Reseñas de usuarios

"Crucible of Terror" is potentially interesting but nevertheless poor 70's horror of which the weak storyline constantly bounces back and forth between two popular horror themes; namely the house-of-wax theme and the satanic-cult theme. Especially this last theme was used frequently during the early 70's, with other (and better) titles such as "The Blood on Satan's Claw" and "To The Devil a Daughter". The story of this fun turkey revolves on an art-gallery owner and his gorgeous girlfriend encountering a hugely eccentric sculptor and his messed up family. I'm not sure I understood all the bizarre family relations but I think the artist lives together with his demented wife as well as with his mistress. Meanwhile, he also successfully woos the wife of his alcoholic son... Then there's also this elderly guy living in the same house but I have absolutely no idea what his position is towards the rest of the family. Anyway, one of all these annoying people is a vicious murderer and, even though you absolutely can't see it coming, the revelation of his/her identity is utterly ludicrous! "Crucible of Blood" contains some enjoyable sequences, more particularly the gross murders, but overall it's boring and unoriginal low-budget trash. The female actresses are painfully untalented but look very ravishing and Mike Raven is completely miscast as the womanizing artist. He looks somewhat like a crossover between Christopher Lee and David Carradine but totally lacks the charisma of both. In fact, this "Crucible of Blood" would work a lot better as a British government film to promote the tourist opportunities of Cornwall, because the filming locations are really beautiful and well-illustrated by cinematographer Peter Newbrook. As a shocking horror film, however, it's not the least bit impressive.

It's a massive understatement to state the family, at the heart of this story, is dysfunctional:

You have a son who steals his artist father's artwork to support his love for alcohol.

A mother who dresses like her namesake from the Wizard Of Oz and feeds her stuffed doggy at the dinner table.

The father, a talented artist obsessed with capturing true female beauty... oh yeah, and infatuated with having intercourse with his models, even his daughter-in-law.

And the artist's best friend, who remains at the home, forgiving his friend's indiscretions because he's in love with his wife.

These factors alone should make an interesting story. However, they weren't enough for Ted Hooker (writer and director) and Tom Parkinson. They then throw a pinch of the supernatural into the mix. This is my favourite ingredient in the story. It isn't until the finale you realise how integral this portion is.

Unfortunately, the rest of the story is a mite hap-hazard. Hooker and Parkinson should have used the characters to drive the story. I felt the characters and their peculiarities were underexploited. It's this that weakens the story and the film the most.

It's further weakened by the actors and actresses portrayals of the characters. The artistic father, Victor Clare (played by Mike Raven), isn't dark or crazy enough. They needed to craft the mother, Dorothy (Betty Alberge), more thoroughly. She looks like Dorothy from the Wizard Of Oz and I would have played on that more - giving her a more solid delusion. The son, Michael (Ronald Lacey) is superbly acted. Lacey does "buzzed" well and even comes across nice and slimy with his fathers current model, Marcia.

Because the remaining characters are more ordinary, the actors and actresses have an easier time making them believable and realistic. Which helps maintain the stability and flow of the story and film.

I just wish Hooker had pushed the cast in his more unusual personas a trifle more. He could also have worked longer on the direction. He demonstrates how isolated the family is with some decent long-shots. He even has a few iconic and well-composed images. And the cellar furnace room is dark, though subtly lit with reds and oranges from the working forge and molten brass.

However, there's a lack of atmosphere throughout. It's not creepy or eerie. You don't feel unease, even though there are scenes where you should. For a film in the horror genre, this is a big regret. Had they addressed this, with the other disappointments, the film would have gained strength. It could easily have been a classic as it possesses all the right ingredients.

Therefore, I can only recommend this film to fans of the genre; should they have nothing better to consider. I enjoyed it, but I won't be watching it again soon... if ever!

Ratings: Story 1 : Direction 1 : Pace 1.25 : Acting 1.25 : Enjoyment 1 : Total 5.5 / 10

Transport yourself over to my Absolute Horror list and see where I ranked this cut-rate masterpiece. You may very well find your next favourite flick on the list awaiting your viewing pleasure.

Take Care and Stay Well.

hammer fans may like this, fair enough it is pretty predictable and stupid at times(most of)but it does have a nice twist at the end. Mainstream movie fans and people with a penchant for glossy turdoid do not have the mental capacity for enjoying the crap value of such films as "Crucible of Terror" you'd better of sticking with "Titwankit" sorry titanic.I am a tree !!!

There's more boring drama than horror in this chunk of British trash. The poor man's Christopher Lee, Mike Raven was a radio DJ who dabbled in the occult and tried to be the next big horror star of the 70s. He has a menacing look and some screen presence but films like this ruined his career. There are some brief and nasty murders to keep you awake but this film is hardly worth the effort. Me Me Lay, who would go on to appear in some notoriously gory Italian cannibal movies, appears under heavy makeup as a vengeful undead Japanese woman which was the highlight of this sorry excuse for a horror film.

I caught this on late night TV yesterday, and if nothing else, it served as a timely reminder that dreadful films are nothing new.

We may shake our heads in wonder at the awfulness of some of the films that get made today -but Crucible of Terror attests to the fact that in amongst the classics of the '70's, they were also making stuff like this.

Deep down, many horror fans want to act in a horror movie. I've romanticized over the idea, and I'm sure you have too. Here's the thing-many a time, people who want to be or try to be a big name in horror suck as actors. All the notable names in the genre either have experience in acting or became genre icons by sheer accident.I bring all of this up because I want to talk about Mike Raven. He was a popular radio DJ and occult enthusiast who was also a huge horror fan. So, with Horror in Britain going through a slow decline in the 70's, some saw Raven as the next big horror star. That worked out as well as you think it would, as Raven gave bad performances in such movies as "Lust for the Vampire", "Disciple of Death" and this movie, 1971's "Crucible of Terror."

Raven stars as Victor Clare, an insane sculptor who kills a woman named Chi-San (cult actress Me Me Lai) and turns her into a sculpture. Well, James Davies (James Bolam) acquires some of Victor's work through his son Michael ("Raiders of the Lost Ark's" Ronald Lacey), who decides to set up a weekend with some folks at his dad's secluded cottage. As you can guess, people start getting knocked off.

Though it resembles a Giallo film and has some decent, bloody death scenes, "Crucible of Terror" is a bore. For one thing, the script and direction by Tom Parkinson (his sole writing and directing credit) is flat and uninvolved, with cheap sets and wooden acting dominating the proceedings. It also fails to do anything interesting with Victor's family, who are all unlikeable, obnoxious characters who lack anything resembling empathy, interest or investment, which makes everyone's fate more boring than interesting. Then there's Raven. It's been said many times that he resembles a poor man's Christopher Lee, but I disagree-that would be insulting to an actual poor man's Christopher Lee. His bug eyed, over dramatic performance can't even register on a camp level.

If you ask me, films like "Crucible of Terror" are living proof that you can't just automatically become a horror star. There's better British horror from the 70's, so why bother with this?

A cheaply made British film from the early 1970s is what CRUCIBLE OF TERROR is , but you`ll never believe how bad it is untill you actually watch it . The plot is just basically a whodunnit where it`s so obvious that you know straight from the first murder who`s behind the killings , except at the very end there`s a plot twist that will have you reeling and not in a good way either . It`s as though the producer realised how obvious the killer was that he instructed the screenwriter to forgo any credibility to make ( You`ll never guess who ) the murderer at the very last minute .

The other thing that had me reeling was the performance of Mike Raven who struck me as a cross between Roger Delgado ( The original master from Doctor Who ) and Christopher Lee . It`s not too difficult to believe that Mr Raven disappeared from the acting world after making this crazy movie

I only heard about this one when recently re-issued on DVD by Severin. I was mainly familiar with its star (former pirate-radio DJ Mike Raven) via his notorious stint in the same year's LUST FOR A VAMPIRE for Hammer – in any case, he only made 4 films (the others being Amicus' I, MONSTER {1971}) and the even more obscure (to say nothing of maligned) DISCIPLE OF DEATH (1972). The movie (which should not be confused with CRUCIBLE OF HORROR aka THE CORPSE {also 1971}, starring Michael Gough – yet another shocker that seems to have fallen through the cracks, though I did catch it on Cable TV some years back) perhaps owes its central premise to "Wax Museum"-type efforts, since Raven's painter/sculptor uses live models for the latter (though he only resorts to it when inspired) – beginning with the pre-credits sequence! Apparently, Raven had a genuine interest in the occult, hence his attempt to make it as the next big British horror star in the wake of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee (interestingly, he got to appear alongside the pair in I. MONSTER) and famously had his eyes 'dubbed' by stock footage of Lee as Dracula in LUST FOR A VAMPIRE!. Another link to a horror legend and fellow countryman is the fact that, like the great Boris Karloff, Raven has a pronounced lisp – which occasions several instances of amusement here, as the script seems hellbent on handing him a plethora of "s"s to deliver in any one given speech!

His character is anything but a commercial artist since he admits to make his handiwork for his own satisfaction. However, his son (Ronald Lacey) has other plans and steals a couple of exhibits which are the surprise hits at an otherwise dismal show (sponsored by Melissa Stribling from HORROR OF Dracula {1958} and managed by James Bolam, with the former more interested in learning that he fancies her!) – Stribling's spouse develops a passion for the aforementioned sculpture and is furious when told that it has already been sold: trying to make away with it at night, he is suffocated to death with a plastic bag! In the meantime, Bolam's girlfriend (lovely Mary Maude, who had appeared in the fine Spanish horror THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED {1969}) is going through market-stalls looking for a nightgown and happens upon the very same yellow kimono worn by the victim of the first murder (all the while being suspiciously-eyed by an Asian bloke sporting shades and who vanishes from the proceedings soon after). Anyway, Bolam sees the value of Raven's work and persuades Lacey to set up a meeting. This is to take place over the weekend at his country retreat, the site of a tin-mine disaster and thus conveniently equipped with a still operational forge. Bolam takes Maude along for the ride (as does Lacey his blonde wife), and Raven naturally instantly sees the possibilities in her. Also living there are his wife who, through Raven's neglect once her beauty had faded has effectively regressed to a childhood state (she is constantly carrying soft toys and dolls around), a middle-aged man who is devoted to the latter (he had wanted to marry her but she preferred Raven, who then squanders her fortune financing his creative output) and – as Lacey puts it – his father's only friend, and the artist's latest model/lover (who, it transpires harbors an unrequited lesbian affection for Maude).

As you can see, that's quite a brimful of hang-ups (beginning with an awkward dinner-table sequence where Raven constantly belittles his son and verbally lashes at his wife for her undignified behavior!) and, before long, the murders start: first Lacey's wife, then himself, then the model At first, I thought the killer would be Lacey (since he had threatened his spouse to show the world that he is every bit as good as his father, to which she contemptuously quips "Yeah, what at?"), then I was sure the film-makers were going the obvious route and reveal Raven as the typical mad artist (sure enough, he had persistently harassed Maude, down to following her through a set of caves which somehow lead back to his own house and which is where the old woman herself goes to in order to get away from Raven's vitriol)…but even he becomes a victim! Maude had been plagued by nightmares involving someone wearing a scary Japanese mask and brandishing a white-hilted sword (when the latter is found in possession of Raven's pal, it is obvious we are supposed to suspect him too) and she had been rendered queasy by the presence of a vase (presumably the titular container) Raven uses in his molding practices. Anyway, as he is about to immortalize her in bronze, she turns on him, unaccountably displaying hideous features which, as later explained by the artist's former rival in love (one wonders just how he knew), results in her having been taken over – via the kimono, get it? – by the revenge-seeking Asian woman we saw murdered at the very start of the picture (to stress the point further, here we also get a replay of all the deaths, with the unseen assailant now revealed to have been Maude all along)!

To be sure, I was unfamiliar with and not a little amused by the director's name but I cannot say to regretting having included it in this "Halloween Challenge": if anything, CRUCIBLE OF TERROR proves quite good to look at (no surprises there, since it is lensed by the distinguished Peter Newbrook), the set-pieces are tolerably well-handled and certainly grisly enough and, for better or worse, Raven's niche in horror-film history (even if he never comes close to scaling the heights of his progenitors and peers) is assured.

Just rewatched this for the first time in about 30 years and it is every bit as good and bad as I remembered. It has so much going for it - some real heavyweight acting talent; fantastic settings and atmosphere; Judy Matheson at her most luminous in a substantial role; and, best of all, a really off-kilter story. The pieces are all there. Of course it often belies its low budget and while there are some great actors on display others may not be quite so top-drawer. But none of that reduces the enjoyment of Crucible of Terror. Like several other British horrors it succeeds because of its shortcomings rather than in spite of them. If you're a fan of the genre you owe yourself a viewing.

I saw this thing in part on late night TV in the seventies. Being a mere lad at the time, I was taken a back at how gory the killings were and surprized in retrospect that it wasn't cut for TV. I found this flick recently in a $5.00 bin put out by STAR CLASSICS. I wanted to see what I'd think of it now, so I bought it. Now I wasn't surprised that at that price it was a cheezy 16mm VHS copy in the LP mode, but I was surprised that all the gory scenes were cut out! Apparently, it was transfered from a more prudish television print! I see here that it's on DVD, but I ain't gonna buy the darn thing.. I would rent it though, just to see if it still holds the same impact it did for me so long ago..

A sexist old man of an artist thinks he can get any woman he wants to pose for his oh-so-wonderful paintings of "beauty" - but when he meets a woman who doesn't give hoot about posing for him, he gets a little self-conscious and stalks her until she gives in. After all, who WOULDN'T want to get taken advantage of and boringly painted by some dirty old man out in the middle of nowhere?? His wife used to pose for him but <gasp!> she grew OLD and now she's a dolly-carrying freakazoid stuck in infantile regression because of his verbal abuse. Nice way to treat your wife's natural aging process, jerk. This guy is so lame, not to mention he states clearly that the only thing woman are good for is to look at and be painted by beauty expert men like himself. Get a life. I guess he makes a good bad guy because I sure thought he was an idiot.

This movie has some kind of plot that involves people running away from things and hiding in caves. And lots of painting and posing. It's pretty boring.

Then, just when you think this movie is the ultimate boring movie of the century, the last 2 minutes prove that the writers were actually active thinkers. They had to come up with a creative way to end it! And boy, was it imaginative! It made absolutely no sense and involved the supernatural when the rest of the movie was set in real life. More of a random ending than Happy Birthday To Me. What a joke!

A boring, boring movie with lame characters. 2/10

As with the majority of the 70s B-movie horror flicks which have survived the ages to make it onto modern day television, I first saw this piece of classic film at around 3am on some god-forsaken low budget television station...

Initially, my interest was sparked at the prospect of high profile nudity following the introductory scene which featured a naked lady being turned into a statue or something ludicrous. The anticipation of nudity is a key technique by the author of 'movie' in order to secure the attention of the unfortunate viewer.

The possible forecast of a brief lesbian sexual congress is hinted by one of the key female performers (who can be seen with her kit off in one of the Robin Askwith 'confessions' films for those who were let down by this travesty of a motion picture). However, true to the inexcusably horrendous nature of this film it is systematically shattered by the impending death of one female party.

Possibly one of the most ridiculous elements of this flick is the artist's wife. Portrayed as a senile Dorothy-from-the-wizard-of-oz-wanna-be who tries to persuade her significant other out of evil is impossible to take seriously and one of the key players in the downfall of this moving image.

As a fan of cheesy 70s B movie horrors I had high (low) expectations of the "Crucible of Terror". The fact the title has about -6% relevance to any part of the film whatsoever is just another reason I would tell anyone thinking of watching it to instead turn off the TV and go play laser tag.

Dire horror movie about a mad artist with a penchant for making bronze statues out of his models. The Cornish scenery is the best bit of it; it's the sort of thing you see on midnight TV, and frankly, you're better off going to sleep

"Crucible of Terror" is amazingly bad...which is hard to believe since the initial premise was so good. You see a LIVE woman being used to make a statue...and molten metal is poured over her!! Next, you see her statue being displayed in an art gallery and folks LOVE it. Pretty cool idea...a bit like "Bucket of Blood"...though not a comedy.

The problem is when the film leaves London and the gallery and goes off to the countryside....where the film drags on and on and on. Additionally, the ending is amazingly stupid...and confusing. So, there is an epilogue that actually explains what happened and why!! Unfortunately, the explanation is just stupid. Overall, what looked like it would be an exciting horror film is just dull, stupid and slow.

Well this is NOT the worst film I've ever seen - If you want a down right bloody awful film try "Hillbillys in a Haunted House (1967)". Crucible of Terror (1971) is not good but it's not all that bad either. The big let down is the ending.

The supernatural element in the film is revealed about 20 minutes into the movie by Michael Clare (Lacey) to John Davies (Bolam) about Chi-San (Lay) and this throws a hint about the ending BUT the ending is terrible.

I have to agree with other reviewers that the actors are a bit "wooden" but they are not all that bad either. And as far as the story goes it is somewhat interesting - can hold some people's interest until the very end (even if the ending is a bit corny).

Not a bad watch late at night if there is nothing else on TV that you care to watch.

6/10

Some films defy conventional standards of quality. The Crucible of Fear is one of them - a low-budget British horror oddity from 1971 that stumbles, snarls, and swaggers its way into cult greatness. It's so bad it's brilliant - and it knows it. This is not a film to be judged by the slick, soulless standards of modern horror. No, this is pure '70s schlock, served with a straight face and a knowing wink.

This era of horror never took itself too seriously - and that was precisely its strength. Unlike today's over-analysed, over-stylised offerings, films like The Crucible of Fear were intended to be a bit of fun, a bit of fright, and perfect late-night viewing for anyone with a whisky in one hand and a half-smirk on their face. Today's audiences - obsessed with trauma arcs, social subtext, and hidden meanings - would do well to remember that sometimes a creepy woman in a crumbling house is just that. And nothing more.

That said, there are some surprisingly strong performances in this cinematic curio. James Bolam and Ronald Lacey bring a kind of bemused gravitas to the madness, while Mary Maud glides through her scenes with the right blend of beauty and poise. But the true standout is Betty Alberge as Dorothy - the film's mad matriarch, whose glassy stare and off-kilter delivery generate genuine chills. It's the kind of performance that stays with you long after the credits roll, as you start wondering if your gran might be hiding a sick passion for soft toys.

What truly elevates The Crucible of Fear is its location. Shot in and around a rugged Cornish tin mine, the film wrings an eerie atmosphere from the sea-lashed cliffs and claustrophobic tunnels. There's a jaggedness to the setting that echoes the fractured psychology of the plot. Yes, it's a ramshackle narrative, held together with the cinematic equivalent of gaffer tape - but it has mood and menace in spades.

And yes, the budget was clearly pocket change - but that's part of its charm. The cheap sets, grainy visuals, and eerie silences create a texture that's far more unsettling than any amount of CGI gore. You believe this world in a way that today's overly polished horrors rarely allow.

To compare The Crucible of Fear with contemporary horror is to miss the point entirely. These films weren't meant to be flawless - they were meant to be experienced. With a pint. Or a spliff. Or both. Preferably at midnight.

So here's the bottom line: stop dissecting these films as if they're Bergman. They weren't made to be profound, artistic, or even especially coherent. They were made to make you jump, grin, and possibly spill your tea. The Crucible of Fear isn't a masterpiece - and that's exactly why it still works.

A reclusive artist (Mike Raven) on the coast of Cornwall, England, is doing dubious things with his models when his son (Ronald Lacey), his friend (James Bolam) and their wives arrive from London.

"Crucible of Terror" (1971) is Brit horror reminiscent of "Corruption" (1968) and comparable to Hammer or Amicus films of the era. Raven is a Christopher Lee lookalike, but only did four films from 1971-1972.

Blonde Beth Morris (Jane) stands out on the female front with thin brunettes Mary Maude (Millie) and Judy Matheson (Marcia) also on hand. The latter two are attractive but reflect the popularity of Twiggy at the time. The flick really needed one or two voluptuous women that Hammer was known for, like Veronica Carlson, Susan Denberg, Linda Hayden, Hazel Court, Barbara Shelley, Yvonne Romain, Caroline Munro, Ingrid Pitt and so on.

It's decidedly obscure and typically gets bad reviews so I was skeptical at first, but the movie won me over with the coastal Cornwall setting, the imaginative caves that link to the artist's quaint house and the revelation at the end.

FYI: Ronald Lacey is perhaps best known for his role as the coat-hanger Nazi with the scarred hand from "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

The film runs 1 hour, 31 minutes, and was shot at Shepperton Studios & Hammersmith in London and the Blue Hills/Jericho Valley area of St Agnes, Cornwall.

GRADE: B-/B (6.5/10)