Diagonaldi Very well executed

Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

poe-48833 Michael Gough was one of those actors that, as a kid, I almost always found creepy: in Richard Matheson's THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, although he has nothing more than a brief cameo at film's end, he LOOKS like the monstrous Belasco; in TROG, he got just what he deserved for being such a bastard (yes, he LOOKED the part); even in BATMAN, one couldn't help but feel that there was more to that butler than meets the eye... It had to do with the fact that Gough had The Devil's Eyebrows (not to mention POINTED EARS). As the almost effeminately fastidious but heavy-handed patriarch in CRUCIBLE OF TERROR, those eyebrows and ears serve him in good stead. (The creepy score helps; it's spot on.) In one very well-edited sequence, shots of Gough beating his thieving daughter are intercut with shots of his son "orchestrating" the music he is listening to in another room. His long-suffering wife paints a portrait of him in which the aforementioned eyebrows lend him a decidedly Devilish aspect, and it's not long before she starts hearing voices and having hallucinations. CRUCIBLE OF TERROR is part psychological thriller and part supernatural chiller, with one of the greatest "endings" I think I've ever seen in a movie of this sort.

GL84 Growing tired of his controlling behavior, a woman and her daughter conspire to kill her husband and hide the body away but get into trouble when he disappears from his hiding spot and sets out to avenge their behavior.There's not a whole lot about this one that really works. The main thing going for this one is the fact that there's a rather fun set of scenes in the later part of the film that really sells how possible it was that he was never affected by the poisoning attempts. The varying matters of trying to escape the potential return are the film's sole interesting areas with the two constantly trying to get over the idea that he has indeed returned not being dead originally, so their efforts to reassure themselves come against the concept of whether or not what they're seeing and experiencing is true. Running around the house closing doors and windows, barricading themselves in rooms across the house or trying in vain to keep each other sane through the countless interrogations and questioning from their friend that adds a classic sense of paranoia and freak-outs that run wild in old-school Gothic horror which really gets worked out here due to the classic style layout of the house and the actions at that time. The fact that all this good stuff occurs at the end, and is really all that matters for it anyway, means that there's not a whole lot about the rest that works at all, oftentimes being flat-out intolerable. The business with the manager appearing at the house for as long as he does here, the rather innocuous segments with the brother and the interactions with the two at the end while they argue about the different ways to get away with the death is where this goes off-track by filling the first half with such absolutely banal plots that this becomes so hard to get into. This series of scenes is such a hard intro to the film that it feels like a banal drama/thriller at times and only occasionally feels like a horror film during these parts, which is the biggest issue weighing this one down.Rated R: Violence, Language and Brief Nudity.

Scarecrow-88 An abusive man(Michael Gough, never failing to serve us someone to easily despise) is supposedly poisoned by his long-suffering wife and daughter who decide to kill him after having stomached enough of his vitriol and corrosive personality. The question is did they truly poison him enough to finish the job? I must admit that "Crucible of Horror" tested my patience; it is the very epitome of slow-moving. The plot takes quite a while to get to the *murder* of Michael Gough (truly a jerk, but his wife and offspring, including a well-treated, spoiled weakling son, aren't exactly saints), 45 minutes, to be exact. We are treated to the tension and misery prevalent inside this family household. "Crucible of Horror" utilizes the oft-used "perfect murder" scenario where a calculated murder doesn't go according to plan, with complicated results for those responsible. Circumstances such as a friend of Walter's coming over to the cottage while the two were hiding the corpse, worried that he will discover what they are up to, finding the body (they had placed Walter's corpse in his bed) in a different place, and listening to the cottage phone ring despite the fact that the cord was unplugged. There's nothing here you haven't seen on "Columbo" or "Matlock", though, and the stories on those shows moved at a better pace, without the lethargy. I do think the film sets the stage well; we feel, right from the get-go, that this family is on the verge of collapse, Walter creating the contempt that exists between father/husband and the ladies under his roof. We get the "disposing of body" scene that may or may not have a chest containing the corpse of Walter, as well as, the aftermath which follows the guilt-ridden mother and daughter, plagued with paranoia that they might not have gotten rid of the tormentor. The conclusion is a depressing one offering the possibility that the tormented may never have freedom from their oppression. God is Gough good at portraying repellent assholes; in this film he really gets under the skin, just his pompous stare and air of superiority are enough to warrant sympathy for those looked down on. The cast is really solid, with Sharon Gurney (probably best remembered for "Raw Meat") as Jane, the daughter who gets a switch beating for stealing and Yvonne Mitchell as the weary, browbeaten wife who seems to have lost her personality after years of living with such a tyrant as Walter. Simon Gough, I believe, elicits bad will from a viewing audience because of his heralded stature in the family, his father's favor the reason we loathe this young man—his Rupert seems oblivious to what his father has done to the other members of the family. There's a prevailing sense of sadness that is palpable, not to mention, the ending provides an even worse feeling of hopelessness.

FieCrier 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.