The House That Dripped Blood (1971)

Just a short drive away is a beautiful old house, seemingly perfect for any owner. Yet everyone who takes up residence there soon falls victim to terrible things. Madmen from their minds coming into reality, little girls practice witchcraft, and clothing turns horror actors into real vampires. Do you dare take a room yourself?...

The House That Dripped Blood is an anthology film from Amicus, one of the bigger genre studios in Britain next to Hammer. The title is a great one, promising some classic bloody horror, and for the most part the film doesn't disappoint! It's a spooky picture, with enough variety to keep you entertained.

The film is divided into 4 short segments, plus a framing story, based on the tales of Psycho author Robert Bloch. Each are fairly decent in their own right, running at good lengths. A problem some anthology pictures have, especially ones with more stories, is that they were often too short. Here though they run at about 20-25 minutes. A quick, easily digestible time, that also doesn't shortchange the viewer. Each segment has a small batch of characters that never get mixed up, and a beginning, middle, and end. They definitely could have been longer, but never feel rushed.

Method for Murder is a nice and simple story. A writer moves to a new house for inspiration, and finds it with new character Dominic. He has a clear image of this mad strangler in his head! But unfortunately he starts seeing Dominic wherever he goes.

Dominic is a great looking villain, armed with a repulsive grin. At first we're not sure if he's real, or only in the author's mind, and perhaps he's the one doing all the strangling. He goes to visit a psychiatrist after an incident with his wife, and tells how he feels...All the while Dominic strangles the doctor. He comes across as hilariously unobservant in that scene! There's getting swept up in your story, and then there's loving the sound of your voice so much that you don't notice your psychiatrist being strangled to death!

Sure enough there's a big reveal that changes everything. The story has a bit of a downer for the poor writer, but there's a great twist of lemon, and its a great macabre note to end on.

Waxworks starts out quite interesting, giving us a character piece following Philip Grayson, a lonely man in search of comfort. His journey leads him to a small wax museum in the city, which includes a familiar statue. Shocked to find his old love in this house of horrors, he flees, but he can't help but return, especially after the arrival of an old friend, who was equally enamoured with this woman. Their twin obsession leads them both to disaster.

The positives to this story is the effective tone, and the surreal nature it takes at times. Feeling inspired by House of Wax, there's some great imagery. Although a notable failure is the waxwork of this irresistible woman. While in the photo there's an ethereal beauty to her, the wax sculpture just looks frigid and unconvincing, not to mention nothing like the woman in the photo! How such an unappealing sculpture is able to capture these men so much is baffling.

The story is the weak point. The more it goes on, the less sense it makes. We never find out the backstory between this woman and our two leads, and I wondered why she rejected the advances of these good guys in favour of a ratty unpleasant psycho who murdered people with an axe! Also, if these men loved her so much, and knew she died, how come they didn't know the homicidal circumstances of her passing?

The segment portrays the obsessions of the lonely well, but much of Grayson's character arc from the beginning feels ignored as we go on. His friend is a likeable guy, and they have chemistry. The climax is disappointing though! Grayson gets an unceremonious death that does nothing for his arc. The only saving grace is it's not as underwhelming as his friend's offscreen death. How he was found, decapitated, and encased in wax, all within the span of what must've been 5 or 10 minutes is mind-boggling. Even cleaning the floor of all the blood would take longer than that!

And lastly, one thing Waxworks completely fails to do however is have anything to do with the titular house! Any scenes in the house feels just like just another location, with no effort put into making it spooky or atmospheric, while the demented waxworks museum gets the most attention. When the framing story returns, the local policeman is insisting this is further proof that the house is evil, but we don't see it at all.

Sweets to the Sweet is possibly the best segment in the film. A stern father hires a governess for his seemingly innocent daughter, in order to keep her away from other children. His behaviour becomes crueler, such as burning a new doll in front of her. The governess is appalled by this, but he insists he has a reason.

The story has very good pacing. At first it doesn't even seem like a horror movie, except for some off touches, like Reid's treatment of his daughter, or Jane's curious fear of fire. A benefit of the short length is that when he goes "I'll explain it all later, in good time", he actually means it! All too often in films do characters say that as an excuse to pad out the film longer, but here we get a proper explanation.

Sweets shows the folly of good intentions gone wrong, and it's the kind of story that's almost hard to watch, in an effective way. If only Mr. Reid was a good father, might everything go ok? Jane might not be genetically evil, but could go on to be a productive member of society, if only she has a positive upbringing. Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for us viewers, things lead to a ghoulish and perfectly fitting ending.

The Cloak finally brings us to the mystery the police in the framing story are investigating. The disappearance of actor Paul Henderson. He's an arrogant diva, thinking he knows best and treating others like mud. After being bitterly disappointed with this latest film's costuming, he takes it upon himself to find a nice old cloak that looks really lived in. Or died in. He soon finds just the thing, but whenever he puts on the cloak, strange things happen, and he realises it turns him into a vampire.

This segment is more humourous, but the comedy is dry enough that it's not too jarring. It helps that it's the characters here who provide the laughs, not the story itself, which is taken seriously. In only a short time we get a great showcase of Paul Henderson, a hammy actor who's proud of being a horror star like all the old greats (leading to a hilarious comment about Dracula). It's also fun seeing the behind-the-scenes work that goes into horror films.

In terms of story, not much actually happens here. Guy buys a cloak, makes him act funny, vampires, The End. But it never feels dull. Paul does come off as a bit of an idiot in how he keeps putting the cloak back on! It's not because he's addicted or anything, but like he just wants to be sure he's not mistaken. Nope, one 'almost turned into a vampire' scare would be quite enough for me, thank you, I wouldn't ask for a repeat performance!

The ending is a little confusing. Was it the cloak turning people into vampires, or were they already here? Or both? Also, Paul amusingly breaks all of the horror rules in his final scene! He doesn't go for the easily accessible door, he runs up the stairs, and for a seasoned horror veteran who feels the need to keep reminding us of how much he knows, he never tries to fight back.

And lastly, there's the framing story, where Inspector Holloway discusses the case with fellow officers, and enigmatic real estate agent Stoker. It's ok, although some of the events that take place you wonder how they know. This is especially true for the final story, when everything involving the cloak, and Paul's vampiric fate, is completely unknown! How the hell does a real estate man have this one file??

The real estate agent supposedly warns people about the house, but the grin on his face and the signed title deed in his hand suggest otherwise. He often asks things like "Haven't you worked out its secret yet?". Maybe stop talking in riddles and just tell people that if they stay here they'll die horribly! I did like his scene at the end of the film, where he addresses the audience, asks us if we've worked out the house's secret...and he actually tells us! I'm not sure it's the best explanation, or makes much sense, but I still appreciate actually being told upfront instead of staying obtuse.

And this brings me to the film's biggest problem. For all the talk we get, the house doesn't do anything. The first story I could maybe believe the house had some influence, but the second, third, and fourth stories all have the evil coming from an outside influence, and in one the murders happen somewhere else altogether. The house isn't to blame at all! The worst instance of this besides Waxworks is right after Sweets, when Stoker completely undermines the ending by saying "The father wasn't to blame, nor was the child, or what they believed was happening. It was the house!". Yeah, sure! I bet he's just a scam artist, trying to keep the place for himself at a reduced price...

The direction in The House That Dripped Blood is superb! It's one of the best looking Amicus productions, and has a great atmosphere. Most impressive is the frequent presence of daylight, and how the atmosphere remains. There is one notable flaw though-Where's the blood?! I don't mind that it's not a gory picture, especially since that would've gotten in the way of the spooky Gothic tone, but for a film called The House That Dripped Blood I at least expect a few drops of the stuff!

The editing does let the movie down in parts. Every time a story ends it's too abrupt! The music, though, is pretty good, and makes good use of ambient sounds. It's pretty much the only thing we ever get making the house seem scary, when it otherwise never does anything.

The cast in House That Dripped Blood is packed! We get stars such as Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Denholm Elliot, Joss Ackland, and more. Everyone delivers good performances, whether a big-name actor or small, and many of the smaller ones hold their own when interacting with these giants. Chloe Franks impresses as the creepy little girl. Jon Pertwee is lovably unlikeable in his role, and can pop his eyes like no other man in the 70s (though the faces he makes once a vampire verge on the silly side), while famed vampire sexpot Ingrid Pitt doesn't stray too far from her usual offerings here, which is indeed a good thing! And Geoffrey Bayldon is amusingly over-the-top, but the more comedic tone of that segment justifies this performance.

Overall, The House That Dripped Blood may have a few flaws, but otherwise is a fine example of the heights Gothic horror in Britain soared to during the 1970s...