Though not every feature is equal, the 60s and 70s were a golden age of British horror. Hammer may have the most name recognition, but they hardly had (or have) a monopoly, as Amicus ably proves not least of all with their anthology films. One segment to the next may vary great in terms of not just the genre subject matter, but also the style of horror at play. 'Dr. Terror's House of Horrors' is a splendid example of the strength of such films, and I think it's surely among the strongest entries in Amicus' loose series.
It's quite a remarkable cast assembled here, with very strong production design, art direction, and fundamental film-making craft to match the star power. Across the board this is very well made, including excellent props and modest but fine effects - though in this instance I dare say it's the writing and direction that stand out the most. Milton Subotsky's screenplay is an utter joy from start to finish, wonderfully clever in its dialogue, characters, scene writing, and narratives. Even the wraparound framing is a blast, not least as it smoothly and naturally transitions to and from the stories with a story. Each tale is exquisitely dark and compelling in their own different ways as they toy with different concepts, or similar concepts with distinct twists. It's rather hard to pick a favorite, though if forced to choose I'd be inclined to say either "Creeping vine" or "Voodoo" earn the most favor, given their delightful broader implications. And further elevating the rich detail in the contributions of Subotsky, the cast, and all those behind the scenes, Freddie Francis' direction is solid and steady. It's clear he possessed superb command of the medium, for every shot and scene is orchestrated with graceful finesse that compensates for any indelicacies.
And as to those indelicacies - one might argue there's a noteworthy error in continuity at one point. More detrimental to the viewing experience, in my opinion, is the unquestionable ham-handedness that pops up in a couple instances, rather breaking with the overall grim but generally even-handed tone that the feature had been cultivating from the start. I think these are ultimately minor considerations, mind you, but just a smidgen more mindfulness would have made the film all but flawless. And even at that, by and large 'Dr. Terror's House of Horrors' is marvelously fun: both among Amicus' anthology flicks, but I believe also among the niche genre at large, I this might well be one of the best examples. It might be imperfect, but only marginally so, and between the cast and writing alone this is worthwhile, to say nothing of its excellence otherwise. I'd have no qualms recommending this to anyone who appreciates horror on any level, it's a great time, and still holds up very well almost 60 years later.
It's quite a remarkable cast assembled here, with very strong production design, art direction, and fundamental film-making craft to match the star power. Across the board this is very well made, including excellent props and modest but fine effects - though in this instance I dare say it's the writing and direction that stand out the most. Milton Subotsky's screenplay is an utter joy from start to finish, wonderfully clever in its dialogue, characters, scene writing, and narratives. Even the wraparound framing is a blast, not least as it smoothly and naturally transitions to and from the stories with a story. Each tale is exquisitely dark and compelling in their own different ways as they toy with different concepts, or similar concepts with distinct twists. It's rather hard to pick a favorite, though if forced to choose I'd be inclined to say either "Creeping vine" or "Voodoo" earn the most favor, given their delightful broader implications. And further elevating the rich detail in the contributions of Subotsky, the cast, and all those behind the scenes, Freddie Francis' direction is solid and steady. It's clear he possessed superb command of the medium, for every shot and scene is orchestrated with graceful finesse that compensates for any indelicacies.
And as to those indelicacies - one might argue there's a noteworthy error in continuity at one point. More detrimental to the viewing experience, in my opinion, is the unquestionable ham-handedness that pops up in a couple instances, rather breaking with the overall grim but generally even-handed tone that the feature had been cultivating from the start. I think these are ultimately minor considerations, mind you, but just a smidgen more mindfulness would have made the film all but flawless. And even at that, by and large 'Dr. Terror's House of Horrors' is marvelously fun: both among Amicus' anthology flicks, but I believe also among the niche genre at large, I this might well be one of the best examples. It might be imperfect, but only marginally so, and between the cast and writing alone this is worthwhile, to say nothing of its excellence otherwise. I'd have no qualms recommending this to anyone who appreciates horror on any level, it's a great time, and still holds up very well almost 60 years later.