The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

Title: The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

Director: Robert Fuest

Stars: Vincent Price, Virginia North

Review:

There’s a passage in the bible in which the Israelites (who were a nation of slaves to the Egyptians) ask the Pharaoh to let them go into the desert so they can worship their god. The Pharaoh refuses this request and does not allow them to do this. Moses, the leader of the Israelites (and best buddy with god) warns the Pharaoh that if he doesn’t let the Israelites go, that god almighty would inflict Egypt with ten deadly plagues. The Pharaoh doesn’t believe him so he doesn’t let the Israelites go. And of course God then proceeds to curse the Egyptians with the ten biblical plagues. Many films have used the premise of the ten biblical plagues for example, Charlton Heston played Moses in The Ten Commandments (1956); a film which showed the ten biblical plagues in all their deadly glory. Most recently director Stephen Hopkins’s directed The Reaping (2007) which used the ten plagues as a plot device as well. And in 1971 Vincent Price starred in The Abominable Dr. Phibes, a film that also uses the ten plagues as a plot device to tell its tale of revenge.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes is about this crazy organ player who wants to exact revenge upon the nine doctors who were incapable of curing his wife from a deadly decease. He executes his revenge by killing these nine doctors by using the ten deadly plagues from the bible. Will the bumbling English cops ever capture Dr. Phibes? As you can see, the plot is incredibly simple. Whacked out doctor wants to get revenge for his wife’s death. As far as I’m concerned, this film is nothing more then a campy slasher with Dr. Phibes as the main villain.

What I didn’t like though is how the movies script is so lazy. I mean, if your going to do a movie about the ten deadly biblical plagues, then at least get them right! There were no rats or bats involved in the ten plagues mentioned in the bible. But, the filmmakers decided to have Dr. Phibes killing some of its victims with rats and bats anyways. So is this movie about Dr. Phibes using the ten biblical plagues to execute his revenge or not? If it is, then the film does a pretty bad job of sticking to its basic premise.

It looked like the filmmakers simply replaced some of the biblical plagues with something that was easier to shoot, or something the considered more interesting. The filmmakers probably thought that the plagues dealing with flies, gnats and deceased livestock would be harder to shoot, so they went with something easier to shoot. Hence the replacement of certain plagues for rats, bats and a brass unicorn statues. If that last sentence failed to make any sense to you, then welcome to the club. I have no idea what the hell killing off one of the doctors with a brass unicorn has anything to do with the ten biblical plagues. Then, as if that weren’t enough, there are 9 doctors. Yet the biblical plagues were ten! They didn’t even stick to using all the plagues with this movie. Why not make them ten doctors and that way you could have used up all the ten plagues? I was a bit disappointed with the carelessness this movie displayed with its premise. To make things worse, they actually have some sort of a priest name the ten plagues one by one, and even the priest gets them wrong! I don’t know what bible that priest read, but there are no rats or bats in the ten plagues! Go back to priest school you bumbling idiot! Oh well, I guess I chalked this one under the “lazy script writing” department. How did the film fare in other areas?

What we all want to see with this movie is Dr. Phibes killing people off in various interesting and morbid ways, right? So how did the deaths turn out? They were nothing spectacular. Problem for me with this movie is that they never showed the actual deaths happening. This is the type of movie in which they do this whole set up for a cool death sequence, right up to the death itself. And then when the actual murder is going to occur, the film cuts away to something else and we don’t get to see the death itself. We only get to see the results of the deaths when the cops come and check out the scene and you see how it all turned out. But the actual killings always happen off screen. You just see the results.

I took in consideration that this film was made in 1971, but if I remember correctly there were a lot of gory horror films coming out in that era, so I’m not going to blame the fact that this movies deaths were bloodless and boring to the fact that this movie was filmed a long time ago. Nope, this movie just plain old chickened out of showing us the goods! Which sucks because what we came here to see were some cool deaths, not set ups to cool deaths. And then some of the deaths were just so lame...like that scene with the rats. Did anyone notice that those rats seemed absolutely harmless? They were just sitting there on top of the actor not looking the least bit menacing. Actually, the rats looked kind of lazy and comfortable. Not deadly the way they should have been! On the plus side I will say that I did love the fact that they used real bats for the bat plague instead of the usual puppet bat with strings which they tend to use back in those days in some horror movies. The deaths were probably not graphic in nature because this was never the style of horror films that American International Pictures made. When you look at it, AIP made relatively harmless horror pictures. And horror films were going through that transition, from the more classy "harmless" horror films of the 60s like the horror films Hammer Films and AIP made to the more graphic horror films that were emerging during the early 70s.

 At least Dr. Phibes had hot assistants!

For me, Vincent Price is the only real saving point in this picture. He plays a very interesting and twisted character. He is this world renowned organ player whose wife died and is now obsessed with avenging her death. Don’t ask me how an organ player ends up being able to create robots who do his bidding (and play old jazz songs for him) and don’t ask me how he manages to speak without lips or how he manages to drink wine through the back of his neck. He just does. Don’t ask me where he got that strange assistant who helps him do the killings, because she isn’t explained at all either. Many things in this movie aren’t well explained or developed at all. On The Abominable Dr. Phibes, the ideas where half assed and not taken to their full potential, or where just lamely executed all together. I remember watching this movie and trying to understand why this one is considered such a classic, but alas I didn’t find any real reasons for doing so. The movie seemed to be a silly mess. Many things bothered me about this one, the lameness of the deaths, the unexplained plot holes (of what exactly did his wife die off?) and the inaccurate script just made me feel a bit disappointed with this one.

On the positive side of the spectrum, The Abominable Dr. Phibes has managed to influence many modern day horror films. The biggest and most obvious one to me are the SAW films. Let’s see, lonely old guy who wants to show others the evil of their ways by using strange mechanical devices of his own creation to kill them with? Check! Give them a certain amount of time in which to escape from said traps? Check! Put a key inside of someone so you would have to cut him open and get it to escape? Check! The similarities where too obvious here! It seems to me like the filmmakers behind Saw were watching these old Dr. Phibes movies one day and decided to do an update on them! David Fincher’s Seven also has some similarities with this one because of the whole gimmick of using biblical themes to tell a horror story. And lets not forget, the main villain also wants to show its victims a lesson.

But dont go on thinking I totally despise this campy horror flick cause I dont. There were a few things I did like about this movie. For example, Vincent Price playing Dr. Phibes. Vincent Price is a fun actor to watch, specially on cheesy, campy horror movies like this one. I also enjoyed some of the visuals, like that scene where Phibes takes off his mask and we can see him in all his rotting glory. Or seeing Dr. Phibes playing his giant organ. Visually, the movie does have its moments. The artistic design is also worthy of mention. This is something that I always enjoy about these old American International Pictures, their sets always look interesting. Dr. Phibes castle is an interesting place to look at. But as a whole I just can’t bring myself to say that this movie was excellent. It was enjoyable, but there are better Vincent Price movies out there to see.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Witchfinder General (1968)

Title: Witchfinder General (1968) a.k.a. The Conqueror Worm

Director: Michael Reeves

Stars: Vincent Price

Review:

Michael Reeves, the director of Witchfinder General was a director that started making films at a very young age. He directed four films in his life time before he died of a drug overdose a couple of months after Witchfinder General was completed. Reeves was a very driven person and could think of nothing else that he wanted to do except direct films. His repertoire included Castle of the Living Dead (1964) with Christopher Lee, Revenge of the Blood Beast (1966) with Barbara Steele, The Sorcerers (1967) with Boris Karloff and finally, Witchfinder General (1968) with Vincent Price. But it was Witchfinder General that got him noticed because of the violence portrayed in the picture, which was considered excessive at the time. The film was coproduced by Tigon Pictures and American International Pictures. Upon its release on the U.S. the title was changed to The Conqueror Worm, in order to capitalize on the success of Roger Corman’s Poe Cycle of films. They did this even though the film has nothing to do with Poe.

Witchfinder General takes place in the 17 century, right smack in the middle of the English Civil War. During this time, there was chaos in the land and the time was ripe for devious characters to take advantage of people. The church would send out its inquisitors to hunt down, torture and eventually kill any unbelievers, sorcerers, witches or anyone who followed any other religion other then Christianity. We follow a lawyer called Mathew Hopkins who appointed himself grand inquisitor. He would go around towns slaughtering people in the name of Jesus. Interesting part is that nor the Church nor Parliament ever appointed him as anything; he simply went around doing this on his own. It is hinted on this picture that he did it out of personal pleasure (the guy enjoyed killing what can I say?) and not because he had any interests in ridding the world of paganism. But on one of these murdering sprees he rapes soldiers girlfriend (and kills her father!) so soon after the soldier goes on a hunt for the witchfinder himself, to avenge the death of his fiancé.

This film is considered by some to be one of the greatest horror movies ever made. It appeared in Total Film magazines best horror films ever made list. It was 15th on that list! Many critics agree (though many don’t as well) that this is a great horror film. With all the polarization going on with this film, I was eagerly awaiting the moment in which I would finally get to watch it. I will admit that the film does have a great look to it, it does have some beautiful shots of the English country side, it has Vincent Price in it, and it does have some violence in it, but I wouldn’t go and say that this is one of the best horror films ever. I personally found it to be a bit slow.

There are a couple of things that make this one noteworthy though. Number one, the films themes. There are a lot of films that deal with the abuse and death brought upon by the church, but the theme is always shocking to me no matter how many times its been depicted on film. I personally always find these historical events to be so nausea inducing. To try and force people into believing in something like Christianity (which at times preaches brotherly love and compassion) by using horrible methods of torture. What’s really great about this movie is that it points a finger at these events, and maybe this is why some people consider this film to be an important one. But to me that’s really not enough. Just because a film shines a light on a dark chapter of humanity does not make it a good film. In order to do that, the film has to be well written, acted and shot.

Another thing that makes this one noteworthy is that Vincent Price, who normally tends to over act in his films and hams things up on repeated films, is actually very evil on this movie. Michael Reeves didn’t want Vincent Price for this role; he really wanted Donald Pleasance for it. I think the reason for this was because Reeves wanted his witchfinder character to be menacing and not funny like Price often portrayed his characters. When you watch a Vincent Price film; you kind of get the vibe that he is having fun with the whole thing. You can see him trying to be funny with his performance. He would say his lines as if he was reading poetry in a theater play or something. Michael Reeves didn’t want that on this film. Reeves wanted to shoot a film with a somber evil tone to it. Not the campy type of film that AIP was producing at the time. So, Reeves molded Price’s performance on Witchfinder General to his liking. He would stop Price if he was doing his funny routine and would actually tell Price “don’t do that!” Supposedly, they never really got along during the shoot of this film, but in some strange way, this on set tension between director and actor helped produce Vincent Price’s most serious performance. So if you are looking for Vincent Prices hammy acting, you won’t find it here. It’s not only toned down, I would say Price’s hammy acting is non existent on Witchfinder General.

The film got a lot of heat upon its initial release because of its graphic violence. Back in 1968, people apparently didn’t have much resistance towards violence, because they really burnt this one at the stake for its depictions of torture and murder. You might watch this movie today and will probably think that the film needs more graphic violence and gore, but back in the 60s the violence quotient of this film was considered high. Personally, I didn’t think this movie was that violent. The methods of torture portrayed in the film are not the worst they could have chosen to show. There is one scene in which a character gets chopped to death with an axe, apparently this is supposed to be the most amazingly violent moment of the film, but to me it was such a disappointment, it wasn’t very well executed if you ask me, and you can tell the person isn’t really getting chopped up with the axe! The actor seems to be slightly tapping Price with the axe. The film has a rape sequence, but not graphic at all. So this movie isn’t really all that when it comes to violence as reviews and write ups of this movie might make you believe. Maybe at the time of its release it was considered shocking and graphic by people, but it cannot be qualified as such today. Not after the avalanche of torture porn films (like SAW) that we have been submitted to during the last decade.

And finally, my big issue with this movie is the pacing. It’s so dang SLOOOOOW! It drags and drags and drags! We go from one guy riding on a horse through the country something happens, then they get on the horse again and ride through the country side. Then, more shots of dudes riding horses! The thing with the horses bored me to tears. I also think that the violence sequences could have been handled more effectively, with a bit more intensity to them. Though I will say that the last sequence, where they are torturing a girl was effective. For its UK release, the censor boards actually got the screaming on this film edited down because it was so extensive!

Michael Reeves was set to direct The Oblong Box for American International, but that never happened due to Reeves death at the tender age of 25. Great things were expected from him as a film director, but we will never find out, since in my opinion he was half way through his growth as a filmmaker, he never really got a chance to fully mature into full blown cinematic genius. At least he left this film (considered his masterpiece by many) and influenced countless others that came after like Mark of the Devil (1970), and even Ken Russell’s The Devils (1971). And it even helped usher in a new cycle of Poe films like The Oblong Box (1969) and Murders in the Rue Morgue (1971). Also, Cry of the Banshee (1970) which was another American International Pictures production was essentially a rehash of this films storyline, with Vincent Price playing the witchfinder once again, pitting him against a coven of witches.

Finally, this film might interest some people as a historical film, as a form of exposing dark events in history, but as a horror movie or even as a film, I didn’t find it all that entertaining. It might have beautiful cinematography and a stern and more menacing then ever Price, but it was too slow paced and had way too many scenes of people riding horses from here to there.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Twice Told Tales (1963)

Title: Twice Told Tales (1963)

Director: Sidney Salkow

Stars: Vincent Price, Sebastian Cabot, Beverly Garland

Review:

American International Pictures made many anthology movies in the 60s, some of which I have reviewed on this blog already. They were phenomenal successes during those days because they captured that feeling you got from reading one of those old EC comics that were so popular during the 50s and 60s. But this anthology film thing wasn’t an idea exclusive to the folks at American International. United Artist decided they would take a stab at this whole anthology thing business, since it was making so much money at the box office. But they couldn’t do movies based on Poe, because Roger Corman was already doing that. So they decided to go with Nathaniel Hawthorne and adapt some of his stories for the silver screen. How was United Artist’s attempt at making a Roger Corman style anthology flick?

As is expected in an anthology film, it is divided into various tales. On this particular film we have three different stories. I will be reviewing each story separately, since I guess it is a more appropriate manner of reviewing an anthology film.

The first of the stories is entitled Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment and it’s about a man named Sebastian who is celebrating his 79th birthday. So he invites his old friend Alex (Vincent Price) to reminisce about the good old days when they were strapping young lads. At one point Sebastian begins to talk about his fiancé, the one who died the day before they were to be married. You see, Sebastian is a man who never remarried, because the love he had for his fiancé was so strong. His love for her is so strong, that he has her buried in a mausoleum right next to his house! On this particularly stormy night, a lightning bolt has just struck the mausoleum! The door is opened! Could something be amiss? They both decide to visit the old crypt and find Sebastian’s fiancé’s body is completely untouched by the ravages of time! She has not decomposed a bit! Together, Sebastian and Alex are about to discover the mysteries to eternal life! Or are they?

Out of the three stories in this film, this is the one that better captures that feeling from Corman’s Poe films. It takes place in an old mansion next to the sea, there’s a fierce lightning storm outside, and the mansion is filled with old paintings of people who are long gone. There’s an old crypt, a corpse and a morbid tale ensues. Out of the three, I definitely think this is the best one. Too bad the first one is the best one; because that only means that the film goes a bit downhill after this one is through. They kind of like made this first story the spookiest, the coolest, so they can grab you and give you a quick jolt of spooky satisfaction before forcing upon you the two other lackluster stories. But Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment is a fun ride, actually, I think this story might have been the one that inspired Robert Zemecki’s to make Death Becomes Her (1988). The similarities between Death Becomes Her and this little story are astounding! An Elixir of life! A love triangle! Lover’s coming back to life! The Elixir has its downside! I think you will agree with me once you see it.

The second story is entitled Rapaccini’s Daughter and it’s about this old man named Giacomo Rapaccini (Vincent Price). He is a fervent Christian who doesn’t want his daughter to fall into “sin”, so what does he do? He creates a special potion that turns her skin deadly to human touch! In this way, no one will dare touch her and in this way Rapaccini ensures that his daughter doesn’t fall into the shameful sin of fornication or whatever. This becomes a problem for Rapaccini’s Daughter because she cannot kiss or hug anyone! It becomes an even bigger problem when this young guy constantly tries to win her affections, and she falls for him. Will she ever get to be with her loved one? Will her afflicted state ever change or will she remain untouched by human hands for ever?

This story is the least horror oriented of the three. It has some sci-fi elements though. The whole thing with Rapaccini coming up with this concoction that renders his daughters skin untouchable. Things get kind of funny because whenever the girl touches anything, it turns purple and dies! The special potion comes from this weird purple plant that Rapaccini has in his garden, and if anyone touches the plant, they turn purple and die as well! There’s this funny scene where a gerbil turns purple. This story plays out more like Romeo and Juliet than Tales from the Crypt.

Finally, we have House of the Seven Gables, which isn’t actually based on a short story but on a novel of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s. Story is about a family that lives in a haunted house. You see, many years ago, this home use to belong to the Moll family, but they lost the house in a bad deal to the Pyncheon family. Now, the ghost wants revenge!

The film was translated on to comic book form by DELL comics

This story is a ghost story, but it’s delivered in such a cheesy fashion. I really didn’t like this story either. But basically, these two families are fighting over this ancient house, and the rightful owner, who is dead, is pissed off about it. The story does try to end things in a big way by having a scene where the house is literally ripping itself apart and blood is coming out of the walls, the cracks and the ceiling. And a huge earthquake rips the whole house apart. I guess they must have gone through a lot to get that done back in those days, but its still doesn’t save the story from being so-so. On top of that, the ending is so cheesy! A flying skeleton hand flies out and tries to kill Vincent Price! What a rip off! Is this your big finale? A cheap looking skeleton hand? I was so disappointed by this, and was even more surprised to see that this big let down of a sequence actually appears on the films poster. Argh!

In conclusion, this was United Artist’s attempt to do what American International Films was doing so well, but sadly, they failed miserably. I’m sorry to say that Twice Told Tales was a huge let down. I guess that just proves that it’s who’s behind the cameras that matters. And neither Roger Corman nor Mario Bava where involved here. Twice Told Tales was just a badly made imitation of something that AIP was doing right. What did United Artist and director Sidney Salkow think, that just because they borrowed Vincent Price that would automatically make everything alright? Guess what? It didn’t. This isn’t a horrible film, theres some fun to be had here, thanks to Vincent Price. But with the exception of the first story, this one is a step down from what Corman was offering us with his Poe Cycle of films.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Tales of Terror (1962)

Title: Tales of Terror (1962)

Director: Roger Corman

Stars: Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Basil Rathbone

Review:

So this is one of those anthology movies that include three stories in one film. The anthology film was a type of film that became extremely popular during the sixties and seventies due to the ever growing popularity of EC comics line of horror comic books like Vault of Horror and Tales from the Crypt. During those days, British film company Amicus was making anthology films left and right, films like The House that Dripped Blood (1970) and Dr. Terrors House of Horror (1964) were very successful back in those days. Roger Corman’s American International Pictures was not far behind making these types of films, they did quite a few of them. Corman went through what is commonly referred to as his “Poe Cycle” which was that time when he did a bunch of films based on Edgar Allan Poe stories. Most of them didn’t really stick to Poe’ s writings and only used the premises presented in Poe’s stories as a catapult to do his own thing. The films from Corman's Poe Cycle all starred Vincent Price.

On Tales of Terror, the three stories start out with a narration done by Vincent Price himself. Price talks to the sound and image of a human heart beating. Price (in that spooky horror movie voice of his) asks the question: “Have you ever wondered what happens after death?” And so the first story begins, the first one is called “Morella” and it’s about a man who gets visited by his young daughter Lenora. Her father (Vincent Price) hates Lenora because she killed his wife during birth. She refuses to leave even though he emphatically scorns her. Soon Lenora discovers that her father is so obsessed with his dead wife that he has kept her rotting corpse inside of his room! Is there some deeper darker secret to be revealed? You bet your ass there is!

What I loved about this first story is how spooky it is. Roger Corman had a knack for directing these spooky horror films. I love The Fall of the House of Usher (1960) for the same reason: it’s just so damn spooky! It’s a horror movies horror movie. Lots of spider webs, and old mansion at the edge of the sea, corpses, ghosts, dark hallways, the wind blowing, fog, all these elements that make an old school horror movie fun to watch. And this one has all these elements in abundance. This is a good one to watch if you’re in the mood for that sort of old school horror film. It’s the kind of film you’d love to watch on a Halloween night, and this first story is really the one that captures that Halloween like atmosphere the most. This story has some excellent make up effects for its time, and I was surprised to see they even used some visual effects. And very effectively I might add! My only real complaint with this story is that in certain scenes, Corman chose to use stock footage for the exterior of the mansion, he used scenes from Fall of the House of Usher, but really, its no big deal, cause these shots are so effective anyways, and they fit perfectly into the story. This story does fit in the same universe as The Fall of the House of Usher since both stories are extremely similar. But that’s really a minor thing that you probably wont even notice, this story is excellent. Specially when it comes to its more supernatural elements!

The second story is entitled The Black Cat. This one starts Peter Lorre, who worked together with price on various films after this one. Peter Lorre is a drunkard. All he thinks about is drinking drinking drinking! One day, when he runs out of money for drinking, he decides to walk into a wine tasting event, where all these wine connoisseurs are about to present an Expert in wines played by Price himself. Lorre sees this as an opportunity to get a couple of free drinks so he challenges Vincent Price's wine knowledge! Needles to say, they both get extremely drunk that night! Vincent Price ends up taking Lorre to his house, because he is too drunk to walk by himself. When they finally arrive at Lorre’s house, Price and Lorre’s wife decide to kick start a relationship between them, which of course infuriates Peter Lorre and leads him to take drastic measures for revenge.

The film was adapted into comicbook form by DELL comics

Thing about this story is that it’s not Edgar Allan Poe’s The Black Cat every step of the way, it also has elements from another Poe story called The Cask of Amontillado. It basically takes elements from both of these stories, which is something that Corman did a lot in his Poe Cycle. He would take elements from various Poe stories and made one movie. The Black Cat is told in a very morbid yet funny tone, very black humor type of stuff. Peter Lorre says the funniest puns all through out his evil doings. When Price and Lorre get drunk as skunks, its gold! Specially when it comes to Price's face expressions! Lorre and Price ended up working together again on a couple of films like The Raven (1963) and The Comedy of Terrors (1964). This was the story I liked the least, just because its not as spooky as the other two, and because of its slow pace. Sometimes, this story seemed to stretch things so much it got on my nerves. Sometimes you wish the scene would get to the point already! Its not a bad story, and you will laugh at times, but the pacing killed it for me. Also, the other two stories are so different in tone, that when this one comes in with its dash of comedy, it kind of like doesnt fit in. But its still highly watchable.

The last of the three stories is based on Poe’s The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar and it’s about a dying old man named Valdemar. He has a decease that has him under a lot of pain, so he asks a hypnotist to put him under some kind of trance so that he won’t feel so much pain. The problem comes when Valdemar is hypnotized…and he dies while under hypnosis! So he remains stuck between the world of the living and the world of the dead! What horrors hill he tell us from beyond the grave?

Again, yet another spooky tale. The simple fact that its about a guy stuck in a hypnotic state between the land of the living and the land of the dead, and that he can speak to us from “the other side” is an awesome premise! I got to say, Poe was a genius for coming up with that one! Some might find it cheesy that Valdemar’s spirit talks to us from beyond the grave and that Price’s lips are not moving. All we hear is his voice, like an echo or some sort of ghost talking from the other side. Cheesy or Eeerie? I lean towards eerie myself. Also, it’s cool as hell to see Price as some kind of zombie. Again, this movie surprised me with its make up effects toward the ending of the tale.

The interesting thing about this movie is that it was later remade by George Romero and Dario Argento, that film was called Two Evil Eyes (1999). In it, Romero directed The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar in his very own style and with his very own twists. It starred Adrianne Barbeau as the wife of Valdemar who is after his wealthy inheritance. This movie puts more of an emphasis on the zombie aspect of the story as is expected since Romero was behind the camera. Argento’s version of The Black Cat stars Harvey Keitel as the cat hating photographer of the dead. This story focuses more on the importance of cats in witch folklore. Argento’s version of The Black Cat is a bit more shocking and gory then Peter Lore and Vincent Price comedic version. The only bad thing I can say about Tales of Terror is that some of the more jaded movie watchers might find these movies to be slow in pace. Me? I think they are fun, I love that old school horror atmosphere. As they say, they dont make them like this anymore. Still, for a fun old fashion horror film, with loads of atmosphere and a touch of comedy you can’t go wrong with Tales of Terror.

Rating: 4 out of 5