheap shocks and gore. The film admittedly has too many shortcomings, like the clichéd selection of phobias and the truly disappointing climax, but several sequences are properly elaborated and the wholesome is definitely worth watching.

I think this movie is slightly underrated. In no way is it a great film, but for a low budget thriller it's okay. It's interesting to see the different kinds of phobias and the film does leave you guessing as to what's really going on. The storyline is a little slow and can drag on at times, but there's also enough in there to keep you interested. The filming is of a poorer quality; I was watching the blue ray version and it's still very fuzzy; my black and white films have better quality then this one. If your a big fan of lower budget horror films then why not give this one a try! If your looking for something scary and extremely entertaining, I wouldn't recommend this film.