VideoXploiter Micheal Gough (Alfred from Batman '89) does a good job at making his character unlikable. You do root for the two damsels as they bungle their way (at first) towards his murder. Speaking of the murder scene, I wasn't sure if this was played for laughs or if the the director was trying to build tension. I suppose it could have been both, in either case I enjoyed the build up. The actress who plays the daughter is very cute. We get some blink-and-you'll miss it nudity from her. The ending was a bit trippy, and felt a bit out of tone with the rest of the film. Overall, it's an enjoyable enough movie to recommend.

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.

Scarecrow-88 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.

manchester_england2004 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.