zxyw

It's not quite how it was, I remember the times well and this film is a fairy tale version of the events. Also it is not very interesting, what I mean is it tries to be interesting but at the same time it just doesn't start going and drives around in circles without getting anywhere. Most of the actors are ok but you can see that some of them have not the qualifications to be real basketball players. Well I understand that it's a film and they can't use real players, but it still bothers. I watched this with a young nephew and he found it quite boring because these events aren't really interesting to a younger viewer.

Who wouldn't love a haunted house movie, especially as colorful as this one? The peak of 1970s horror flamboyance, dripping in camp and executing Bloch's narrative flourishes with the sort of ludicrous excess that is so characteristic of the best of Amicus. The latter two stories, though necessarily too short and too schematic, generate some interest, and humor, and even a bit of characterization. However, the title is a bit misleading. The first thing that should be noted about The House That Dripped Blood is that no blood is dripped. Knowing this will perhaps save disappointment along the way. But vintage horror wasn't about blood and guts and that's why we love it.

Kind of stupid, but then again, very lovable bunch of mediocre horror stories, served as a tasty main course. I miss the times of anthology horror movies as this one - it's almost as giving short films a chance to come out of the closet. There's always a thin narrative line to glue the stories together, such as here - a young doctor arrives at a lunatic asylum to learn that the head doctor has 'lost it' and has been contained in one of the cells. But which one? He must engage in some detective work to interview the patients one by one and to establish, which one is the real doctor. Of course, things are never as one would expect them to be. Fun!

I appreciate the way Hammer went out to make a film such as this one, attempting to breathe new life into an old and tired formula, but the results are so laughably bad that one almost feels sorry for them. From a totally wrong Dracula (I guess Lee wasn't willing to participate in such a bizarre oeuvre) to a leading lady with fake accent as well as fake diamonds, this is just so very wrong. I won't even go to the fight scenes, which are so very utterly pointless. Like: a bunch of warriors approach, screaming, holding clubs and daggers. Another bunch (the good guys) are about the meet them on the battle field, holding daggers and clubs. A lot of prancing around ensues, and THEN the leading man takes out his revolver! I mean - - - why not earlier? But then again, very hilarious, if you have good bottle of booze next to you.

This film is pretty much a huge avalanche of the best and worst clichés of vintage horror films, all on top of one another like a massive wedding cake. It begins with a London police officer kneeling to a dead body, saying 'A lion? In England?' I burst out laughing, because this is a direct reference to a 1960s British horror film The Beast in the Cellar, where a police investigator says in the first scene 'A leopard? In Lancashire?'

To start with, I thought it's a serious horror film, but from that moment it was a lot of educated tongue in cheek fun. In every scene there are references to old film, mostly British (Hammer and Amicus productions). Some actors seemed just so-so in the beginning, but as the story develops, one realizes that there was a lot of 'acting within the acting'. A great deal of snappy one-liners. Kind of Oscar Wilde meets Ed Wood. Don't take it at face value or you'll be disappointed.