Talk:The House of Fear (1945 film)

message: :Image:Holmeshouse of fear.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Holmeshouse of fear.jpg

message: I don't know. I've never corded. But seriously, folks, Harry Cording "chewed the scenery" in this movie. He was the most impressive character and therefore he "stole the show."Lestrade (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you like Cording?

message: (1)Why was Lestrade in Scotland? This was out of his jurisdiction. Scotland Yard is responsible for London only. (2)The sixth victim was crushed by a rock. Surely he would still have been recognizable. (3)Could a corpse be given an intricate tattoo so easily? (4)Would Dr. Merival unnecessarily allow himself to be given a severe head injury in order to simulate Cosgrave's abduction?Lestrade (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scotland Yard has limited authority in Scotland. In this case, with several suspected murders, a limited local constabulary, it might not be out of place. It's hard to say what they could do or what may be different since the days the movie was made. The head injury need only look serious. Being a doctor, it wouldn't be too difficult, or onerous, especially with a local anesthetic for him to fool even a doctor, who was unsuspecting. It would be mere poetic license to say the body was crushed beyond all recognition; Only glaring logic errors, self-contradiction and the like count as goofs. Likewise the corpse tattoo. The movie holds it possible, we are not shown how intricate the tattoo is, merely told it is well done. A tattoo can be well-done, but simple. But I'd say it would be hard to tattoo a body that had been crushed "to a jelly". But they might have tattooed the body beforehand. "Dear me! What a gruesome thought!" --Alastair. JohndanR (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

text: In the c19, at least, before local constabularies had established their own criminal investigation departments, Scotland Yard detectives would go out into the provinces to work on cases. See, for example, the Constance Kent Case, when Jack Whicher of Scotland Yard went to Wiltshire to investigate. I don't know if detectives ever ventured as far as Scotland, which obviously had and has a different criminal law. Burraron (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

text: There are several loopholes to the timeline. Mrs. Monteith didn't actually give a time when the letter was put under the door "...just like the others."; only after seeing the 'fisherman', who may not have been the same person who originally delivered it, did she see the letter. It need not have been Simpson, either. The other 'deceased' members would still have been able—and from various elements of the story, were active—to do various ancillary acts of skullduggery, after dark. One of them could have surreptitiously gotten the letter from under the door, steamed it in a few minutes, put it back, and perhaps ran away in fear at her approaching footsteps. For misdirection, in case seen, they might want to wear fishermen's garb (with a broad, covering, fisherman's traditional 'souwester' cap to obscure the face). Keep in mind that she said it was pushed under the door "just like the others", which adds weight that the style of delivery indicates the same personnel were involved, rather than the fisherman Holmes questioned.  JohndanR (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes. Half the insurance money would go to Alastair and half to Merivale ("We always pay promptly" --Mr. Chalmers). The only way to collect all of it would have been to simulate his death before Merivale's and keep him kidnapped. Or just really kill him and mutilate his body, as usual. But then Merivale would be the obvious suspect and get arrested.JohndanR (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot holes

message: Captain Simpson's tobacco container is in the metallic form of a cocker spaniel. Typical of most 1940s films, tobacco use is shown and mentioned throughout the movie and its presence is an important component of the plot. This is similar to the alcohol of the 1930s and the drugs of the 1970s. Transgender cross–dressing has been perennially featured in films from the beginning of cinema, at first as a mere comic element.Lestrade (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tobacco container