BA_Harrison Housewife Edith Eastwood (Yvonne Mitchell) decides to rid herself of her cruel, domineering husband Walter (Michael Gough), enlisting the help of her wayward teenage daughter Jane (Sharon Gurney, who looks more than a little like Emma Watson to me, and who provides the film with a little gratuitous nudity). Together, the pair carry out a scheme to poison Walter, but are shocked when his body mysteriously vanishes, only to repeatedly turn up in the most unlikely of places.British chiller Crucible of Horror blatantly uses French horror classic Les Diaboliques (1955) as its template, but fails to achieve that film's level of atmosphere or nail-biting suspense, a dreary pace and just a little too much horribly dated '70s psychedelia making it a less than satisfying experience. The film also manages to completely fluff the ending, delivering a 'WTF?' final act that will leave the viewer wondering if they have somehow accidentally restarted the film. My guess is that everything we have seen in the film has been wishful thinking on the part of the browbeaten wife, a broken woman's daily fantasy; if that is the case, then it's a massive cop-out. If I'm wrong, then the director's real intent is difficult to fathom. Either way, the film is a dud.3.5 out of 10, rounded up to 4 for Gough, who plays the role of British bastard to perfection.

Ben Larson AKA Crucible of Horror, this movie is a psychological thriller about a sadistic husband and father who plays cruel mental and physical games with his family. When the mother and daughter (Sharon Gurney) have finally decided that they've had enough, they turn the tables on this brutal bully and give him a taste of his own medicine.For tight, merciless tension and venom, this bloodless movie is uncommonly effective and engrossing. Sharon Gurney is also engrossingly naked, however briefly.It is one of those films that would be enjoyed by those who grew up on VHS cassettes, but younger views who do not have low budget experience will likely find it tedious.

BloodTheTelepathicDog Might be spoilers This film focuses on the odd relationship of an affluent British family that could easily be described as "dysfunctional." The mother (Mitchell) locks herself away in the house to work on her paintings, the father is obsessed with order and cleanliness, the son is his old man's lap dog and the daughter (Gurney) is the oddest of the lot. After father (Michael Gough) is informed that his daughter has robbed the country club's golf shop, he beats her with a bit of wood. The following morning mother and daughter decide to rid themselves of the domineering patriarch.The women refuse to attend the family's weekend retreat at their isolated cottage so father heads out by himself for some hunting and relaxation while his son Rupert (SImon Gough) stays in the city to hobnob with clients. The cottage becomes a sanctuary for daddy who hunts birds and listens to classical music without the intrusion of his irrational female family members. But the two dames show up unexpectedly with intentions of poisoning dear old dad and setting up the scene as a suicide. But the women's plans were not well thought out and when they return to the cottage, believing that they killed the old man, they find his bed neatly made and his corpse missing.STORY: $$$$$ (Olaf Poolay writes a very strong story with exceptional characterization. This is a real horror movie that focuses on the inner terror rather than an outwardly psycho with a hatchet. What begins as a sort of a feminist's dream--women standing up for themselves and demanding personal freedom--evolves into a statement on female irrationality. The two women yearn for the shackles of the man's world to be removed but once they are taken off, they have no direction--no purpose. I can see how women could hate this movie).ACTING: $$$$ (The acting is top notch all around. Michael Gough is brilliant as the father. He expertly plays this demanding character and the viewer gets the sense that he has started a family not because he wanted a wife and children but because that is what is expected of respectable men. He is far more content alone at his cottage and even busying himself at work than he is around his wife and daughter, who are a constant source of annoyance. Yvonne Mitchell is equally strong as the passive mother who devises the plan to murder Michael Gough but needs the support of her daughter to carry it off. Sharon Gurney showed quite a bit of talent as the eccentric daughter but her career never took off. She does a stellar job with the tortured, misunderstood young lady role).NUDITY: $$ (Very little here. There are a few breast flashes from Sharon Gurney but nothing gratuitous. She is shown skinny-dipping in a creek when Michael Gough catches her and beats her. It is his goal to make certain that she doesn't fall for some "shaggy-haired lay-about.")

FieCrier This is kind of a remake of Diaboliques. It involves a strict, and in some respects monstrous, man terrorizing two of the women in his life. They resolve to kill him and do, but his body disappears, and then they start getting some clues suggesting he is still alive.Even some details from Diabolique are repeated here. For example, the man (Gough) makes a fuss about his wife having to eat all her dinner, and the women drive home at one point with his body in a large container.Unlike Diaboliques, this is not set at a boarding school, but in a family's home. The home is largely that of a wealthy family, though there are a few odd rooms where the walls are covered with soot, and the things kept in the room are in a jumble. The two women are not the man's wife and mistress, but rather his wife and daughter. Apart from a scene where he squeezes a bicycle seat his daughter had been riding, there's not much of a suggestion of incest.The man is strict, and seems to possibly be obsessive compulsive (there are a number of scenes of vigorous hand-washing). However, he beats his daughter with what looks like a cane or a very stiff riding crop after she is caught having stolen fifty Pounds (this is a British film).There are a number of fairly odd camera angles, though nothing particularly inventive. There is some peculiar editing, some shots that last only a few frames, or some such shots repeating things we've seen already. There are some scenes where there are superimpositions, and also some negative or solarization effects. They are all applied in ways that to my mind were simply awkward and not artistic.The ending differs from Diaboliques and the other remakes of that film. It is not particularly satisfying.