Fresh and Exciting

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

After a bizarre string of murders, an investigation into the suspected family reveals far more secrets and murder when the main suspect in the murders start up the rampage once the detective arrives to clear the situation up.Overall this one really wasn't all that great even though there are a few solid points here. The main problem at work here for almost this entire one is the complete near-total reliance on tactics that just aren't in the least bit threatening here. The majority of her interactions with others, from the way she makes her grandmother slightly uneasy, freaks out and destroys the flower shop and from how they all seem to come together at the wrong moment to catch each other makes for a thoroughly uneventful time here with all of these segments never once doing anything to prove she's nothing but a mere loony rather than mentally disturbed. These don't have anything to do with being much of a horror film or really building much of an atmosphere here as these actions simply don't amount to much suspense or thrills which run rampant throughout here, following up so much time here that there's not a whole lot of time really devoted to making these all too appealing so it does drag along considerably in the first half with all of these non- horrific story lines. As well, there's the rather bland method here of going through a really obscenely long time to finish off the investigation of her activities, as the supposedly secretive actions are announced to all at nearly every opportunity affording not only a lazily-relaxed investigation manner but also affording them an opportunity to sabotage what's going on and keeping the ruse going. There are also some good points here, but none of them are that prolific or important. The film's best part is undoubtedly the opening, which is certainly a shocking and quite gruesome sequence that gets off the shock by nicely intermingling the calmness before the attack to a rather startling sequence beforehand, the sheer suddenness bringing about a rather creepy time here and then the act itself with the stabbing being quite brutal and leading to a fine escape that features several close calls before the actual resolution and escape. As well, the information gathered here by the investigation makes this one feel quite a bit more suspenseful than expected here as this slowly breaks down the inevitable which is where there's a lot to like and really enjoy here by how this sets up the story. The last positive here comes from the finale, where the big suspenseful walk-through of the house and following brawl in the living room where it gives off a great revelation to the set-up throughout here that's quite original and makes for a really fun time here. These here help this one and move it up, but the flaws are a little too much for this one.Today's Rating/PG: Violence.

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.

First of all, if one adamantly holds that Homicidal is a Psycho knockoff and Castle is a Hitchcock wannabe, then take a fright break and do your historical research because neither holds up against the facts. That being said, Castle is no Hitchcock, but personally I believe Homicidal is a better film than Psycho (it is my least favorite Hitchcock I might add, and I've seen only about a dozen). Homicidal is fresh in its sexual politics, whereas Psycho is traditional (one could say the former adds to post-structuralist discourse while the latter adds to structuralist discourse). Homicidal introduces the transvestite as a conscious chooser, as opposed to Bates who is wracked with psychological strife. Bates cannot express his intentions honestly even when being upfront, whereas the Emily character of Homicidal appears to have plans for everyone. I couldn't help but feel this character was so well developed that they might have a sexual political manifesto tucked away in their study, just waiting for the twenty-teens when it could be published and hailed as a Constitution of Rights and Freedoms for the hard-done-by and misunderstood. The story does not get by on a self-piteous treatment, but that sentiment is at the core of all its characters. Psycho, thematically, is a mere anachronistic blip in comparison. In fact, the rhetoric of Psycho has DSM written all over it (hopefully one day we just throw that thing out and start again). Did the PCA get in Hitchcock's way? Not at least in the expression of currency of sexual politics as the PCA's greatest problems were with a "torrid" love-making scene in the opening sequence and with references in the dialogue to incestuous relations of Bates and his mother. This is old hat. Homicidal provokes a hetero-normative anxiety that Psycho never could - the anxiety regarding the formation and presence of self-sufficient and full independent non-hetero-normative persons. Herein lies the terror of this film because if you don't like Bates running around stabbing people, you just lock him up and throw away the key, but Emily in the same situation would find a way to persuade a new key to be made. She shows rational agency and cunning resourcefulness. Norman's secrets scream out at the audience "I like panties and I don't know why!", but Emily has a very different motivation and it is clearer (to her at least). To the hetero-normative audience this clarity of motivation is insidious and sinister. Castle and White are clearly attuned to a more developed understanding of "fringe" sexuality and radical sexual politics. I digress and my reviews rarely end up so tangential and polemical. As for the independent analysis of Homicidal, the opening sequence tells a lot. Castle provides another prologue, this time hailing his own previous films and thus interpellating his audience into the Castle 'brand'. The milieu is urban, the time of day is high noon... not characteristic of Castle branded horror. As the characters drive out to the suburbs at night things are getting more familiar. The wedding scene is bizarre, unpredictable and establishes an erratic pace that will be forgiving to the plot points as they come up. There is good characterization and performance as we land back in a small shadowy town. The voice-dubbing is good, but not uncanny. That being said, the odd synchronicity works well on the denial of a culture only just becoming aware of the new voices to be represented in its society. There are some amusing allusions when the knife sharpener shows up. The final sequence is accompanied by a 'fright break'. There is a clock superimposed onto the frozen frame on the screen. A heart is heard beating. A voice-over announcer directly addresses the audience regarding the opportunity to leave the theatre for fear of fright. This gimmick appears to be well connected to Psycho and Hitchcock's own gimmick for the exhibition of his film (he wouldn't let anyone come into the theatre after it started playing). For Castle, the one-upmanship was a disaster waiting to happen. Ironically, his own ego could not support the idea of not only competing to create a great gimmick related to his film but to have it as an apt counterpoint to another film/gimmick combination. He was suffering from his own genius imagination and the nature of the industry at the time and all in the worst possible way. Coward's corner was the resultant gimmick for releasing the pressure and sadly it was a place for Castle more than anyone else. I think he would soon realize that. That being said, the final shot of the film provides great insight and a moral lesson (seldom part of Castle films). A well directed effort by Castle and a brave, powerful film that will inevitably withstand the test of time (but not the scorn of Hitchcockites).

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.