Crimes au musée des horreurs

The opening scene has a young, attractive woman receive a mystery gift in the mail, a pair of binoculars. When she tries them out two metal spikes impale her brain via her eyes, this is a delicious taste of what else is to come. A series of bloody but elaborate killings is gripping London, the police are on the case (one is played by Geoffrey Keen, a familiar face from the James Bond movies), but so too is Edmond Bancroft, a real life crime writer - who just happens to have his own Black Museum in his large home! Bancroft is played by the marvellous Richard Gough, a star of many films and TV, horror being one of his specialities, and his character here is highly intelligent but equally obnoxious, he hams is up wonderfully. I love black and white movies but this was filmed in colour, so not only do we get red blood but the whole film looks fantastic, very colourful. Not only is this a rather grisly but hammy and fun horror movie it also gives a fascinating glimpse of life in London in 1959. The film's finale takes place at a funfair, the Tunnel of Love scene is brilliant, there is a nod to the Jekyll and Hyde story here. It would also be fair to consider this as an early slasher/psycho maniac movie. I have just watched this for the first time, it was screened on TV. I enjoyed, I have just ordered a copy on DVD and look forward to seeing it again.

'Horrors Of The Black Museum' is a dated but still entertaining Brit chiller that will most appeal to fans of William Castle's gimmick filled movies from the same era ('The House On Haunted Hill', 'The Tingler', '13 Ghosts', 'Homicidal',etc.) The late Michael Gough plays Edmund Bancroft, an eccentric writer and amateur crime expert, who irritates local police baffled at a spate of brutal and sensationalistic crimes, apparently without motive. Bancroft actually knows a lot more than the police suspect, and his meek protege Rick (Graham Curnow) is also involved, but not in the most straightforward way. The movie was originally released in "Hypnovision" but the reason to watch it today is Gough's larger than life performance, and the inventive killing methods, which include the much talked about binoculars-with-needles-in-the-eyepieces. Not a great movie by any means, but an amusing one.

The Horrors of the Black Museum is a diabolical film. I was not more than eleven or twelve when I saw it. Dropped at the curb to enjoy Quarter Saturday at the Movies.It left me so traumatized that I was sitting in the lobby when my mother came, uncharacteristically silent. I had spent most of the time after the "binocular" murder, trembling alone with the thought, " What grown-up dreamed this stuff up for a child to watch? What are grown-ups really like?" I knew some of them didn't care what they exposed kids to to make a quarter! I remember trudging to the lobby as if in a fugue state, afraid to turn my back on that abomination.

I know there are folks who love this genre, and as long as they are grown-ups, they can do the backstroke in ketchup blood and wallow in sadism. Free country. But this movie gave me nightmares into adulthood. It's probably still lurking in my psyche today. It is why I know that children must be sheltered from material adults can handle.

I guess it was effectively gruesome and twisted for the fans of the genre.

It was only after looking at the director of "Fiend without a face" that I realised that 'Fiend' and "Horrors of the Black Museum" were directed by the same person. Both movies are very good British horror movies (though it's a pity that it's so difficult to find 'Fiend' and it doesn't look like the BBC will show it again - maybe this prayer will work). Because it's so hard to find 'Fiend", I chose to review 'Horrors' because you should get the chance to watch a Crabtree movie. Apart from the plot of "Horrors of the Black Museum" (which I won't go into here - if you're interested, you can always read the plot summary) the movie has a special feature (Hypnovista) which probably is one of the reasons why it's still around now. Hypnovista was a gimmick like the ones William Castle liked to use (think of the color scene and the moving theatre seats in 'The Tingler' or the Fright Break which paused 'Homicidal'), but certainly not the only reason to see the movie (unless, of course you are totally into hypnotised people). I agree that some of the stunts could have been better (I never believed the skeleton), but the movie was made in 1959. Indeed, they don't make them like they used to do... "Horrors of the Black Museum" is one of the movies which make you add "...unfortunately". (the same goes for 'Fiend')

It's a shame, really: with a delightfully lurid and catchy title such as "Horrors of the Black Museum" and advertising that hyped a special "Hypno-Vista" process, this could and should have been more fun. It's reasonably amusing, but its good moments are spread pretty far apart amidst a lot of talk and a slow pace.

Fiendish murders are plaguing the city of London, and prominent crime expert / journalist Edmond Bancroft (Michael Gough) just loves to write about it. He definitely has a flair for the sensational. This sets him at odds with the weary Scotland Yard detectives investigating the case, including Superintendent Graham (Geoffrey Keen, whom one may recognize from his appearances in several James Bond franchise entries) and Inspector Lodge (John Warwick).

The movie can boast a couple of nifty gadgets: binoculars that shoot needles into unwary eyes, a pair of ice tongs, and a miniature guillotine. The title derives from the collection kept by the Yard of hideous murder implements; Bancroft also maintains an impressive collection of his own.

Helping to make this little horror film palatable are gorgeous CinemaScope photography and an excellent cast also including June Cunningham as Bancrofts' fed-up girlfriend, Graham Curnow as his loyal assistant Rick, the lovely Shirley Anne Field as Ricks' gal pal Angela, Beatrice Varley as shop keeper Aggie, and Austin Trevor as Commissioner Wayne. But Gough, not surprisingly, thoroughly dominates the proceedings with a deliciously hammy performance. One could never accuse Gough of not giving a role 100% percent, and he doesn't disappoint here.

Overall, this is a mild diversion and no more.

Six out of 10.