Crucible of Terror

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

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.

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 !!!

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.

This movie is a certifiable stinker. I rented it out of the "horror" section, but it's about as scary as the elm tree in my front yard. I found myself fast-forwarding through most of it, after watching about 20 minutes normally and wondering when something would happen. I like a good horror movie (although most of them aren't really scary), which this isn't. It should likely be reclassified as "drama."