Homicide

This is yet another classic from William Castle, the king of the gimmicks. The gimmick used for this film, often compared with "Psycho", was the idea of a "Fright Break" during which the viewer has 30 seconds to determine if they want to see the 'terrifying' conclusion to the film. When released in theaters initially, there was a separate section that patrons could go to during the "Fright Break". Gimmicks aside this is a very well crafted, often goofy, and quite effective little thriller. The murders, acting, and storyline are all over the top and everyone in the movie puts on quite an effective performance. Standing out in her role as Emily is Jean Arliss. It seems that Emily is quite disturbed as the movie opens with an alarming murder sequence. The story goes downhill from there and, just when you think you have all of the answers, the film changes the questions! The ending is very shocking for first time viewers and yet this is the kind of film that also gets more and more entertaining with each additional viewing. Highly recommended for horror fans, even though it's often compared with "Psycho" I feel that the film stands out on it's own and it's ending is actually more effective than Hitchcock's. Watch this movie, you won't regret it!

I watched this late one night on my own in the 1970s and was scared and shocked. For years I wondered who Jean Arliss was until I was able to do some research on the internet. William Castle was a master of horror and gimmicks. This was one of a few horror movies that really left an impression on me.

Other movies which scared me on TV as a child or teenager in the 1960s and 1970s were:- The Tingler, 13 Ghosts, Psycho, Carnival of Souls, The Mad Magician and House of Wax.

perhaps this little gem was overlooked as a rip off of "Psycho"...but let's face it, no one could scare you back then except William Castle. He may have had his campy films and maybe he was no Hitchcock. But Castle's films reached into the "real lives" of people. Audiences could relate to his characters more than Hitchcock's. (unless any of you have ever been chased by a crop duster,in that case, i stand corrected) Homicidal is quite the shocker. The performances are better than the title would suggest, the end is not one to be missed. I personally think William Castle was a genius overlooked as a gimmick director. His films have never failed to make me jump (My jaw dropped at the end of Strait Jacket)and i've always felt he was the best horror film director of his time. For a movie from 1961, one of the decades of camp, it'll have the same affect on you as anything current. Castle was awesome.

William Castle claims that he had the idea for this film while he was sleeping. If so, I can only assume that he was dreaming about Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, 'Psycho' because the blatant homage to the earlier film is difficult to ignore. Castle injects all the same themes and many of the ideas from Psycho into this film, but luckily; the master of entertainment has enough ideas of his own to ensure that Homicidal isn't merely a rip-off. Besides, Castle himself had a small hand in the events leading up to the release of Hitchcock's low-budget thriller...so I guess he earned the right to homage. The film starts off with one of Castle's campy intro features, and we also get a 'Fright Break' towards the end; but on the whole, this film is slightly more serious than earlier films such as The Tingler and House on Haunted Hill. The film opens properly with a sequence that sees a beautiful blonde woman pay a hired hand at a hotel to marry her. One thing leads to another, and she quite shockingly ends up sticking the knife into the Justice of the Peace...the plot thickens with the introduction of the elderly Helga and an inheritance of $10 million.

This film is never as good as Hitchcock's Psycho, but the master of entertainment always ensures that there's enough going on to ensure that it doesn't get boring. Much of the plot takes place in a dark, creepy house; which helps the director to implement a morbid and macabre atmosphere. One of the major faults with the film with regards to the scare factor comes from Castle's own showboating. The 'fright break' towards the end kills the shocking atmosphere that Castle has spent the rest of the film implementing, and as a result; the final macabre sequence is not nearly as effective as it could have been. The final twist is a clear derivative of Psycho, but it's actually quite well worked. The film introduced the talents of Joan Marshall (appearing here as Jean Arless) to the cinematic world, and her performance is what makes the film what it is. It's a shame that she never went on to make much of a splash after this film. I wouldn't hesitate to label Homicidal as one of William Castle's better efforts, as even though it's not quite what audiences have come to expect from the master of entertainment, and it's purely derivative; Homicidal is still a fine quality B-movie shocker.

This is among the director's most popular works, being the one that overtly played him up as a potential rival to Alfred Hitchcock (complete with Castle's cheeky introduction a' la Hitch's own TV appearances); at the same time, its deliberate nods to PSYCHO (1960) did not really endear it to critics but, of course, audiences at the time lapped it up… which only goes to prove just how much of a milestone the Hitchcock classic was when it first emerged and has remained so over the years through countless imitations!

Anyway, taken on its own merits, the film is certainly an above-average chiller for Castle – yet one is left wondering whether he was audacious or foolhardy in his approach towards the all-important plot twist; Hitchcock was certainly wiser in keeping "Mother" in the background, whereas Castle throws the secondary personality of the titular figure in our faces almost from the get-go! Indeed, the prologue should have been omitted entirely – as it really gave the game away to discerning viewers. The transvestism element, then, elicits unwarranted comparisons throughout with Ed Wood's notorious GLEN OR GLENDA? (1953) – but the PSYCHO borrowings, at least, are fairly well integrated into the narrative: a stint by the blonde leading lady at a run-down motel, a near-brush with the Law, a nosy investigator, an invalid also staying at the house, the put-upon young couple, etc. Having said that, the aforementioned prologue, the sadistic mistreatment of the latter character and the underlying "greed is the root of all evil" theme clearly anticipate the next phase in Horror film-making: the "Grand Guignol" chillers spearheaded by Robert Aldrich's WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962)…

Still, while it also has an early and would-be shocking (because apparently unprovoked) murder – that could have pointed out to yet another childhood sexual trauma in other scenarios – one cannot sensibly compare the impact of the bloody yet extremely clumsy stabbing of James Westerfield with the legendary shower sequence from PSYCHO involving Janet Leigh! Incidentally, even if we do get to hear the two personalities speak in the same sequence (as Anthony Perkins did in the earlier film), their never actually appearing together – to say nothing of the man's distinctly effeminate appearance – should have alerted audiences as to the nature of the ruse (not that her eventual uncovering – preceded by the gimmicky 45-second "Fright Break" – is totally ineffective, unlike her ultimate come-uppance…which comes off as rushed)! Casting-wise, it is obviously Jean Arless (actually Joan Marshall, who adopted the pseudonym so as not to be typecast, but her subsequent roles were negligible at best!) who makes the biggest impression, whereas Eugenie Leontovich's stroke victim – with her incessant banging to attract attention – gets on one's nerves very quickly!