If you can't settle on what one movie to watch at any time then you may as well pick an anthology movie. That is my motto . . . that I just made up for the sake of starting this review with some kind of justification for my choice here. But there's some truth to it. I always tend to enjoy anthology horrors whenever I stumble across one that I have yet to see, and the format allows me to remain optimistic even if one segment isn't working for me. Not every anthology is a winner though, and Tales That Witness Madness is one of the bad ones, which perhaps explains why I never made time for it before now.
The framing device may sound familiar to those who are fans of a certain other, much more celebrated, anthology horror film from the mighty Amicus (and it should be noted that this is decidedly NOT an Amicus film, despite sharing certain qualities). A psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) is guiding a new colleague (Jack Hawkins) around the Asylum he is due to work in, and tales are told that show a number of key patients being housed there after incidents that would appear to feature the supernatural.
Although I was unfamiliar with writer Jennifer Jayne (credited here as Jay Fairbank), I was very familiar with director Freddie Francis, a legendary figure in British cinema who worked well as a director on films of highly varying quality, but who is also celebrated for his cinematography in films he didn't helm (perhaps most notably on The Elephant Man). Francis did some of his best work throughout the 1960s, especially when working with Hammer or Amicus, and initially seemed as if he was going to do just as well throughout the 1970s, but 1973 feels like the starting point for a downward slide. This may have been due to a lack of the right material, or it may have been the case that Francis was floundering, alongside many colleagues from the big British studios that he worked with, as great changes in the tastes and limits of acceptability rippled throughout the average horror movie viewers.
Aside from Jayne and Francis, this suffers from having a cast that just doesn't have enough star power to make up for the quartet of weak tales. Hawkins and Pleasence are very good, but sadly not onscreen enough, and other positives are Suzy Kendall, Joan Collins (hampered by the fact that she's in what is surely one of the most bonkers horror anthology segments ever), Kim Novak, and Leon Lissek. I am not saying everyone else is awful, although one or two are, but they're generally just there, unable to do anything to distract from the poor writing.
I was hoping that I would watch this and then be able to recommend it as a bit of a forgotten gem, but that was not to be. This is dire, although the first tale did remind me of a short story by Ray Bradbury, which gave me a glimmer of hope that was soon dashed, and the third tale (that one featuring Collins) is memorable for the hilarious lunacy of the central concept. Nothing here is really worth witnessing, sadly.
3/10
If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do
consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A
subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share
They sure seemed to do a lot of those anthologies back then. I think a different blog mentioned another one and I remember The House That Dripped Blood. But now I suppose things like that have been relegated to TV, particularly streaming now.
ReplyDeleteI do like The House That Dripped Blood, but Dr. Terror's House Of Horrors remains one of the best :)
Delete