Rainey Dawn Well this is NOT the worst film I've ever seen - If you want a down right bloody awful film try "Hillbillys in a Haunted House (1967)". Crucible of Terror (1971) is not good but it's not all that bad either. The big let down is the ending.The supernatural element in the film is revealed about 20 minutes into the movie by Michael Clare (Lacey) to John Davies (Bolam) about Chi-San (Lay) and this throws a hint about the ending BUT the ending is terrible.I have to agree with other reviewers that the actors are a bit "wooden" but they are not all that bad either. And as far as the story goes it is somewhat interesting - can hold some people's interest until the very end (even if the ending is a bit corny).Not a bad watch late at night if there is nothing else on TV that you care to watch.6/10

Jonathon Dabell If the '50s and '60s were successful times for the British horror film, then there was most definitely a decline in quality in the '70s. Even the Hammer production company found it tough to strike gold in the '70s, eventually calling it quits towards the end of the decade. Crucible Of Terror is a 1971 horror flick from a company called Glendale. It is a very boring film, exactly the kind of dreary drivel that spelled the end for the British horror genre at that time. Stilted dialogue, wooden performances, tedious pacing, laughable "shocks" and absurd plot developments combine to make a film that is wholly ineffective from start to finish. It gets a 2-out-of-10 rating merely because the sheer goofiness of it all is good for a few (unintended) giggles.Struggling art dealer John Davies (James Bolam) needs to make money quickly to clear some business debts that he has run up. His boozy partner Michael (Ronald Lacey) shows him some pictures and sculptures produced by his father, which both men agree are good enough to revive their flagging fortunes. There is, however, one problem: Michael's father, Victor (Mike Raven), is a reclusive and violent madman who does not produce art for fame or profit but rather for personal gratification. Undterred, John persuades Michael to set up a meeting at his father's remote coastal house so that they can negotiate a purchase. Along for the trip are Michael's unhappy wife Jane (Beth Morris) and John's nervy girlfriend Millie (Mary Maude). The house is located near to an abandoned tin mine, closed since a fatal accident and rumoured to be haunted. The whole place seems cursed with an air of dread, and Millie especially is affected by being there - she feels constant unease and has a nagging sense of deja vu that she has been there before. A series of murders further heightens the terror, but who is the killer? The evidence would suggest demented Victor is the one responsible, perhaps planning to restart his weird old hobby of casting dead bodies in bronze. But as the mystery unfolds it becomes apparent that perhaps more supernatural forces are at work.It would not be fair to reveal the solution here, but the answers when they come are stupid rather than clever. If I hadn't heard and seen the ludicrous denouement with my own ears and eyes, I would scarcely believe a film-maker could put such nonsense on film. The film's weaknesses don't end there either. Indeed, Crucible Of Terror could be described as a catalogue of weaknesses, such is its ineptitude on just about every level. All the actors are guilty of terrible performances, ranging from Bolam's lazy non-performance as John to Raven's wide-eyed self embarrassment as the crazy Victor. The plot takes forever to get going and is completely unpersuasive, with several moments that have the viewer shaking their head in disbelief. Perhaps the most illogical moments of all revolve around the murders - in one preposterous sequence, the unseen killer stabs a victim noisily through a changing screen, drags the heavily bleeding corpse to a window, throws it out, and drags it to a nearby car leaving a trail of blood every inch of the way. Incredibly, absurdly, in a house full of people no-one hears any of this taking place and all the blood has vanished by the morning! The worst shortcoming of all, though, is something that is unforgivable in any horror film: an absolute absence of scares. There is nothing remotely frightening or jumpy about Crucible Of Terror, not one moment that genuinely gets the spine tingling or the hairs rising. A shocker without shocks rather negates itself, and Crucible Of Terror is as pointless and ineffective as they come.

bensonmum2 There's as much wasted potential in Crucible of Terror as I remember seeing recently. Part of the film's problem is the muddled plot. Things get off to a decent start with an artist who uses a woman as the base for his bronze sculpture. Think of it as House of Wax without the wax. 99% of the movie follows this plot thread as those around the artist are murdered by a crazed killer. One of the characters says something about some sort of Satanic type stuff, but it's only mentioned in passing. It's a "blink and you'll miss it" type moment. So the ending comes out of nowhere and abandons most everything that's happened by reintroducing the crazy religious stuff in the final five minutes. Huh? Where did that come from? It's got to be one of the worst twist endings I've seen.The shift in gears at the end of Crucible of Terror might have been more palatable had I actually cared about any of the characters by the time it rolled around. For a film that features so many characters being killed, it's terribly dull. Other than watching a lecherous Mike Raven put the moves on anything in a skirt, there's not much going on. Sure, people die, but why should I have cared. None of the characters seemed to notice their friends were going missing.Beyond the plot and the unlikable characters, most of the rest of the movie is just as bad. The editing is sloppy. Characters are killed in rooms that seem to be next to one another, yet no on seems to notice even though the victims scream and make other appropriate noises. The acting is weak. The lisping Mike Raven cannot carry the film. He's a very poor imitation of Christopher Lee. You know you're in trouble when Raven is the best "actor" in the cast. The set design and special effects are bad. I think I could build a more realistic looking forge in my basement. Finally, could Crucible of Terror have included anymore horror clichés? I've seen nutty characters, cars that won't start, and almost everything else in this movie a million times.

Coventry "Crucible of Terror" is potentially interesting but nevertheless poor 70's horror of which the weak storyline constantly bounces back and forth between two popular horror themes; namely the house-of-wax theme and the satanic-cult theme. Especially this last theme was used frequently during the early 70's, with other (and better) titles such as "The Blood on Satan's Claw" and "To The Devil a Daughter". The story of this fun turkey revolves on an art-gallery owner and his gorgeous girlfriend encountering a hugely eccentric sculptor and his messed up family. I'm not sure I understood all the bizarre family relations but I think the artist lives together with his demented wife as well as with his mistress. Meanwhile, he also successfully woos the wife of his alcoholic son... Then there's also this elderly guy living in the same house but I have absolutely no idea what his position is towards the rest of the family. Anyway, one of all these annoying people is a vicious murderer and, even though you absolutely can't see it coming, the revelation of his/her identity is utterly ludicrous! "Crucible of Blood" contains some enjoyable sequences, more particularly the gross murders, but overall it's boring and unoriginal low-budget trash. The female actresses are painfully untalented but look very ravishing and Mike Raven is completely miscast as the womanizing artist. He looks somewhat like a crossover between Christopher Lee and David Carradine but totally lacks the charisma of both. In fact, this "Crucible of Blood" would work a lot better as a British government film to promote the tourist opportunities of Cornwall, because the filming locations are really beautiful and well-illustrated by cinematographer Peter Newbrook. As a shocking horror film, however, it's not the least bit impressive.