VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Burkettonhe This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

davidcarniglia A surprisingly entertaining thriller. Although it's clearly derivative of Psycho, Castle does a masterful job balancing suspense, plot, and a few doses of camp in Homicidal. There's plenty going on throughout: something does seem off with Warren, but I didn't figure out his masquerade until nearly the end; Helga is miserable the entire time; and Emily seems not to be done killing after the first stabbing.Psycho, on the other hand, has much less continuity. It seems like two stories mashed into each other; Hitchcock's heroine has no ties to the killer, she just happens to check into his motel. Then the Bates motel takes over the plot. But in Homicidal, Emily and/or Warren are the focus from the beginning; only the bellhop's character recedes into the background.Like the Bates motel, the mansion in Homicidal plays a central role, even in the prelude showing Miriam and Warren as kids. Helga is a sort of haunting presence, well before the headless staircase descent. Hitchcock uses the skeletal mother's appearance for the same shocking effect to cap off Psycho. But Castle out-creeps Hitchcock with the Warren/Emily transformation (the bi-sexuality wouldn't be a big deal now, but using it as a cover for murder is something else). Bates wanted his mother to live on in his imagination, but Emily literally was Warren.I find that the plot does make just enough sense; it does seem weird that Miriam wouldn't be aware that Warren was really Emily, but maybe, since they were half-siblings, we're to understand that there were gaps in their relationship that could sustain the mystery.The short 'intermission' before the culminating scene didn't seem out of place to me. It does imply familiarity with the horror/suspense genre in that era, and particularly with Castle's plot devices. As other reviewers have said, this is the sort of movie that sent kids behind couchs. It's full of nightmares.

TheRedDeath30 William Castle is, most often, known for his wild promotional gimmicks such as Percepto and Illusion-o that helped to sell a lot of tickets and make him one of the more successful horror film icons of his day. Too often, though, in the annals of horror history, Castle is relegated to mere carnival barker, a genius at hocking his wares to the masses, but it's less common that people actually praise his direction. I have always considered Castle to be one of the most important horror directors of his day. I have a list on this site of best horror directors and think I place him higher than most would. Movies like HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL and 13 GHOSTS are classics of the genre and continue to be entertaining movies even devoid of the gimmicks.This is not one of Mr. Castle's best efforts, but it is still far above most of the drive-in schlock being released at the time. The obvious knock against this movie is that it's a blatant copy of PSYCHO. Let's face it, Hollywood has always been a place where studios repeat what's been successful. For every SCREAM, there is an I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER. At times, though, this movie crosses the line from merely aping the same formula to pretty much stealing a few scenes outright, most notably in the explanation scene right after the big reveal. It's almost uncomfortable in how close it skews to PSYCHO. Of course, that big reveal is also very similar to Hitchcock's film. I don't want to say too much more about that aspect of the movie, though anyone with half a brain is going to figure it out long before the movie reveals it.I believe that the unoriginality of the film is what has relegated it to the more obscure corners of the horror film library, but it's not without its' merits as well. Castle knew how to make a film, without a doubt, and the editing as well as the shot selection are still well done. The more never drags and, more importantly, never feels ridiculous or cheap. This is the work of people who were not just shoving out movies for a quick buck but put honest effort into their work. The acting from the main character is the real icing on the cake, though, as she had to carry the film. While certainly no Anthony Perkins, she does an admirable job with a complicated part.Of course, we do get a Castle gimmick, though not one of his most memorable ones. If you're new to Castle, then please check out his classics, but if you've seen those and you're willing to dive a little deeper, this is well worth the view.

mark.waltz That's how much time you have at the end to get to the coward's corner! But in the meantime, there's a brutal blonde murderess, an effeminate young man, a mute old lady constantly banging her cane, a justice of the peace who knows too much, and a sister that is simply in the way.You'll have a good time here, even if you (as I did) figure it all out before the fright break. It is presented as total camp, unapologetically and the result is a "Psycho" for dummies. But like that series of training books, the result is unpretentious fun. Veteran stage actress Eugenie Leontovich gives an award worthy performance, not only brilliantly banging her cane, but descending a stair-side elevator at the same time while mumbling silently. Jean Arless is quite an intriguing femme fatal, a girl with something extra.You may actually find the dysfunctional family drama here quite intriguing, sort of a Shakespeare tragedy meets the "Perils of Pauline". This film is actually better thanks to the lack of screen names. You can see why underground director John Waters loved William Castle's film as much as he did, as many of his films emulate certain aspects of them.

Vornoff-3 I really love this movie. It is unabashedly an effort to cash in on and outdo "Psycho," and as such it is made with audiences who loved that movie in mind, complete with visual references and in-jokes for fans. But better for me, Castle takes the gender-bending murderer/ess theme to a new height, quite daringly for 1961. Every time I see it, I go through a moment of not being able to remember if the actor "Jean Arless" actually is male or female. You'll figure it out pretty quickly, and of course you'll see the "surprise" ending coming a mile away, but it's still great fun to watch, and unusually complex for a Castle thriller. As with most Castle movies, this one had a gimmick. Close to the end it has a "fright break" in which audience members too frightened to watch the end could go over to the "Coward's Corner" and ask for their money back. The break still appears on the screen on video or TV, but you can't get a refund for not watching the end.