House of Horrors

This movie is so much better than what I thought it'd be. Both Rondo Hatton as the psycho killer and Martin Kosleck as an artist driven to madness by unkind critics are villains, yet both are sympathetic in a way. What is especially touching is Kosleck's interaction with his pet cat and the closing scene where the cat curls up by his dead body. (Or did he die? The dialogue isn't clear on it.) It was effective and sorrowful.

My sole complaint is the woefully brief appearance of Virginia Christine as Creeper's first victim. I hardly had a chance to recognize her before she was offed. I always enjoy her early film appearances because she was an out and out fox. I would so much have enjoyed seeing her as the tennis model instead. Hubba-hubba!

I first saw this in 1958 on Chicagos Shock Theater.martin koslecks performance is wonderful.please check out his work in the frozen ghost,the mummy's curse and the flesh eaters.

Struggling artist (Martin Kosleck) intends to kill himself but winds up saving the life of serial killer The Creeper (Rondo Hatton) instead. Afterwards, he sends The Creeper out to murder his critics. When another artist (Robert Lowery) is suspected of being the killer, his girlfriend (Virginia Grey) investigates and finds the clues lead to Kosleck and The Creeper. Nice cast, weak script. Alan Napier is fun as one of the critics. This is one of the lesser Universal horror films made at the end of their second horror cycle. It's mainly of interest for Universal completists and those interested in the disfigured Hatton. It's certainly better than Hatton's next (and last) movie, Brute Man.

More than "the creeper" himself ,the real monster is Marcel (a sculptor with a French name meaning "from the angel"!)Martin Kosleck is actually the stand out with his piercing eyes,his banal look and his aspiration for glory ;at the beginning he seems a nice guy feeding his pet cat and coming to a man's rescue.But further acquaintance shows this :he gradually goes nuts and the statue becomes a transparent metaphor for the monster he is creating (a Frankensteinesque relationship,which the ending confirms).

This is also a fierce attack on art critics "who judge works but do not know they are judged by them "(Jean Cocteau),a subject which "theatre of blood" will resume in the seventies.

Lunacy abounds...mostly amongst the few comments about this b-picture gem, but to that later. In this horror film, the lunacy of artist Martin Koslek directing the killer tendencies of Rondo Hatton to dispatch unfavorable art critics is inspired. It's quite a contrast to watch Koslek be wonderfully melodramatic while Hatton remains as flat as a board, which is perfect for his character. All this is done within the context of the period, and with all the elements mixing in a way to create, perhaps serendipitously, a chilling and vastly entertaining blend.

To the dimwits who have not been able to see beyond the constraints of their modern attitudes and mores, you are missing it. Rondo Hatton did not "intensely dislike" his brief career as a film fright figure, he was indifferent to it, and the prevailing common attitude towards working women in 1940s America was that they eventually would become married, stay-at-home mothers. The film isn't 'anti-feminist' at a time when the term feminist wasn't used, and when both men and women, not all but most, felt this way of life was appropriate.

So to you dunces I say, march onward, great re-writers of history, and make sure you burn Birth of a Nation, and continue to press Disney to never release Song of the South. Perhaps we ought to ban the Three Stooges, as well, for their insensitive, boorish portrayal of the common working man, and of course, to add insult to injury, they were also Jewish.