Avis des utilisateurs

Not to be confused with the 1972 horror film about wax museums called Crucible of Terror; This is Crucible of Horror (1970) - British title: The Corpse. The film stars Michael Gough (Alfred from the Batman films) as Walter Eastwood - a wealthy, cruel & sadistic husband and father. Yvonne Mitchell plays Edith, the poor unfortunate woman who's basically lost her soul being married to Walter. Their children are Jane (Sharon Gurney) and Rupert (played by Gough's real life son, Simon). Walter consistently abuses Jane and praises Rupert. In one frightening scene, Walter beats Jane with a reed for stealing money from a friend of his. Rupert is the only one with a reasonably normal relationship with Walter - and why shouldn't he be? Walter puts his son on a pedestal and abuses his wife and daughter mentally and physically. The point of the film is that Edith and Jane reach their breaking point and decide to end their abuse by putting an end to Walter. So they poison him and make it look like a suicide. Then they have to worry about keeping it from Rupert. Things don't go exactly as planned. I won't dare ruin the outcome of this suspenseful british classic. If your a fan of the best Hammer films and horror of the late 60s and 70s, I highly recommend seeking Crucible of Horror out. There is something about this film, the music, the cinematography, etc., that creates a chilling atmosphere. Turn the lights out when you watch this. You'll never see Alfred the butler in the same way again!

With a plot that's heavily derivative of LES DIABOLIQUES (1954), this is one of the oddest British horror films of its time. In itself, it's watchable but not especially rewarding; there are, however, good performances from Michael Gough (playing a despicable tyrant, naturally) and lovely Sharon Gurney (in her film debut as his long-suffering daughter).

Still, its sporadic outburst of technique - rapid-fire flashbacks and dream sequences shown in negative - often doesn't work and the twist ending, practically negating everything that has gone on before, is baffling to say the least!

Even for the Seventies I found this quite a disturbing movie. Michael Gough plays a sadistic father and husband to Jane and Edith, and his son Rupert is not much better really. Anyway the two females hatch a plan to kill Gough whist he's away for the weekend. I won't spoil the ending but this is a very underrated British film filled with an impending sense of doom throughout. In fact there's hardly a smile in the entire film.

AKA Crucible of Horror, this movie is a psychological thriller about a sadistic husband and father who plays cruel mental and physical games with his family. When the mother and daughter (Sharon Gurney) have finally decided that they've had enough, they turn the tables on this brutal bully and give him a taste of his own medicine.

For tight, merciless tension and venom, this bloodless movie is uncommonly effective and engrossing. Sharon Gurney is also engrossingly naked, however briefly.

It is one of those films that would be enjoyed by those who grew up on VHS cassettes, but younger views who do not have low budget experience will likely find it tedious.

This had all the ingredients to be a classic film, but ultimately doesn't quite completely hit the mark. The story revolves around the daughter and wife of a dictatorial and cruel man who concoct a seemingly clever method of killing him - making it look like suicide. After quite a muddled start, the film picks up pace once we witness the uncomfortably violent beating by Walter (played by Michael Gough) on his demure and beautiful teenage daughter Jane (Sharon Gurney).

Jane and her mother Edith decide enough is enough, and hatch their plan - but could it be that Walter is already one step ahead of them?

My favorite era for British horrors is the early 70s, and this film certainly delivers with its tense atmosphere, quirky direction and colorful dream sequences. The music is good too, and helps to really punctuate the action.

There's some good countryside locations, and the bonus of Michael Gough in a memorable role - seeing him immediately brought back memories of his role as the creepy butler in the first Hammer Dracula movie more than ten years earlier.

But the film ultimately belongs to Sharon Gurney, who gives an amazingly understated and moving performance as the troubled victim Jane. Besides being a beautiful 'English Rose', she has a wonderful screen-presence and charm, and as a viewer you desperately want her to triumph and find some happiness and peace away from her father.

The film builds well to a tense and unexpected climax - but ultimately the viewer is left feeling rather short-changed by an inexplicable and abstruse final scene - one which left me completely befuddled!

But, this aside, it is still a very enjoyable film for lovers of this genre, and it's a pity it doesn't seem to be more highly regarded than it maybe is.

This 1971 film is known as "Crucible of Horror" and "The Corpse". This is not to be confused with the 1971 film "Crucible of Terror" starring Mike Raven. Both horror films came out in 1971 and have a similar title.

Michael Gough plays Walter Eastwood - a sadistic madman towards his wife and daughter. His son Rupert Eastwood (played by Simon Gough - Michael's real life son) is just as bad. Jane and Edith Eastwood plans to murder Michael for they have grown tired of his ways.

It's a great but twisted film from start to finish. The ending of the film will leave you guessing, wondering "what just happened?" "Was is all a dream - or was it real?" This is an odd film that is worth a watch if you like evil or twisted "family secrets" type of horror movies.

7.5/10

The key-word in this movie is atmosphere. The scenario is not the most original I know, the girl that plays the daughter sucks, but the photography and the music add a lot to this movie. I can't say I was any scared when I saw it on TV, yet I couldn't help but love this simple and naive little thriller, just because it was such. 6

Really a very good example of British repression.Michael Gough is a bullying sadistic father of "Jane" (played by the young and beautiful Sharon Gurney, daughter of English actress Rachel Gurney).The actors are top drawer and the script by Olaf Pooley is tight and suitably grim. The seemingly genteel facade of a respectable English family is ripped aside. The girl and her mother plot the ultimate revenge on Gough--but do they manage it? You'll have to try and track down this mini-gem to discover what happens. Or does it? Some exploitation of young Gurney with Gough playing some sort of nasty escapade with her whilst she is nude in a river - quite a revealing scene - and then a scene in her bedroom at night when he shows up with a thin cane and bends her over the vanity for a ferocious beating. Nice work also by Yvonne Mitchell as the worldweary mother who sees all and says little. She has a plan, though. If can find this one, buy it.

Michael Gough plays a pompous, controlling and sadistic father and husband, who may have assaulted his daughter. His wife and daughter decide to kill him, but things don't quite go to plan.

Whilst this isn't wholly original - shades of Les Diabolique - it is actually rather well handled providing some considerable tension. It is more of a thriller than a horror with a nice turn by Gough, obviously enjoying himself as a really unpleasant creep. Less impressive are the performances by the 2 women Yvonne Mitchell and Sharon Gurney who over do the hysterics a bit and a rather ambiguous last 10 minutes, which leaves you somewhat in a state of - fine, but why did...........

"Crucible of Horror," or "The Corpse," as it was originally known, follows a mother and daughter who hatch a plan to dispose of their sadistic, sexist husband/father, who deals them both physical and sexual abuse while preening his son. Their plot, however, does not go as planned.

This little-seen Gothic horror flick is as British as all get-out, complete with a gloomy manor, foggy landscapes, and dreary, oppressive interior photography. It feels very much like many of the psychological England-set horrors of the period, which may or may not be a good thing depending on the audience. It has some similarities to the works of Jimmy Sangster ("Fear in the Night" has a similar vibe), though it's remarkably less thrilling than anything in Sangster's catalogue.

The crux of the plot is a blatant riff on the French classic "Les diaboliques," to the point that the screenplay borderline plagiarizes. Michael Gough turns in an appropriately cold performance as the sadist father, while Yvonne Mitchell and Sharon Gurney are sympathetic as his tortured female family members. The film burns slowly toward a conclusion that is ambiguous and frankly silly, but it is more or less in accordance with the rest of the dreary proceedings. All in all, a minorly entertaining psychological thriller with a few eerie moments, but it doesn't really have any tricks up its sleeve, so to speak. 6/10.

Housewife Edith Eastwood (Yvonne Mitchell) decides to rid herself of her cruel, domineering husband Walter (Michael Gough), enlisting the help of her wayward teenage daughter Jane (Sharon Gurney, who looks more than a little like Emma Watson to me, and who provides the film with a little gratuitous nudity). Together, the pair carry out a scheme to poison Walter, but are shocked when his body mysteriously vanishes, only to repeatedly turn up in the most unlikely of places.

British chiller Crucible of Horror blatantly uses French horror classic Les Diaboliques (1955) as its template, but fails to achieve that film's level of atmosphere or nail-biting suspense, a dreary pace and just a little too much horribly dated '70s psychedelia making it a less than satisfying experience. The film also manages to completely fluff the ending, delivering a 'WTF?' final act that will leave the viewer wondering if they have somehow accidentally restarted the film. My guess is that everything we have seen in the film has been wishful thinking on the part of the browbeaten wife, a broken woman's daily fantasy; if that is the case, then it's a massive cop-out. If I'm wrong, then the director's real intent is difficult to fathom. Either way, the film is a dud.

3.5 out of 10, rounded up to 4 for Gough, who plays the role of British bastard to perfection.

If you've ever seen 'Les Diaboliques' no prizes for guessing who gets slipped the mickey, although actor turned writer Olaf Pooley still manages to whip up a few surprises along the way. Michael Gough is surprisingly unhammy for once as he goes out of his way to drive his wife and daughter to murder playing an overbearing patriarch who makes Paul Meurisse in the original look positively benign.

The settings are if anything even drabber than in the original, but there's always the noble features of the magnificently maned Yvonne Mitchell to lend a little grandeur to the proceedings, while the use of an ondes martinot by composer John Hotchkiss adds considerably to the atmosphere.

This film was produced by London Cannon films,part of the group that purchased EMI films and then sold off nearly everything to pay for it This film is fairly typical of the schlock produced by them .Low on budget and entertainment.

"Crucible of Horror" a.k.a. "The Corpse" is a moderately enjoyable, little-seen psychological thriller from Britain. Michael Gough stars as Walter Eastwood, domineering patriarch of a repressed family, and a case study in misogyny. He has little time for his wife (Yvonne Mitchell) and teen aged daughter (Sharon Gurney), and his son (played by Goughs' real-life son Simon) shamelessly sucks up to him. The two females eventually decide that they've lived with his various forms of abuse for far too long, and plot to do him in. They poison him, and make it look like a suicide. Then...when they get back to the family cottage, they find that the corpse has disappeared.

Overall, the film is fairly well made by director Viktors Ritelis, who often favours surrealism, close-ups of eyes, and quick cutting. Still, it pales when compared to its obvious inspiration, "Les Diaboliques". It just doesn't have the same amount of style, imagination, or tension. The plodding tale was scripted by actor Olaf Pooley (who also plays the role of the architect Reid), and it's not completely without interest as a look at a dysfunctional upper crust family. It does have an eerie, haunting music score by John Hotchkis going for it, as well as decent use of locations.

The acting helps to keep it watchable. Your heart does go out to the sad-eyed Mitchell. Gough Sr. plays this a lot more straight than you would expect him to, in a genre role, and he's excellent. Gough Jr. is okay, but then he doesn't have all that much to work with; his sexy co-star Gurney (soon to be seen in the fantastic Brit horror classic "Deathline") has been his wife in real-life to this day.

The ending can be interpreted in more than one way, and it's not going to satisfy all viewers; this viewer has to admit to being somewhat disappointed.

Certainly this obscurity is worth a look for the curious; mild doses of nudity and violence add some spice to what is basically a dreary tale.

Six out of 10.

This is kind of a remake of Diaboliques. It involves a strict, and in some respects monstrous, man terrorizing two of the women in his life. They resolve to kill him and do, but his body disappears, and then they start getting some clues suggesting he is still alive.

Even some details from Diabolique are repeated here. For example, the man (Gough) makes a fuss about his wife having to eat all her dinner, and the women drive home at one point with his body in a large container.

Unlike Diaboliques, this is not set at a boarding school, but in a family's home. The home is largely that of a wealthy family, though there are a few odd rooms where the walls are covered with soot, and the things kept in the room are in a jumble. The two women are not the man's wife and mistress, but rather his wife and daughter. Apart from a scene where he squeezes a bicycle seat his daughter had been riding, there's not much of a suggestion of incest.

The man is strict, and seems to possibly be obsessive compulsive (there are a number of scenes of vigorous hand-washing). However, he beats his daughter with what looks like a cane or a very stiff riding crop after she is caught having stolen fifty Pounds (this is a British film).

There are a number of fairly odd camera angles, though nothing particularly inventive. There is some peculiar editing, some shots that last only a few frames, or some such shots repeating things we've seen already. There are some scenes where there are superimpositions, and also some negative or solarization effects. They are all applied in ways that to my mind were simply awkward and not artistic.

The ending differs from Diaboliques and the other remakes of that film. It is not particularly satisfying.