La fabbrica dell'orrore

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.

"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.

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.

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."