"Crucible of Terror" is potentially interesting but nevertheless poor 70's horror of which the weak storyline constantly bounces back and forth between two popular horror themes; namely the house-of-wax theme and the satanic-cult theme. Especially this last theme was used frequently during the early 70's, with other (and better) titles such as "The Blood on Satan's Claw" and "To The Devil a Daughter". The story of this fun turkey revolves on an art-gallery owner and his gorgeous girlfriend encountering a hugely eccentric sculptor and his messed up family. I'm not sure I understood all the bizarre family relations but I think the artist lives together with his demented wife as well as with his mistress. Meanwhile, he also successfully woos the wife of his alcoholic son... Then there's also this elderly guy living in the same house but I have absolutely no idea what his position is towards the rest of the family. Anyway, one of all these annoying people is a vicious murderer and, even though you absolutely can't see it coming, the revelation of his/her identity is utterly ludicrous! "Crucible of Blood" contains some enjoyable sequences, more particularly the gross murders, but overall it's boring and unoriginal low-budget trash. The female actresses are painfully untalented but look very ravishing and Mike Raven is completely miscast as the womanizing artist. He looks somewhat like a crossover between Christopher Lee and David Carradine but totally lacks the charisma of both. In fact, this "Crucible of Blood" would work a lot better as a British government film to promote the tourist opportunities of Cornwall, because the filming locations are really beautiful and well-illustrated by cinematographer Peter Newbrook. As a shocking horror film, however, it's not the least bit impressive.
Add a Review
-
Coventry29 December 2005
-
Eegah Guy16 March 2001There's more boring drama than horror in this chunk of British trash. The poor man's Christopher Lee, Mike Raven was a radio DJ who dabbled in the occult and tried to be the next big horror star of the 70s. He has a menacing look and some screen presence but films like this ruined his career. There are some brief and nasty murders to keep you awake but this film is hardly worth the effort. Me Me Lay, who would go on to appear in some notoriously gory Italian cannibal movies, appears under heavy makeup as a vengeful undead Japanese woman which was the highlight of this sorry excuse for a horror film.
-
BA_Harrison25 May 2020In the pre-credits sequence for Crucible of Terror, crazed artist Victor Clare (Mike Raven) covers a woman's body with molten bronze to create a stunning, lifelike statue (in reality, the process he uses would more likely result in an unrecognisable, misshapen lump of metal with scalded body parts sticking out).
Years later, Victor's son Michael (Ronald Lacey) steals some of his father's art, including the sculpture (quite how he snuck out a massive bronze statue weighing a ton is never explained), passing it to his acquaintance, art dealer John Davies (James Bolam), to sell in his gallery. Victor's work is a hit, so Michael and John decide to visit the artist at his remote Cornish home to try and convince him to part with more work, the pair taking their partners, Millie (Mary Maude) and Jane (Beth Morris), with them for the weekend.
At the old house, John and Millie are introduced to the occupants: Victor, who looks like a cross between Merlin and the Master from Doctor Who; Victor's batty wife Dorothy, who dresses like a little girl and talks to her teddies; Victor's old friend Bill, who collects weapons; and Victor's current muse, sexy brunette Marcia (Judy Matheson), who has been doing more for the artist than just posing for him (what a horrible thought). Their numbers dwindle, however, when an unseen killer starts to bump off the guests one by one.
Featuring a fair few mean-spirited murders, and a little titillation from the young ladies (Jane and Millie play with a beach ball in their bikinis, Marcia tries to convince Millie to sunbathe naked), Crucible of Terror could have easily been a hugely enjoyable piece of exploitative Brit horror, but the weak script and torpid direction from Ted Hooker (this was his one and only film -- no surprises there) and a truly terrible performance by Raven serve to make it a frustratingly dull experience for much of the time.
The film ends with Victor trying to make a new bronze masterpiece from Millie; as he prepares the metal in his forge, Millie becomes hideously disfigured, her body controlled by the vengeful spirit of his first victim Chi-San (played by cannibal movie favourite Me Me Lai). As Victor recoils in horror, Millie/Chi-San grabs the madman and pushes his head into the furnace.
The film is wrapped up by a bit of clumsy exposition that explains how Chi-San had been a member of a sect that believed in the transference of the human spirit. Whenever Millie wore Chi-San's kimono (a horrible yellow garment with a giant black Hashtag symbol on it, bought by Millie from a market stall), the murderous Chi-San took over the girl's body. It's a terrible way to end a very tedious film. -
zipoidp4 August 2003hammer fans may like this, fair enough it is pretty predictable and stupid at times(most of)but it does have a nice twist at the end. Mainstream movie fans and people with a penchant for glossy turdoid do not have the mental capacity for enjoying the crap value of such films as "Crucible of Terror" you'd better of sticking with "Titwankit" sorry titanic.I am a tree !!!
-
If the '50s and '60s were successful times for the British horror film, then there was most definitely a decline in quality in the '70s. Even the Hammer production company found it tough to strike gold in the '70s, eventually calling it quits towards the end of the decade. Crucible Of Terror is a 1971 horror flick from a company called Glendale. It is a very boring film, exactly the kind of dreary drivel that spelled the end for the British horror genre at that time. Stilted dialogue, wooden performances, tedious pacing, laughable "shocks" and absurd plot developments combine to make a film that is wholly ineffective from start to finish. It gets a 2-out-of-10 rating merely because the sheer goofiness of it all is good for a few (unintended) giggles.
Struggling art dealer John Davies (James Bolam) needs to make money quickly to clear some business debts that he has run up. His boozy partner Michael (Ronald Lacey) shows him some pictures and sculptures produced by his father, which both men agree are good enough to revive their flagging fortunes. There is, however, one problem: Michael's father, Victor (Mike Raven), is a reclusive and violent madman who does not produce art for fame or profit but rather for personal gratification. Undterred, John persuades Michael to set up a meeting at his father's remote coastal house so that they can negotiate a purchase. Along for the trip are Michael's unhappy wife Jane (Beth Morris) and John's nervy girlfriend Millie (Mary Maude). The house is located near to an abandoned tin mine, closed since a fatal accident and rumoured to be haunted. The whole place seems cursed with an air of dread, and Millie especially is affected by being there - she feels constant unease and has a nagging sense of deja vu that she has been there before. A series of murders further heightens the terror, but who is the killer? The evidence would suggest demented Victor is the one responsible, perhaps planning to restart his weird old hobby of casting dead bodies in bronze. But as the mystery unfolds it becomes apparent that perhaps more supernatural forces are at work.
It would not be fair to reveal the solution here, but the answers when they come are stupid rather than clever. If I hadn't heard and seen the ludicrous denouement with my own ears and eyes, I would scarcely believe a film-maker could put such nonsense on film. The film's weaknesses don't end there either. Indeed, Crucible Of Terror could be described as a catalogue of weaknesses, such is its ineptitude on just about every level. All the actors are guilty of terrible performances, ranging from Bolam's lazy non-performance as John to Raven's wide-eyed self embarrassment as the crazy Victor. The plot takes forever to get going and is completely unpersuasive, with several moments that have the viewer shaking their head in disbelief. Perhaps the most illogical moments of all revolve around the murders - in one preposterous sequence, the unseen killer stabs a victim noisily through a changing screen, drags the heavily bleeding corpse to a window, throws it out, and drags it to a nearby car leaving a trail of blood every inch of the way. Incredibly, absurdly, in a house full of people no-one hears any of this taking place and all the blood has vanished by the morning! The worst shortcoming of all, though, is something that is unforgivable in any horror film: an absolute absence of scares. There is nothing remotely frightening or jumpy about Crucible Of Terror, not one moment that genuinely gets the spine tingling or the hairs rising. A shocker without shocks rather negates itself, and Crucible Of Terror is as pointless and ineffective as they come. -
ethylester5 July 2004A sexist old man of an artist thinks he can get any woman he wants to pose for his oh-so-wonderful paintings of "beauty" - but when he meets a woman who doesn't give hoot about posing for him, he gets a little self-conscious and stalks her until she gives in. After all, who WOULDN'T want to get taken advantage of and boringly painted by some dirty old man out in the middle of nowhere?? His wife used to pose for him but <gasp!> she grew OLD and now she's a dolly-carrying freakazoid stuck in infantile regression because of his verbal abuse. Nice way to treat your wife's natural aging process, jerk. This guy is so lame, not to mention he states clearly that the only thing woman are good for is to look at and be painted by beauty expert men like himself. Get a life. I guess he makes a good bad guy because I sure thought he was an idiot.
This movie has some kind of plot that involves people running away from things and hiding in caves. And lots of painting and posing. It's pretty boring.
Then, just when you think this movie is the ultimate boring movie of the century, the last 2 minutes prove that the writers were actually active thinkers. They had to come up with a creative way to end it! And boy, was it imaginative! It made absolutely no sense and involved the supernatural when the rest of the movie was set in real life. More of a random ending than Happy Birthday To Me. What a joke!
A boring, boring movie with lame characters. 2/10 -
julie_robin25 August 2003I caught this on late night TV yesterday, and if nothing else, it served as a timely reminder that dreadful films are nothing new.
We may shake our heads in wonder at the awfulness of some of the films that get made today -but Crucible of Terror attests to the fact that in amongst the classics of the '70's, they were also making stuff like this. -
Theo Robertson5 August 2003A cheaply made British film from the early 1970s is what CRUCIBLE OF TERROR is , but you`ll never believe how bad it is untill you actually watch it . The plot is just basically a whodunnit where it`s so obvious that you know straight from the first murder who`s behind the killings , except at the very end there`s a plot twist that will have you reeling and not in a good way either . It`s as though the producer realised how obvious the killer was that he instructed the screenwriter to forgo any credibility to make ( You`ll never guess who ) the murderer at the very last minute .
The other thing that had me reeling was the performance of Mike Raven who struck me as a cross between Roger Delgado ( The original master from Doctor Who ) and Christopher Lee . It`s not too difficult to believe that Mr Raven disappeared from the acting world after making this crazy movie -
jammear7 April 2006As with the majority of the 70s B-movie horror flicks which have survived the ages to make it onto modern day television, I first saw this piece of classic film at around 3am on some god-forsaken low budget television station...
Initially, my interest was sparked at the prospect of high profile nudity following the introductory scene which featured a naked lady being turned into a statue or something ludicrous. The anticipation of nudity is a key technique by the author of 'movie' in order to secure the attention of the unfortunate viewer.
The possible forecast of a brief lesbian sexual congress is hinted by one of the key female performers (who can be seen with her kit off in one of the Robin Askwith 'confessions' films for those who were let down by this travesty of a motion picture). However, true to the inexcusably horrendous nature of this film it is systematically shattered by the impending death of one female party.
Possibly one of the most ridiculous elements of this flick is the artist's wife. Portrayed as a senile Dorothy-from-the-wizard-of-oz-wanna-be who tries to persuade her significant other out of evil is impossible to take seriously and one of the key players in the downfall of this moving image.
As a fan of cheesy 70s B movie horrors I had high (low) expectations of the "Crucible of Terror". The fact the title has about -6% relevance to any part of the film whatsoever is just another reason I would tell anyone thinking of watching it to instead turn off the TV and go play laser tag. -
Bunuel197614 October 2011I only heard about this one when recently re-issued on DVD by Severin. I was mainly familiar with its star (former pirate-radio DJ Mike Raven) via his notorious stint in the same year's LUST FOR A VAMPIRE for Hammer – in any case, he only made 4 films (the others being Amicus' I, MONSTER {1971}) and the even more obscure (to say nothing of maligned) DISCIPLE OF DEATH (1972). The movie (which should not be confused with CRUCIBLE OF HORROR aka THE CORPSE {also 1971}, starring Michael Gough – yet another shocker that seems to have fallen through the cracks, though I did catch it on Cable TV some years back) perhaps owes its central premise to "Wax Museum"-type efforts, since Raven's painter/sculptor uses live models for the latter (though he only resorts to it when inspired) – beginning with the pre-credits sequence! Apparently, Raven had a genuine interest in the occult, hence his attempt to make it as the next big British horror star in the wake of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee (interestingly, he got to appear alongside the pair in I. MONSTER) and famously had his eyes 'dubbed' by stock footage of Lee as Dracula in LUST FOR A VAMPIRE!. Another link to a horror legend and fellow countryman is the fact that, like the great Boris Karloff, Raven has a pronounced lisp – which occasions several instances of amusement here, as the script seems hellbent on handing him a plethora of "s"s to deliver in any one given speech!
His character is anything but a commercial artist since he admits to make his handiwork for his own satisfaction. However, his son (Ronald Lacey) has other plans and steals a couple of exhibits which are the surprise hits at an otherwise dismal show (sponsored by Melissa Stribling from HORROR OF Dracula {1958} and managed by James Bolam, with the former more interested in learning that he fancies her!) – Stribling's spouse develops a passion for the aforementioned sculpture and is furious when told that it has already been sold: trying to make away with it at night, he is suffocated to death with a plastic bag! In the meantime, Bolam's girlfriend (lovely Mary Maude, who had appeared in the fine Spanish horror THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED {1969}) is going through market-stalls looking for a nightgown and happens upon the very same yellow kimono worn by the victim of the first murder (all the while being suspiciously-eyed by an Asian bloke sporting shades and who vanishes from the proceedings soon after). Anyway, Bolam sees the value of Raven's work and persuades Lacey to set up a meeting. This is to take place over the weekend at his country retreat, the site of a tin-mine disaster and thus conveniently equipped with a still operational forge. Bolam takes Maude along for the ride (as does Lacey his blonde wife), and Raven naturally instantly sees the possibilities in her. Also living there are his wife who, through Raven's neglect once her beauty had faded has effectively regressed to a childhood state (she is constantly carrying soft toys and dolls around), a middle-aged man who is devoted to the latter (he had wanted to marry her but she preferred Raven, who then squanders her fortune financing his creative output) and – as Lacey puts it – his father's only friend, and the artist's latest model/lover (who, it transpires harbors an unrequited lesbian affection for Maude).
As you can see, that's quite a brimful of hang-ups (beginning with an awkward dinner-table sequence where Raven constantly belittles his son and verbally lashes at his wife for her undignified behavior!) and, before long, the murders start: first Lacey's wife, then himself, then the model At first, I thought the killer would be Lacey (since he had threatened his spouse to show the world that he is every bit as good as his father, to which she contemptuously quips "Yeah, what at?"), then I was sure the film-makers were going the obvious route and reveal Raven as the typical mad artist (sure enough, he had persistently harassed Maude, down to following her through a set of caves which somehow lead back to his own house and which is where the old woman herself goes to in order to get away from Raven's vitriol) but even he becomes a victim! Maude had been plagued by nightmares involving someone wearing a scary Japanese mask and brandishing a white-hilted sword (when the latter is found in possession of Raven's pal, it is obvious we are supposed to suspect him too) and she had been rendered queasy by the presence of a vase (presumably the titular container) Raven uses in his molding practices. Anyway, as he is about to immortalize her in bronze, she turns on him, unaccountably displaying hideous features which, as later explained by the artist's former rival in love (one wonders just how he knew), results in her having been taken over – via the kimono, get it? – by the revenge-seeking Asian woman we saw murdered at the very start of the picture (to stress the point further, here we also get a replay of all the deaths, with the unseen assailant now revealed to have been Maude all along)!
To be sure, I was unfamiliar with and not a little amused by the director's name but I cannot say to regretting having included it in this "Halloween Challenge": if anything, CRUCIBLE OF TERROR proves quite good to look at (no surprises there, since it is lensed by the distinguished Peter Newbrook), the set-pieces are tolerably well-handled and certainly grisly enough and, for better or worse, Raven's niche in horror-film history (even if he never comes close to scaling the heights of his progenitors and peers) is assured. -
Deep down, many horror fans want to act in a horror movie. I've romanticized over the idea, and I'm sure you have too. Here's the thing-many a time, people who want to be or try to be a big name in horror suck as actors. All the notable names in the genre either have experience in acting or became genre icons by sheer accident.I bring all of this up because I want to talk about Mike Raven. He was a popular radio DJ and occult enthusiast who was also a huge horror fan. So, with Horror in Britain going through a slow decline in the 70's, some saw Raven as the next big horror star. That worked out as well as you think it would, as Raven gave bad performances in such movies as "Lust for the Vampire", "Disciple of Death" and this movie, 1971's "Crucible of Terror."
Raven stars as Victor Clare, an insane sculptor who kills a woman named Chi-San (cult actress Me Me Lai) and turns her into a sculpture. Well, James Davies (James Bolam) acquires some of Victor's work through his son Michael ("Raiders of the Lost Ark's" Ronald Lacey), who decides to set up a weekend with some folks at his dad's secluded cottage. As you can guess, people start getting knocked off.
Though it resembles a Giallo film and has some decent, bloody death scenes, "Crucible of Terror" is a bore. For one thing, the script and direction by Tom Parkinson (his sole writing and directing credit) is flat and uninvolved, with cheap sets and wooden acting dominating the proceedings. It also fails to do anything interesting with Victor's family, who are all unlikeable, obnoxious characters who lack anything resembling empathy, interest or investment, which makes everyone's fate more boring than interesting. Then there's Raven. It's been said many times that he resembles a poor man's Christopher Lee, but I disagree-that would be insulting to an actual poor man's Christopher Lee. His bug eyed, over dramatic performance can't even register on a camp level.
If you ask me, films like "Crucible of Terror" are living proof that you can't just automatically become a horror star. There's better British horror from the 70's, so why bother with this? -
Just rewatched this for the first time in about 30 years and it is every bit as good and bad as I remembered. It has so much going for it - some real heavyweight acting talent; fantastic settings and atmosphere; Judy Matheson at her most luminous in a substantial role; and, best of all, a really off-kilter story. The pieces are all there. Of course it often belies its low budget and while there are some great actors on display others may not be quite so top-drawer. But none of that reduces the enjoyment of Crucible of Terror. Like several other British horrors it succeeds because of its shortcomings rather than in spite of them. If you're a fan of the genre you owe yourself a viewing.
-
poolandrews1 January 2006Crucible of Terror starts in a old tin mine forge, an unknown assailant prepares a plaster cast mixture & spreads it over the naked body of Chi-San (Me Me Lai) to form a perfect cast of her body & then the unknown psycho pours white hot molten metal into a hole in the cast... Jump to London where art dealer Jack Davies (James Bolam) is holding an exhibit trying to impress the main investors George (Kenneth Keeling) & his wife Joanna (Melissa Stribling) as well as trying to sell some of his items. Things don't go so well but one item in particular seems to generate a certain amount of interest, a bronzed sculpture of a Chinese woman by an artist named Victor Clare (Mike Raven) supplied by his alcoholic son Michael (Ronald Lacey). Jack ask's Michael if he can supply more of his father's work, Michael says no but he is welcome to talk to his father personally. Jack his wife Millie (Mary Maude), Michael & his wife Jane (Beth Morris) all decide to go together & make a weekend out of it. Once there things take a turn for the worse, Victor is stark raving mad as is his wife Dorothy (Betty Alberge) & that night someone brutally stabs Jane to death...
This English production was co-written & directed by Ted Hooker & I found it so bad that it was just so entertaining & funny. The script by Hooker & Tom Parkinson moves along at a nice pace, is never boring or dull & is just so bizarre & funny that I couldn't help but like it. Some of the dialogue in Crucible of Terror is pure gold, "the only spirits you believe in are brown & poured out of a bottle" for instance after two character's discuss a haunted tin mine. There are loads more as well. I also thought the murder mystery elements were cool, I mean you think you have the killer & their motives nailed down but then the twist ending just comes out of nowhere & turns everything on it's head. I just love the silliness of it all. What's up with Victor's wife? I mean she's probably in her 50's yet she dresses like a little girl, has pig tails plus she talks to & plays with cuddly toys & dolls! It's never given any sort of satisfactory explanation as to why she is like this but hey, who cares when it's this strange & entertaining. One of the character's commits suicide for no apparent reason & is never explained why. I have no idea why but I liked all the zaniness, idiocy & eccentricity in Crucible of Terror.
Director Hooker keeps the film moving, however his red-herrings & throwaway lines make little sense overall. I'm a big fan of 70's British horror & I love the look throughout Crucible of Terror from the clothes & locations to the cars & interior design with some horrible garish wallpaper! Even the obviously fake mine shafts add a certain feel. I could have used a bit more in the way of violence & gore as well, there is a stabbing, someone has their head bashed in with a rock, some acid thrown on someone's face & a couple of slit wrists, a bit too dry for my liking.
With a budget that probably was pretty low Crucible of Terror is generally well made in & around some nice British coastal seaside locations. The best way to describe the acting is over-the-top, Raven used to be a Radio 1 DJ (anyone from the UK will know what I'm talking about) & Bolam is more widely known for his role in the successful British TV sitcom 'The Likely Lads' & it's various follow ups & spin offs.
I must admit I wasn't expecting to but I really rather enjoyed Crucible of Terror, it kept me entertained for 90 odd minutes & that's all I could really ask for. I definitely can't recommend it to anyone as I think you need to be of a certain disposition to get anything from it, far from what one would call a good film but a highly entertaining & fun one none the less & how can you not like a film where someone is murdered using a 70's novelty see-thru plastic cushion! -
acidburn-1012 January 2012The plot = An obsessed sculptor kills a young woman to make a perfect bronze sculpture of her. Then years later at his secluded home, his son and his wife and some of they're friends travel there for a few days, only to be picked off one by one, is the sculptor or is it someone else.
I've seen this movie a few times on late night TV, and it's always been a bit of a head scratcher for me, is it supposed to be a drama or is it supposed to be a horror. Of course it's a horror movie, as halfway through we see the cast get picked off one by one. The supernatural element kicks in when one of the characters starts having nightmares of an unknown force, which later becomes crucial when the killer is revealed.
Supposed to be a horror film, Crucible of Terror is more a drama. As a drama, it is adequate, but there is nothing particularly notable about it, and it tends to drag on for way too long before anything actually happens.
Even when the cast is started getting murdered There is no gore, and no graphic violence. The longest of these murder scenes is probably 20 seconds. And there is no follow through. A short murder scene occurs, we're never shown what happens to the bodies, and no one is overly concerned that anyone is missing. In fact, the most sustained "horror" element is the artist's pursuit of the dealer's significant other. She is frightened of him and there is an effective extended chase sequence that ends with the woman being pursued through an atmospherically spooky abandoned mine (probably the best scene of the film). She reminds the artist of the woman bronzed in the beginning and, despite the fact that he hadn't "executed" any sculptures recently, he has the same plan for her.
All in all not great but not awful there are some redeeming features about this flick but other than that, this doesn't bring anything new to the horror genre. -
googlemorf27 June 2002I saw this thing in part on late night TV in the seventies. Being a mere lad at the time, I was taken a back at how gory the killings were and surprized in retrospect that it wasn't cut for TV. I found this flick recently in a $5.00 bin put out by STAR CLASSICS. I wanted to see what I'd think of it now, so I bought it. Now I wasn't surprised that at that price it was a cheezy 16mm VHS copy in the LP mode, but I was surprised that all the gory scenes were cut out! Apparently, it was transfered from a more prudish television print! I see here that it's on DVD, but I ain't gonna buy the darn thing.. I would rent it though, just to see if it still holds the same impact it did for me so long ago..
-
P3n-E-W1s322 April 2020It's a massive understatement to state the family, at the heart of this story, is dysfunctional:
You have a son who steals his artist father's artwork to support his love for alcohol.
A mother who dresses like her namesake from the Wizard Of Oz and feeds her stuffed doggy at the dinner table.
The father, a talented artist obsessed with capturing true female beauty... oh yeah, and infatuated with having intercourse with his models, even his daughter-in-law.
And the artist's best friend, who remains at the home, forgiving his friend's indiscretions because he's in love with his wife.
These factors alone should make an interesting story. However, they weren't enough for Ted Hooker (writer and director) and Tom Parkinson. They then throw a pinch of the supernatural into the mix. This is my favourite ingredient in the story. It isn't until the finale you realise how integral this portion is.
Unfortunately, the rest of the story is a mite hap-hazard. Hooker and Parkinson should have used the characters to drive the story. I felt the characters and their peculiarities were underexploited. It's this that weakens the story and the film the most.
It's further weakened by the actors and actresses portrayals of the characters. The artistic father, Victor Clare (played by Mike Raven), isn't dark or crazy enough. They needed to craft the mother, Dorothy (Betty Alberge), more thoroughly. She looks like Dorothy from the Wizard Of Oz and I would have played on that more - giving her a more solid delusion. The son, Michael (Ronald Lacey) is superbly acted. Lacey does "buzzed" well and even comes across nice and slimy with his fathers current model, Marcia.
Because the remaining characters are more ordinary, the actors and actresses have an easier time making them believable and realistic. Which helps maintain the stability and flow of the story and film.
I just wish Hooker had pushed the cast in his more unusual personas a trifle more. He could also have worked longer on the direction. He demonstrates how isolated the family is with some decent long-shots. He even has a few iconic and well-composed images. And the cellar furnace room is dark, though subtly lit with reds and oranges from the working forge and molten brass.
However, there's a lack of atmosphere throughout. It's not creepy or eerie. You don't feel unease, even though there are scenes where you should. For a film in the horror genre, this is a big regret. Had they addressed this, with the other disappointments, the film would have gained strength. It could easily have been a classic as it possesses all the right ingredients.
Therefore, I can only recommend this film to fans of the genre; should they have nothing better to consider. I enjoyed it, but I won't be watching it again soon... if ever!
Ratings: Story 1 : Direction 1 : Pace 1.25 : Acting 1.25 : Enjoyment 1 : Total 5.5 / 10
Transport yourself over to my Absolute Horror list and see where I ranked this cut-rate masterpiece. You may very well find your next favourite flick on the list awaiting your viewing pleasure.
Take Care and Stay Well. -
JoeB1315 April 2020So this movie is about a bunch of characters who are spending the weekend with a mad artist who turned a girl into a statue years ago (using a method that probably would never work, but never mind, plot armor). Slowly the characters are picked off one by one, and you think it's the mad artist doing the killing, but no, it was the ghost of the girl he killed in the first minute of the movie taking over the body of another girl through a cursed Kimono.
I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with this ending if the first victim/vengeful spirit had been better established as a character early on in the movie. Except, of course, she wasn't. So you have an hour and a half of creepy characters being knocked off and you get this twist ending at the end that makes little sense.
Why would Vengeful Spirit Girl kill the other people? It really made no sense. -
Very slow, atmospheric, acting OK, Not recommended
Most of the acting sucked. The painters acting was the best. He actually looks like Christopher Lee and is a better actor than Lee. Some killings were good, but the whole story was slow and needed a much better script. The cinematography was good, and the movie had atmosphere. It's a mystery but not enough clues given to solve this mess. The ending was spelled out, too contrived to wrap this thing up.
Rating is a C- for effort, or 4 stars. I cannot recommend. But if you do watch, there are a few interesting scenes. -
RobW12 June 1999Dire horror movie about a mad artist with a penchant for making bronze statues out of his models. The Cornish scenery is the best bit of it; it's the sort of thing you see on midnight TV, and frankly, you're better off going to sleep
-
"Crucible of Terror" is amazingly bad...which is hard to believe since the initial premise was so good. You see a LIVE woman being used to make a statue...and molten metal is poured over her!! Next, you see her statue being displayed in an art gallery and folks LOVE it. Pretty cool idea...a bit like "Bucket of Blood"...though not a comedy.
The problem is when the film leaves London and the gallery and goes off to the countryside....where the film drags on and on and on. Additionally, the ending is amazingly stupid...and confusing. So, there is an epilogue that actually explains what happened and why!! Unfortunately, the explanation is just stupid. Overall, what looked like it would be an exciting horror film is just dull, stupid and slow. -
Rainey-Dawn20 December 2014Well this is NOT the worst film I've ever seen - If you want a down right bloody awful film try "Hillbillys in a Haunted House (1967)". Crucible of Terror (1971) is not good but it's not all that bad either. The big let down is the ending.
The supernatural element in the film is revealed about 20 minutes into the movie by Michael Clare (Lacey) to John Davies (Bolam) about Chi-San (Lay) and this throws a hint about the ending BUT the ending is terrible.
I have to agree with other reviewers that the actors are a bit "wooden" but they are not all that bad either. And as far as the story goes it is somewhat interesting - can hold some people's interest until the very end (even if the ending is a bit corny).
Not a bad watch late at night if there is nothing else on TV that you care to watch.
6/10 -
bensonmum229 June 2006There's as much wasted potential in Crucible of Terror as I remember seeing recently. Part of the film's problem is the muddled plot. Things get off to a decent start with an artist who uses a woman as the base for his bronze sculpture. Think of it as House of Wax without the wax. 99% of the movie follows this plot thread as those around the artist are murdered by a crazed killer. One of the characters says something about some sort of Satanic type stuff, but it's only mentioned in passing. It's a "blink and you'll miss it" type moment. So the ending comes out of nowhere and abandons most everything that's happened by reintroducing the crazy religious stuff in the final five minutes. Huh? Where did that come from? It's got to be one of the worst twist endings I've seen.
The shift in gears at the end of Crucible of Terror might have been more palatable had I actually cared about any of the characters by the time it rolled around. For a film that features so many characters being killed, it's terribly dull. Other than watching a lecherous Mike Raven put the moves on anything in a skirt, there's not much going on. Sure, people die, but why should I have cared. None of the characters seemed to notice their friends were going missing.
Beyond the plot and the unlikable characters, most of the rest of the movie is just as bad. The editing is sloppy. Characters are killed in rooms that seem to be next to one another, yet no on seems to notice even though the victims scream and make other appropriate noises. The acting is weak. The lisping Mike Raven cannot carry the film. He's a very poor imitation of Christopher Lee. You know you're in trouble when Raven is the best "actor" in the cast. The set design and special effects are bad. I think I could build a more realistic looking forge in my basement. Finally, could Crucible of Terror have included anymore horror clichés? I've seen nutty characters, cars that won't start, and almost everything else in this movie a million times. -
Wuchakk13 April 2022A reclusive artist (Mike Raven) on the coast of Cornwall, England, is doing dubious things with his models when his son (Ronald Lacey), his friend (James Bolam) and their wives arrive from London.
"Crucible of Terror" (1971) is Brit horror reminiscent of "Corruption" (1968) and comparable to Hammer or Amicus films of the era. Raven is a Christopher Lee lookalike, but only did four films from 1971-1972.
Blonde Beth Morris (Jane) stands out on the female front with thin brunettes Mary Maude (Millie) and Judy Matheson (Marcia) also on hand. The latter two are attractive but reflect the popularity of Twiggy at the time. The flick really needed one or two voluptuous women that Hammer was known for, like Veronica Carlson, Susan Denberg, Linda Hayden, Hazel Court, Barbara Shelley, Yvonne Romain, Caroline Munro, Ingrid Pitt and so on.
It's decidedly obscure and typically gets bad reviews so I was skeptical at first, but the movie won me over with the coastal Cornwall setting, the imaginative caves that link to the artist's quaint house and the revelation at the end.
FYI: Ronald Lacey is perhaps best known for his role as the coat-hanger Nazi with the scarred hand from "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
The film runs 1 hour, 31 minutes, and was shot at Shepperton Studios & Hammersmith in London and the Blue Hills/Jericho Valley area of St Agnes, Cornwall.
GRADE: B-/B (6.5/10) -
dark_nebulae200328 September 2006Man, I almost finished this one. So I wanted to give it a two just because I can. However, the only reason I didn't finish this one was because I got dozens of movies that came in packs. So being that I was paying more attention to a website than I was to this, I had to shut it off and quit wasting my time.
But yeah. It's pretty much what everyone else said it was ie BORING. More of a very outdated drama about an artist who's flat-broke and lookin' to make a buck. Oh yeah. He's possessed too. Ooohhh scary. In reality, they'd call that a con-artist -- DELUXE! Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but I don't think that the film ever revealed exactly what he was supposed to be possessed bye... unless it's one of those that you have to wait until the ending in which the wait is way too torturous for that. Anyways, the best part about this was that it was a part of the Brentwood Movie Pack. YAY. Got it for about a buck. Can't beat that. -
jharrismo1 August 2001This movie is a certifiable stinker. I rented it out of the "horror" section, but it's about as scary as the elm tree in my front yard. I found myself fast-forwarding through most of it, after watching about 20 minutes normally and wondering when something would happen. I like a good horror movie (although most of them aren't really scary), which this isn't. It should likely be reclassified as "drama."