The Fall of the House of Usher

The plot of this curious version of the Poe classic differs considerably from the original story, including a number of plot elements and characters that are not in Poe's story at all. Some of the acting seems almost amateurish at times, and the entire production was clearly carried out on a very small budget.

However, where this film excels is in its' sense of creepy atmosphere. Indeed, in that respect it reminded me of Carl Theodore Dryer's 1932 film, "Vampyr". Those who have seen that most peculiar horror film will understand to what I refer. In that film, as well as in this one, style and atmosphere completely dominate character and story to the point where the latter two elements almost cease to matter at all. Both "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "Vampyr" are prime examples of how much a creative director can achieve even without benefit of special effects or a large budget.

VERY loose adaptation of the Edgar Allan Poe story. Jonathan (Irving Steen) pays a visit to childhood friend Roderick Usher (Kaye Tendeter). He finds Roderick terribly depressed and his sister Madeline Usher (Gwen Witford) suffering some kind of illness. And what's in that old house in the woods?

They took the main characters from the book, added new ones, changed the ending of the story but it still works. It is slow-moving, static and has bad dialogue but I've seen worse. There's an eerie atmosphere throughout with spooky music and depressing dark sets. The acting isn't half bad but only Witford went on to a career in the field. It all ends on a dark and stormy night which is actually quite chilling. A pretty good unknown horror film. I give it a 7.

Decades before independent companies were regularly shooting horror films cheaply on location, the mysterious Ivan Barnett made "The Fall of the House of Usher" in and around a mansion in Hastings, Sussex. There are conflicting stories about its production. It seems to have been shot in 1948. Jonathan Rigby claims it played (with an "H" certificate) "for one week in the Tottenham Court Road" in 1950. This implies the cut version released in 1956 wasn't its premiere. The actor playing Roderick Usher is credited as Kaye (not Kay) Tendeter. Almost certainly he and the rest of the cast were, with the exception of Gwen Watford, local amateurs. Barnett was a talented director and a particularly skillful cameraman. His lighting is highly atmospheric. In theory he could still be alive. But what became of him after the early 1960s? (Update: Subsequently it was revealed that Barnett died 13th September, 2013, i.e. only months before the screening of the film, complete with its "H" certificate, at the BFI Southbank, London, on 22nd December, 2013).

I watched this one night by myself after coming across it by chance. I thought I might as well give it a go and kill some time. I was actually quite impressed by the film. It wasn't some amazingly famous movie with an all-star cast. It was a small and fairly amateur film that won me over with its quiet but definitely present unease. It's ever-present darkness, both physically and mentally, sets the mood for a bleak and unsettling movie that uses visuals more than dialogue. It's an obscure and relatively unknown movie, but it's one of the best amateur thrillers I've ever seen.

The Fall of the House of Usher (1949)

** (out of 4)

This British version of the Edgar Allan Poe story has pretty much been forgotten over the years thanks to two very good versions from 1928 and of course the Roger Corman/Vincent Price film that was released after. This here features a cast of unknowns, most of them making their first and only film appearance. The story is the same that you're used to as a friend (Irving Steen) shows up at the house of Roderick Usher (Kay Tendeter) and gets caught up in a mystery. THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER is not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination but it's unique enough to where it can hold your attention throughout its short 70-minute running time. I think the biggest problem with the movie is the fact that director Ivan Barnett isn't able to create any sort of pacing and this becomes a problem. It really does seem like every scene is something onto its own and it was hard to really feel that the film ever really connected together. This is again due to the pacing, which is just all over the place. I will say that the director manages to create a pretty good atmosphere and the ending is actually extremely good. The performances are all a mixed bag but for the most part I thought they were just fine. If you've seen any other version of the story then it's doubtful this one here is going to blow you away. Still, it's a rather interesting movie and its forgotten status makes it even more curious.