Customer Reviews

Crucible of Horror [VHS]

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Michael Gough is the obsessive compulsive patriarch of an English family. His wife, played by the late Yvonne Mitchell, is a dreamy would-be artist whacked out on prescription medication. Sharon Gurney is their sixteen year old rebelling daughter. Michael's real life son, Simon, plays his father's yes-man son here, always agreeing, and discussing business affairs. Gough works in an insurance firm, but dominates his household.

He opens everyone's mail, and does not have a kind word for anyone. Gurney steals some money from the golfing club, and Gough takes all she has saved, then beats her with a riding crop. It is no wonder that the women conspire to do away with their sole source of unhappiness.

"Let's kill him," are chilling words Mitchell says to Gurney, and they hatch a plan. Gough goes to his hunting cabin alone on a weekend. The ladies follow, hold a gun on him, and poison his whiskey. He dies, they put his body into the bed, and go back home. There, they wait for the phone call telling them of Gough's suicide.

Things never go as planned, have you ever noticed? No one calls them. The ladies must go back to the cabin, as forced to by the younger Gough. They get there, and Gough's bed is empty. Mysteriously, his body is in a crate by the back door, with the family's address on it. Gurney and Mitchell get more and more paranoid as someone starts playing on their guilt, causing them to screw up. I do not want to say too much about the finale, but it does leave things up in the air as to what really happened to Gough to begin with.

Michael Gough is far from Batman's kindly butler here. His character is despicable, you immediately hate him. This may pose a problem. You eventually want the women to succeed at their plan, but the film makers put them on the same level as Gough. Gurney and Mitchell are very good as Gough's abused victims. Simon Gough sucks up to his father very well.

Ritelis throws in a couple of dream sequences that do not work. Mitchell sees alter-egos, and then sees herself floating in a pond. This never gels with the waking life, and seems redundant. I wish the ending had a little more meat to it, since most of the actions beforehand did not warrant such ambiguity. A giant shocker of a surprise ending may have worked better than one that will leave you scratching your head.

Despite the cons, I am recommending this. Most of the action of the first half of the film takes place in the family's London home, and is claustrophobic and rife with tension. These are great scenes, and a music score that sounds just like those old Universal Studios horror films really helps. The cast here are all good, I just wished for more. Also known as "The Corpse" and "The Velvet House," "Crucible of Horror" is a definite choice for those out there sick of the slasher film.

My copy had the old disgarded MPAA rating (GP) on it, and I see now that is contains a (PG13) on IMDB. It contains physical violence, some gun violence, mild profanity, some female nudity, mild sexual references, and some adult situations.

Crucible of Horror is an interesting piece of British pychological suspense. The father in this movie, although he looks like a proper English gentleman is a tyrant and sadist. When he's not beating his wife and daughter he's verbally crushing them. His grown son Rupert, can do no wrong in his eyes and aparently has no problem with what's being done to his mother and sister. Oh one more thing, the movie drops a couple of hints that the father is also forced an incestous relationship on the daughter.

So, you have a villain with no redeeming qualities and two definite victims. When they decide to kill him the audience is with them. They poison his whiskey at the family's weeknend cottage and head back to London expecting a phone call saying that dear old dad has committed suicide.

But the plan goes to pieces. The phone doesn't ring. Nobody seems to discover the body and the son keeps asking where his father is. The mother who's partially whacked out on sedatives anyway can't sleep and has suicidal dreams.

The actress who plays the mother does a fine job of showing what an abused woman can turn into. She's sad eyed, moves hesitantly and hugs the wall like a beaten dog. Her face is pale and washed out. Her eyes are watery from crying too much. Her clothes, including an ugly scarf which she keeps firmly around her neck actually look like an atempt to make protective padding from her husband's blows.

The actress who plays the daughter was also interesting. She's made up very oddly. Her hairline is too low and her thick, fuzzy eyebrows are disturbing looking. She has a feral animalistic look and seems to be in heat. Except for her brother every man in the movie from the neighbors, to the garage attendant all seem to be immediately attracted to her for no particular reason.

The body of dear old dad keeps moving and the ladies begin to fear that he's not dead at all. It shows up in a crate and later in the London house and the 3 day weekend seems to go on for much longer than that.

Finallly, the end comes and it's shocking but makes perfect sense. The scares in this movie are not overt. Instead of whacking the audience with huge buckets of gore the director serves up his horror with the coolness and speed of a stilletto in the darkness. I liked it.

Not to be confused with the 1972 horror film about wax museums called Crucible of Terror; This is Crucible of Horror (1970) - British title: The Corpse. The film stars Michael Gough (Alfred from the Batman films) as Walter Eastwood - a wealthy, cruel & sadistic husband and father. Yvonne Mitchell plays Edith, the poor unfortunate woman who's basically lost her soul being married to Walter. Their children are Jane (Sharon Gurney) and Rupert (played by Gough's real life son, Simon). Walter consistently abuses Jane and praises Rupert. In one frightening scene, Walter beats Jane with a reed for stealing money from a friend of his. Rupert is the only one with a reasonably normal relationship with Walter - and why shouldn't he be? Walter puts his son on a pedestal and abuses his wife and daughter mentally and physically. The point of the film is that Edith and Jane reach their breaking point and decide to end their abuse by putting an end to Walter. So they poison him and make it look like a suicide. Then they have to worry about keeping it from Rupert. Things don't go exactly as planned. I won't dare ruin the outcome of this suspenseful british classic. If your a fan of the best Hammer films and horror of the late 60s and 70s, I highly recommend seeking Crucible of Horror out. Turn the lights out when you watch this. You'll never see Alfred the butler in the same way again!

While not a great film by any means, it's a rather clever exercise in keeping the viewer registered in different types of fears: from nervousness to terror via anxiety and shock while the narrative abandons any pretense of verisimilitude. I remember watching this off-beat, rather fascinating little film on the telly in California years ago, and I just viewed it again at a revival theatre. A psycho-thriller, it features Gough as the tyrannical husband and father whose corpse emerges - repeatedly - after he had been "murdered" by his wife and daughter. Eventually, as if nothing ever happened, he resumes his place at the head of the dinner table, leaving his befuddled - to say the least - wife staring dementedly into space...Basically it's a bizzare psychological allegory which indicates that killing a patriarch doesn't eliminate patriarchy.

CRUCIBLE OF HORROR is very misunderstood film, especially by those who can't concieve of a horror movie without masked slasher-killers and buckets of gore. A heavily atmosphereic, almost surrealist film with many bizarre elements, shot on what appears to be sixteen millimeter film, it tries to conjure at atmosphere of dread, discomfort and tension rather than one of jump-outta-your-seat terror or hand-me-that-barf-bag disgust. If you don't like the style of this movie, that's understandable, but it shouldn't be knocked merely for its conconformity to stereotype.

CRUCIBLE (alternatively billed as "The Corpse") is about one of those families who seem normal on the surface but are really as F'd up as is humanly possible - break the crust of normalcy covering this little English clan and you find only writhing horror. Walther Eastwood is many things: Londoner, insurance broker, husband, father, rural cottage-owner, and lover of fine whiskey. He's also a monster who tortures his hapless wife Edith and sexy young daughter Jane - out of sheer misogyny or as a vent for his incestuous lust, or possibly, both - while doting on his clone-son, Rupert. With his daughter, the torture is quite physical, but the psychological cruelty he inflicts on his wife is worse: this downtrodden, heavily medicated basket-case of a woman harbors notions of becoming an artist which Walther delights in crushing in the most humiliating fashion possible. When the two gals finally decide they've had enough, they poison Walther, make it look like a suicide, and then retreat and wait for authorities to discover the body. And here's where their troubles begin, because Walther's corpse turns out to be as much of a pain in the arse as his living self was. In the words of an old British pop song, "He's dead, but he won't lie down."

I said this movie was misunderstood without meaning to be condescending to people who dislike it. It is confusing and surreal, and it's understandable why people would be baffled by it. The key to understanding CRUCIBLE (and I must now issue a SPOILER ALERT)is to grasp that the weird, surreal elements, particularly late in the flick, are not artsy film school affectations, but very literal hallucinations. Like the short stories "Incident at Owl Creek Bridge" or "The Secret Life of Walther Mitty", virtually the whole of the film is actually nothing but a fantasy of poor Edith Eastwood's. If the movie has a point, it's that sufferring people use their imaginations to escape circumstances, but that circumstances invariably drag them back into real life; i.e. that reality trumps fantasy. Edith is emotionally downtrodden and physically abused; her dreams of artistic glory are crushed on a daily basis and even worse, she is unable to protect her daughter from the same deprivations that have ruined her life. Half-delirious from her doses of mood medication, she fantasizes about murdering her husband and achieving the freedom she desires. Unfortunately, even in her fantasies reality intrudes, manifesting itself in Edith's inability to get rid of Walther's corpse. Eventually the dream-projection crumbles due to its own inner inconsistencies and Edith awakens into the nightmare of her everyday life. The film's ending makes it quite clear that for Edith, there is no escape. To me, that was far creepier than Jason Voorhees or an axe-wielding "Stranger" could ever be.

I wouldn't say CRUCIBLE OF HORROR is really horrifying, or even particuarly scary. The idea isn't original, and I would freely admit it is very weird and perhaps annoyingly surrealistic and confusing. But as flawed as it is, it has a feeling of creepiness that is very hard to shake...even the end-credit sequence with the water dripping over the rose-bushes made me acutely uncomfortable. Featuring eerie music, coldly gritty cinematography and a truly villainous performance by the normally cuddly Michael Gough, I would recommend it to anyone who wants a breather from the chainsaw-in-the-guts "stylings" of Rob Zombie and Eli Roth.

was pretty good movie for the year it was made.good seller and in good condition.

The key to understanding this film is that the murder and the aftermath ALL TAKE PLACE IN THE WIFE'S MIND--she "imagines" murdering her husband after the savage beating of her daughter. Remember, she is on medication throughout the film and the dream sequences show her altered world-view. At the end of the film, everything is as it was in the beginning because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED...hope that clears it up!

Crucible of Horror is about a mother and daughter who kill their husband/father, who then comes back to haunt them.

I know this, because several film guides say so. I don't know how they all know this, as I was thoroughly confused, but it's as good an explanation as any.

At least I am not alone in my confusion. To paraphrase TV horror hostess Elvira at film's end: "Well, that's the end... I guess because the cameraman said, 'Hey, we shot enough film for a movie.' So the director said, 'Okay, let's stop shooting'."

God help any movie when Elvira's putdowns actually prove cogent.

Actually, Crucible of Horror is not so bad. It's tense and enjoyable. It just makes no sense.

Michael Gough is the stern father, lording over his household. When his 16-year-old daughter (a lovely Sharon Gurney, looking older because, no doubt, she is) steals, Gough horsewhips her with a switch, leaving deep red scars. She's a bad girl, and as Gough is not one to spare the rod, this is a repeated ritual. During the beatings, Gough's wife (Yvonne Mitchell) cowers in another room. His son (Simon Gough) obliviously boogies to his music (using headsets to drown out sis's screams).

When Gough leaves Sharon's room, Simon eagerly pops out to ask: "What's sis done now?"

"Stealing," Gough bluntly replies.

Simon enjoys sis's repeated comeupance. He also avoids the switch. He's a strapping young lad following Gough into the insurance business, the pride of his dad's loins.

After one particularly nasty beating, mother and daughter resolve to kill Gough. And they do, apparently. Or maybe not. Gough's corpse keeps popping up in odd places. But not till late in the film, and even then we're not certain if it's under his own volition, or if it's being moved. And then things only get ever muddier...

You'll have to watch and decide for yourself if any of this makes sense. Now that I've clued you in, maybe it'll make some sense as you watch.

Crucible of Horror is nicely atmospheric in portraying the English suburbs and countryside, although for most of the film one gets the impression that one is watching a suspense thriller rather than a horror film. Gough provides the standout performance as the father. Especially chilling (and funny, in an extremely dark sense) is his serenity before and after his savage beatings. Discussing mundane trivia as though nothing of any import has occurred. Calm demeanor, placid voice, unruffled manner.

His daughter absent from breakfast, Gough nonchalantly asks, "Where's Jane?" An innocent question that carries dread for the mother and viewer, as we know what may follow. Or not. Gough is ever calm, and not every transgression is met with ferocity. No telling which innocent question precedes his fury.

Although confusing and slow-moving, Crucible of Horror has its defenders. In Fragments of Fear: An Illustrated History of British Horror Films, Andy Boot calls the film "interesting," adding: "While the script was nothing to write home about, the performances from Gough, Sharon Gurney, and Yvonne Mitchell are all strong, and the director shows some imagination in the handling of the subject, with good use of unusual angles."

Fair enough. But one can also sympathize with John Stanley, who in his Creature Features movie guide describes the film as: "A viewing crucible." At least Stanley knew what the film was about: "a spirit wreaking revenge." Or a corpse. Or something like that. I only wonder who clued in Stanley.

One way to handle obscurity is to look for a theme. Themes elevate the obscure into the profound. The Overlook Encyclopedia says the film: "could be seen as an allegory indicating that killing a patriarch doesn't eliminate patriarchy." Okay. That'll work.

Even so, I still think Elvira was nearest the truth. The poor vampress was befuddled throughout the film because it was a befuddling film. And to her credit, she had the courage of her convictions, looking beyond themes, and simply pronouncing that the emperor had no clothes.

Crucible of Horror is not a bad film, but better if you read about it before seeing it. That way, you'll know what the film's about as you view it. Also, not to be confused with another British horror film, Crucible Of Terror (1971).