Leofwine_draca Is it forever Michael Gough's fate to play crippled characters? With his hand-less performance in DR TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS, his wheelchair-bound role in HORROR HOSPITAL, and now this cane-assisted stance in HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM, it seems this unfortunate actor always comes off the worst. But I digress. HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM is a classic example of an early exploitation film, produced by non less than Herman Cohen, responsible for loads of classic films of this type in the late '50s/early '60s. With an off beat and clever idea (crime writer commits murder to sell his stories) and a twist monster-on-the-loose ending (with Cohen involved, what else would you expect?), the film never fails to entertain.Chief entertainment comes from the series of murders, which, while not explicitly gory like the Friday the 13th films, are however all staged elaborately and decoratively, and also cleverly, with much relish, like the murders in THEATRE OF BLOOD and the PHIBES films (but never so campy!). Highlights include the memorable binocular death and a woman having her head cut off by an axe, but the best death (or tackiest) occurs when the doctor is electrocuted by a bad special effect, then has his skin boiled off and becomes a skeleton! This scene is a piece of classic horror and easily the best moment of the film.Although the monster makeup leaves something to be desired (it basically looks like grey paint), there is a good scene with the monster in a hall of mirrors, where he is taunted by a young couple before turning on them with a knife! While none of the acting is sub-par, with the likes of Shirley Anne Field involved (also, Geoffrey Keen has a role as a tough policeman), the film really belongs to Michael Gough as the criminal genius. He also sports the same ridiculous bleached hair as he did in the next year's KONGA! Gough is superbly civilised and a man of true evil, much like in his other films, and as always he's a delight to watch, I'm surprised that this prolific actor is overlooked so much and in the shadow of contemporaries like Cushing and Lee but he always puts in a solid, tongue in cheek performance and raises the level of the films he's in (much like Peter Cushing did). HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM is a typical piece of '50s exploitation, much in the style of CIRCUS OF HORRORS and is a film which is raised above average by the strength of Gough's performance alone. Definitely one for the collection.

logopolis I saw this film in 1959 when I was 13. In an early scene something happens that is so disturbing that I was physically shocked and for weeks after I had awful flashbacks. To this day I still am revolted thinking abut that scene. Today we are all hardened to hyper-violent films and yet I would not want to watch that scene again. Bottom line keep children younger than 30 away from this exploitive little film. Repeated to meet 10 line minimum. I saw this film in 1959 when I was 13. In an early scene something happens that is so disturbing that I was physically shocked and for weeks after I had awful flashbacks. To this day I still am revolted thinking abut that scene. Today we are all hardened to hyper-violent films and yet I would not want to watch that scene again. Bottom line keep children younger than 30 away from this exploitive little film.

sossy65 As another reviewer mentioned, this film was horrifying to those of us who saw it as kids when it first came out. Horrors of the Black Museum was produced before technical effects became morph-driven and so fake they're not believable (even though they might be scary). Unlike Fiend Without a Face (also mentioned in these reviews) or The Blob, this movie doesn't rely on mechanically produced monsters. which means an imaginative child or paranoid adult could perhaps picture its horrors actually happening. A stretch, surely, but still . . .Pre-movie sequence demonstrating colors and hypnosis was funny and hokey even when the film was first released. The horrors, however, had many children (me included) suffering from nightmares for years. The binocular scene was particularly frightening, but not as frightening as the beheading scene. I cautiously checked the tall bedroom ceiling in the old farmhouse where I grew up for a long while after seeing this flick.Overall, after getting over the heebie-jeebies that lingered for years afterward, I have fond memories of this film. Anyone who is a fan of the 1950s chiller genre might enjoy the dated look and feel of it as well as the scare-factor it can generate in a viewer.

mlraymond Some viewers seeing this movie decades after it was made may never have seen the thirteen minute prologue that was tacked on for American audiences. If at all possible, try to see this version. The lecture/demonstration on hypnosis by Dr. Emile Franchel is more entertaining than anything in the movie that follows it. Dr. Franchel does his best to convince the audience that anyone can fall under the spell of a hypnotist, especially those people who claim they can't be hypnotized. He experiments with making the audience feel cold, then hot, and to resist the overpowering urge to yawn when you see someone else yawning. The actual movie starring Michael Gough is likely to keep most viewers awake, even if the film is dated. The shocking violence that occurs at the beginning sets the tone for the rest of the picture. There are parts that seem unintentionally funny at times, but the overall impact is pretty disturbing. It has less to do with the murders and torture machines than the truly sick and twisted character of Edmond Bancroft, played by Gough. It's hard to define, but he brings this repulsive character to life almost too convincingly. You actually begin to believe that he is the monstrous character he's playing. The film isn't very remarkable, aside from Gough's performance, except as a peek beneath the surface of respectable English life in the Fifties.SPOILERS AHEAD: I don't know if anyone else has ever noticed this, or will agree with my theory, but I get a very strong and uncomfortable suggestion of an unhealthy homosexual relationship between Bancroft and the young man who assists him. The older man's possessive nature, his fury at finding the young man kissing his girlfriend right in the Black Museum that Bancroft has previously described as being their own private world, his raging denunciation after the young woman has left that women can't be trusted with secrets, and especially the scene where Bancroft acts fatherly in a creepy way. He tells his young assistant that it's really his own fault for not having given the lad his injections often enough, and proceeds to dose the passive youth with some kind of drug, telling him it's for his own good. There is something way beyond creepy in these sequences, though whether it was intentional or not, I couldn't say. This infamous cult film should be seen at least once, just out of curiosity, but be warned, it leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouth.