User Reviews

I've always enjoyed this film, better known under the export title CRUCIBLE OF HORROR than the more descriptive British release title THE CORPSE. Nearly every Gothic horror fan over the age of 30 will remember seeing it on a local late nite creature feature at some point, where it would play along such related fare as CONQUEROR WORM or IT! with the rampaging Golem, though it's more of a psychological drama rather than a full-blown horror outing. But while it may seem slow there isn't a wasted or unnecessary scene in the whole film, which is essentially an update on DIABOLIQUE with a dysfunctional British family dynamic instead of a boarding school.

CRUCIBLE centers on priceless British character actor Michael Gough as the tyrannical, sadistic patriarch of a staid British family. He's the kind of guy who unwinds after a long day by putting on a shirt & a tie to work on the gardening for a bit, then psychologically tortures his long suffering wife and daughter over a thoroughly unappetizing looking dinner. Then maybe a glass of sherry and take the riding crop to the daughter for no good reason. The guy is stuffy, uptight, demented, weird, and heartless, which is all we need to know about him, and Gough does a magnificent job of making us hate his guts.

His son Rupert plays along with the old man, seeming to get a kick out of the mental abuse hurled at his sibling & mum, and in my opinion is the most twisted character in the drama. He works at the insurance firm with his father and likewise relaxes around the house in his tweeds, the two men driven spare by things like a random Kleenex on the night table or the family guns in slight disarray. Their off-hours consist of an endless pursuit of wrongdoings by the women of the house, who in due course get sick of it and plot a murder.

One interesting aspect of the movie that I don't see others raise is the question of who is more evil: The domineering, abusive, sociopathic men of the house, or the women who grind up a bottle of sleeping pills, blend them in with a bottle of cognac and force it down someone's gullet with the aid of a huge funnel? The movie then picks up a bit of steam when the (apparently) dead body first disappears and then begins turning up in odd, inconvenient places at just the wrong moment, say when the nosy neighbor turns up with his bloodhound wondering where the old man has been. A great deal of time is spent with the two women fretting out the night, wondering what will happen next, raising the interesting question of just who is playing whom here, and is there some supernatural force at play or are they just inept killers?

What works with the film is an almost unbearable sense of claustrophobia, comprehensive creepiness and dread, as well as Gough's delightfully nasty performance as the emotionless father. What doesn't work is one of the standard complaints about British horror from the period in which it was made: There are no real fireworks in terms of violence, gore or sexuality. Instead the film's perversity is suggested by a serious of flashbacks & dream sequences that seem to imply a forced incestuous relationship and spousal abuse, all of which is brimming under the surface while never really being elaborated upon. The audience's own polymorphously perverse nature is projected onto the film by such grimace inducing scenes as a father feeling his daughter's bicycle seat to see if it's still warm (ewww!) and a mother regarding her son with quiet resignation after witnessing him slapping around his sister.

And while it isn't very shocking the final climactic scene is one of the strangest sequences in the subgenre of British horror, raising more questions than it answers -- was anybody really murdered at all? If not then why did a particular character go through so much bother to creep everybody out? Was there some sort of a plot in works even before the ladies hatched their murder scheme? And was that a calculated part of this greater plan? The film succeeds by not answering any of these questions and closing on a great Hitchcokian downbeat that would have been undone by having somebody explain what may or may not have happened. Hitchcock would have approved.

5/10

An abusive man(Michael Gough, never failing to serve us someone to easily despise) is supposedly poisoned by his long-suffering wife and daughter who decide to kill him after having stomached enough of his vitriol and corrosive personality. The question is did they truly poison him enough to finish the job? I must admit that "Crucible of Horror" tested my patience; it is the very epitome of slow-moving. The plot takes quite a while to get to the *murder* of Michael Gough (truly a jerk, but his wife and offspring, including a well-treated, spoiled weakling son, aren't exactly saints), 45 minutes, to be exact. We are treated to the tension and misery prevalent inside this family household. "Crucible of Horror" utilizes the oft-used "perfect murder" scenario where a calculated murder doesn't go according to plan, with complicated results for those responsible. Circumstances such as a friend of Walter's coming over to the cottage while the two were hiding the corpse, worried that he will discover what they are up to, finding the body (they had placed Walter's corpse in his bed) in a different place, and listening to the cottage phone ring despite the fact that the cord was unplugged. There's nothing here you haven't seen on "Columbo" or "Matlock", though, and the stories on those shows moved at a better pace, without the lethargy. I do think the film sets the stage well; we feel, right from the get-go, that this family is on the verge of collapse, Walter creating the contempt that exists between father/husband and the ladies under his roof. We get the "disposing of body" scene that may or may not have a chest containing the corpse of Walter, as well as, the aftermath which follows the guilt-ridden mother and daughter, plagued with paranoia that they might not have gotten rid of the tormentor. The conclusion is a depressing one offering the possibility that the tormented may never have freedom from their oppression. God is Gough good at portraying repellent assholes; in this film he really gets under the skin, just his pompous stare and air of superiority are enough to warrant sympathy for those looked down on. The cast is really solid, with Sharon Gurney (probably best remembered for "Raw Meat") as Jane, the daughter who gets a switch beating for stealing and Yvonne Mitchell as the weary, browbeaten wife who seems to have lost her personality after years of living with such a tyrant as Walter. Simon Gough, I believe, elicits bad will from a viewing audience because of his heralded stature in the family, his father's favor the reason we loathe this young man—his Rupert seems oblivious to what his father has done to the other members of the family. There's a prevailing sense of sadness that is palpable, not to mention, the ending provides an even worse feeling of hopelessness.

**SPOILERS** A bit uneven but still interesting family drama with an overly strict father Walter Eastwood, Michael Gough, who's constant mistreatment of the women of his household his wife and daughter Edith and Jane, Yavnnoe Mitchell and Sharon Gurney, leads them to a plan and later make an attempt on his life.

We see earlier in the film how Walter's daughter drives him batty both with her screwing around and her kleptomania. Jane stealing of money from the local Golf Club has the club's manager Gregson, David Butler, show up at the Eastwood residence asking Walter for the money that she took. Gregson also seemed to have something going with the 16 year-old Jane that had nothing to do with putting a golf ball.

We later see that Jane also has something going on with local grease monkey Benjy, Nicholas Jones, who also has the hots for her but only from a distance. Later Walter, after Jane swore that she didn't steal the club's money, finds the stolen money in Jane's wig he gives her the beating of her life.

Even though we never see Walter abuse his wife Edith physically he does treat her as if she's a bit mad. Which we later find out that she is. Later Edith and Jane concoct a plan to murder Walter when he goes out to his country cottage hunting that weekend.

The "plan" doesn't go off well but in the end the two do in the overly drunk, which they made sure that he was, Walter. Leaving his body to be found later in bed dead from an apparent heart-attack. But later as the two murderesses don't get any call from the people that Walter was to meet hunting it's obvious that something went wrong in their hair-brained scheme.

The ending is a bit hard to take but overall the movie "The Corpes" is much better then you would have expected it to be because of the top notch acting by all involved in it, even the dog Sam did a good job of "acting". There were a number of really good dream-like sequences in the movie involving Edith that showed just who mentally unstable she was. There's also a flashback where we see Walter, again, brutally beat Jane in a lake with her almost nude.

Walter himself seemed to have this "Mister Clean" faddish where he would vigorously wash his hands every time he touched something or someone he felt had germs or dirt on it, or them. Walter's son Rupert, Simon Gough, was the only one in the family that he didn't abuse since he felt that he lived up to the very high standards that he set for his family members. Rupert was a combination insurance salesman and stock broker.

This seemed a much better film in premise than it ended up being in reality. It's an absolute disaster, despite good acting from the solid main cast. The story is repellent and the main character, played well by Michael Gough, a complicated character who is nonetheless absolutely repugnant and gets what he deserves...except through some extremely contrived circumstances...well, actually I have no idea what actually was supposed to be conveyed by the final half-hour or so, because so many dead-end characters and plot points were brought up and then went nowhere and did nothing. Frankly, I don't quite see what the ending even accomplished. Were we then supposed to believe that, just because the jackass managed to cheat death once -- somehow -- that they couldn't just do the job right this time?

This was a pretty significant example of a script that desperately needed some revision. It thinks it's far more clever and poignant than it is. It only ends up being incoherent, inexplicable, and asinine; points of continuity are brought up and then, not five minutes later, are seemingly forgotten about, as if they had never happened, or contradicted by something explicitly shown. Not much actually does happen in the film, so any viewer will likely be spending more time picking out the inconsistencies and plot holes than actually appreciating any part of the film itself.

Please don't waste your time with this film. While it does have the incomparable Michael Gough, he was really and truly wasted on this piece of offal. If this film were forgotten tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost. It's a shame, because it's an interesting premise, but it is so incapably handled that it ends up being only a waste of time, and not a satisfying one in the slightest.

This having solid quality actors didn't have one ingredient, a good script.

It's all over the place and 50 mins in before anything f significant happens, rather slow.

The story.

Mother & daughter in a rich country house plot to murder bullish controlling husband, from then things take a turn.

THE CORPSE is one of Michael Gough's almost entirely unknown masterpieces. In fact the film is so unknown that one is only likely to come across it by accident on the IMDb like I did.

Unlike most horror films, where the villains are monsters, vampires or masked serial killers, this film focuses around a typical British upper middle-class family. The plot line seems straightforward – a cruel and sadistic man is murdered by his wife and daughter, and the murder is made to look like suicide. But, all is not what it seems as is revealed later in the film. The body mysteriously keeps disappearing and reappearing in different places, and disconnected phone lines suddenly become reconnected. I won't give away the ending not because I believe it would spoil the film, but because I don't understand it.

As another reviewer has pointed out, the film creates a chilling atmosphere through the use of suspenseful music, dream sequences, flashbacks and psychological violence. In fact, it is the psychological torment that the father inflicts on both his wife and daughter that makes the film disturbing. Only one major scene of actual violence is shown in the film and that is the one where the father beats his daughter with a riding crop as a punishment for stealing money. And this scene isn't explicit. The scene cuts to and from the bedroom where the daughter is being beaten in a very-paced scene, which makes the scene more disturbing as the audience is left to ponder over what is happening. It is one of the best scenes I have seen in a horror film.

The acting is top notch. Michael Gough excels in what is perhaps his best performance as the ultra-conservative, cruel, sadistic patriarch Walter Eastwood. Yvonne Mitchell is also brilliant as his psychologically tormented wife, Edith. Even Sharon Gurney gives a great performance as Eastwood's daughter, Jane. Sadly, the excellent performances provided by these stars did not seem to open doors to other similar projects at the time. Michael Gough spent the rest of the decade making trashy films such as HORROR HOSPITAL. Yvonne Mitchell made only a couple of films before her untimely demise in 1979. And Sharon Gurney's future career was mostly restricted to television before seemingly disappearing completely from acting in 1973.

The audience gets a real feel for the characters, particularly Edith and Jane, through the use of dream sequences and flashbacks that delve into their thoughts. The introduction of the sequence showing Walter Eastwood at the exterior of the house in the garden before going inside almost acts as an invitation to the audience to see what is happening in this seemingly ordinary household. The film starts with a few references to suggest that Walter Eastwood is an over-protective father. But as each scene progresses, he starts to reveal his true colours, and the audience can clearly see that he is more than a little over-protective. The impact of his cruelty is unbelievable. The audience can almost feel the tears about to come out of Jane's eyes in a scene where she witnesses Eastwood reading one of her private letters at the family dinner table before proceeding to tear it up smugly without even showing it to her.

Those who only know Michael Gough as Alfred the Butler from the Batman films of the 1990s would certainly be in for a surprise if they saw this film.

The ending seems to be the one thing that lets the film down. It is perhaps the most confusing I have ever seen.

I give the film 8 out of 10 for an excellent effort by both the crew and the actors.

Michael Gough plays a man who routinely berates his wife and his daughter--sometimes even beating them. They've had enough, kill him and dump the body. However they start realizing that they may have not killed him...or is it his vengeful ghost coming to take revenge?

Yup--it's a British redo of the French classic "Diabolique". As with most remakes this is pretty terrible. There's absolutely no reason to remake "Diabolique" at all. Over here in the US it was remade AGAIN in 1996. That version was bad but this is much much worse. It's slow, dull, poorly directed and thoroughly predictable. Also the ending is handled so badly that most people won't have a clue as to what just happened! It has a great cast (Michael Gough is magnificent as usual) but it's just so poorly made you won't care. Unless you're dying to see every ripoff of "Diabolique" you can safely skip this.

"Even when they talk about murdering someone, they are BORING!". That is what my daughter said when she gave up and left the room while watching "The Corpse"...and frankly, I can't blame her. After all, this is supposed to be a scary film but it turned out to be very talky and tepid. Often the creepy music is more interesting than the action (or lack thereof) in this movie.

Michael Gough plays the very, very controlling and angry head of a stuffy British family. He intimidates, demeans and abuses his family. As for the daughter, he lashes her brutally (there sure is an interesting sexual undertone to this). And the wife is like a whipped puppy. Eventually, the two have had enough and decide to kill the guy. What happens next? The body disappears! Now doesn't all that SOUND fantastic to watch? Yep...but it wasn't. Dull, talky and poorly acted in several cases. This is just a bad film and should be avoided unless you like dull films....dull, dull, dull. Did I mention that it was dull?!

A wealthy man's wife and daughter plot to kill the nasty brute who is greatly abusive to the both of them. Taking this past the plot line of the cult French film "Diabolique", this brings on a horror element to a familiar plot and ties mother and daughter together in a way that binds them externally. The only real shocker is their inability to dispose of Gough's corpse as it keeps showing up again

Michael Gough, the talk and lanky British character actor, played many villains in his career, and this one is one of the most despicable. Yvonne Mitchell and Sharon Gurney give crafty but sensitive performances as two women you truly root for to get away with their crime. There's a lull between the murder and the repercussions, and with a spoiled son in danger of discovering their secret, this lull brings on a great level of suspense.

It's funny to see how much Michael Hough resembles Anthony Perkins who played his share of horror villains himself. This is more a psychological thriller than a horror movie, and for that, this really doesn't belong in horror movie DVD collections. Michael's son Simon plays his son here, although this is isn't a really large part.

I saw this film under the title "Crucible of Horror". To be clear, a crucible does make it's appearance in the early going when Jane Eastwood (Sharon Gurney) mixes some sort of potion, then it's never to be seen again. Like many reviewers on this board, I too sensed a similarity to the 1955 French film "Diabolique". However that picture was a masterful story of suspense that kept you on the edge of your seat for a final resolution. Here, when the dead Walter Eastwood (Michael Gough) turns up near the end of the story, you wind up scratching your head as to what you just watched for almost an hour and a half. Was it a dream, or a hallucination on the part of wife Edith Eastwood (Yvonne Mitchell)? There were certainly enough nightmarish sequences as part of Edith's reveries to suggest some sort of tragic outcome. Instead, the tragic outcome is that director Victors Ritelis didn't really provide one. Nevertheless the film did inspire a humorous moment to my mind, strictly as a matter of timing for catching the picture. With all the hand washing Walter Eastwood did, you would think he was trying to avoid the corona virus.

This spooky little chiller has zero budget and lots of effect. The ever-dependable Michael Gough puts in a thoroughly nasty turn as a tyrannical husband who enjoys whipping his daughter and subjecting his family to a reign of terror. The atmosphere at the dinner table in this nightmarish family is palpable; and I'm sure far too close to home for some viewers.

Yet another forgotten gem of British cinema, this is a highly effective little film which has the powerful ability to scare if you watch it alone at night with the lights out (like I did). An atmosphere is built up thick with growing dread as the film progresses, and when Gough is murdered, it reaches breaking point. The build-up makes all the shock scenes all the more frightening when they do occur, even if they are rather clichéd some of the time (yes, it's the branch crashing through window scare again!).

What it may lack in budget and special effects this film more than makes up with ambition. A tight script keeps things moving along nicely and roots the film firmly in reality, but it's the acting which really makes this film stand out. Apart from Gough's awesome performance, Yvonne Mitchell is a picture of grief and despair, while Sharon Gurney gives a multi-layered character to her Jane. It's a very slow-moving film, but worth it, as when the ghostly things start to happen, they're in the league of things like THE HAUNTING OF JULIA: small, seemingly insignificant things happen, yet they're absolutely terrifying (I especially liked the bit where characters are ringing a house only to realise they unplugged the phone while they were there). The twist ending is pretty disturbing too; I urge all fans of more psychological-orientated horror to track this film down as it's definitely worth it.