IN: Review: Ironically, although he can do the "splits", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor.

This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it.

Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous "pommel horse" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits.

Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think.

I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This is an "anthology" horror film. It's made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of Robert Bloch (who wrote for Weird Tales and was personal friends with H.P. Lovecraft, but is most famous for the original story "Psycho"). The quality of the stories is very uneven and I didn't think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all. It would have been better to do it as a comedy like "Comedy of Terrors." Only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way, and it's probably the best of them (the one with Ingrid Pitt). I've seen a few of these Amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was Freddie Francis' "Tales from the Crypt." The anthology style works well for the producers, because it means that they can hire a bunch of "big name" actors, employ them for only one week of shooting or so, and then bring in the next big name. So you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee. But that's very unfortunate for the audience, because the audience would like to see some scenes with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Ingrid Pitt actually acting together. Instead they're stuck in these vignettes by themselves. So let's take them one at a time, briefly.

The first story has Denholm Elliot, who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character. Unfortunately the actor who plays Dominic, the source of the horror, Tom Adams, just looks silly which ruins any possible horror. There's some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though, like the scene where Dominic kills Elliot's psychiatrist. It's the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching, so the whole audience is supposed to shout out "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!" The second story is the one with Peter Cushing. God I love that man so much. Too bad so many of his films, like this one, pretty much stink. In the story he's supposed to be pining away for a long-lost love, and he sees her likeness in a wax museum. It's a completely predictable story that goes nowhere.

Then you have the bit with Christopher Lee, where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch. Again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs. But instead we're supposed to be horrified when Lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil. The actress, Chloe Franks, was pretty good in that type of "Bad Seed" role though.

The last story is kind of amusing... Ingrid Pitt plays an actress and Jon Pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire. That's about all the story has to offer. I was surprised at how bad Ingrid Pitt's English is, I guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films I've seen her in.

Not a very memorable film or one that I would recommend to anyone but horror completists.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: While not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.

To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.

3 out of 10 genetic disorders
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Not the most successful television project John Cleese ever did, "Strange Case" has the feel of a first draft that was rushed into production before any revisions could be made. There are some silly ideas throughout and even a few clever ones, but the story as a whole unfortunately doesn't add up to much.

Arthur Lowe is a hoot, though, as Dr. Watson, bionic bits and all. "Good Lord."
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive