GL84 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.

MARIO GAUCI This is among the director's most popular works, being the one that overtly played him up as a potential rival to Alfred Hitchcock (complete with Castle's cheeky introduction a' la Hitch's own TV appearances); at the same time, its deliberate nods to PSYCHO (1960) did not really endear it to critics but, of course, audiences at the time lapped it up… which only goes to prove just how much of a milestone the Hitchcock classic was when it first emerged and has remained so over the years through countless imitations!Anyway, taken on its own merits, the film is certainly an above-average chiller for Castle – yet one is left wondering whether he was audacious or foolhardy in his approach towards the all-important plot twist; Hitchcock was certainly wiser in keeping "Mother" in the background, whereas Castle throws the secondary personality of the titular figure in our faces almost from the get-go! Indeed, the prologue should have been omitted entirely – as it really gave the game away to discerning viewers. The transvestism element, then, elicits unwarranted comparisons throughout with Ed Wood's notorious GLEN OR GLENDA? (1953) – but the PSYCHO borrowings, at least, are fairly well integrated into the narrative: a stint by the blonde leading lady at a run-down motel, a near-brush with the Law, a nosy investigator, an invalid also staying at the house, the put-upon young couple, etc. Having said that, the aforementioned prologue, the sadistic mistreatment of the latter character and the underlying "greed is the root of all evil" theme clearly anticipate the next phase in Horror film-making: the "Grand Guignol" chillers spearheaded by Robert Aldrich's WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962)…Still, while it also has an early and would-be shocking (because apparently unprovoked) murder – that could have pointed out to yet another childhood sexual trauma in other scenarios – one cannot sensibly compare the impact of the bloody yet extremely clumsy stabbing of James Westerfield with the legendary shower sequence from PSYCHO involving Janet Leigh! Incidentally, even if we do get to hear the two personalities speak in the same sequence (as Anthony Perkins did in the earlier film), their never actually appearing together – to say nothing of the man's distinctly effeminate appearance – should have alerted audiences as to the nature of the ruse (not that her eventual uncovering – preceded by the gimmicky 45-second "Fright Break" – is totally ineffective, unlike her ultimate come-uppance…which comes off as rushed)! Casting-wise, it is obviously Jean Arless (actually Joan Marshall, who adopted the pseudonym so as not to be typecast, but her subsequent roles were negligible at best!) who makes the biggest impression, whereas Eugenie Leontovich's stroke victim – with her incessant banging to attract attention – gets on one's nerves very quickly!

Dalbert Pringle As an attention-grabbing title for a slasher-thriller picture of this one's twisted nature, I'd say that the use of a single word, like "Homicidal", was very effective in grasping my curiosity and interest.But, on the other hand, since Homicidal was apparently William Castle's sneering and envious answer to Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, then this off-kilter, second-rate, maniac movie repeatedly fell short of its intended goal. It neither shocked me, nor held my attention for more than a few minutes at a time.Out of this whole movie there were only 2 memorable scenes in its entire 90-minute running time that I thought were stand-outs and worthy of any mention.The first scene happens at about the 15-minute point when Emily pulls a razor-sharp carving knife out of her purse and immediately begins to brutally stab the old Justice of the Peace in the stomach, over and over again, while 2 horrified witnesses look on.The second scene containing any fright-value takes place in the last 10 minutes of the story.In between these 2 moments there's about an hour's worth of story that literally goes nowhere and, believe me, this is more than enough to put most viewers off to sleep while the characters continually bicker away with each other.Even though I knew from the start that the 2 characters of Emily & Warren were being played by the same person, what came as a real surprise to me was to find out that it wasn't an effeminate man playing these dual roles, but rather a somewhat butch woman.I understand that it's never been officially revealed as to whether Jean Arless' voice as Warren was really hers, or if it was dubbed. All the same, her performance as a man was very convincing.I found it really puzzling that if William Castle had really wanted Homicidal to be a much more memorable rip-off of Psycho, then he should've made it a point to include a horrific "shower scene" in his film, as well. But, he didn't do this (much to my disappointment).All that Castle added to Homicidal, for novelty effect, was a somewhat ridiculous tongue-in-cheek "fright break" of 60 seconds which allowed those in the audience (who were easily frightened) to safely leave the theater before the story's climatic moment of terror got underway.

PrometheusTree64 Funny about HOMICIDAL. For a Castle picture, it's at least a valid B-movie (while most of his stuff is C or D). But the irony in his obvious and unmitigated imitation of PSYCHO is that Hitchcock made PSYCHO to begin with because of William Castle! Hitch saw that Castle's movies were doing well at the box office, but weren't very good. So he wondered what a film like that might be like if someone good (i.e., himself) made it. Hence, PSYCHO... And then Castle sees PSYCHO and copies it with HOMICIDAL.So you have the imitator imitating the imitation of the imitator: Castle copying Hitchcock copying Castle copying Hitchcock! But you can't really even call it a "rip-off" of PSYCHO; it's more of an homage, being so similar and coming out the very next year.Of course, it's stupid, the film. But I rather "like" it. In an odd way, it's actually one of Castle's most polished -- well, comparatively -- films. And if anything, it's slightly creepier than PSYCHO, perhaps because of its downmarket elements.