Homicidal (1961)

Very best movie i ever watch

A different way of telling a story

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

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.

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!

If you can't afford to catch Psycho at the local revival house, this is the movie to see. While it's clear that Homicidal had no pretensions of seriousness or originality, the camp fun is marred by lapses into incompetence. It's starts off with a bang and then bogs down into an endless talky exposition. But then, it attracted an audience that required careful explanation. While it probably stands as the only picture ever set in Solvang, they made disappointingly little use of the town's attributes as a miniature golf course version of Denmark. The references to Denmark also were a tipoff to the gender bending plot gimmick at the heart of the picture, due to that country's early 60s reputation for leadership in sex change surgery. I would also have to say that Leonie Leontovich had the makings of a great rap artist, conveying a surprisingly nuanced range of emotional subtleties in her non-speaking part. A shame, really, that she was neither seen nor heard more widely in the movies.

A young woman wants to pay a large sum of money to a stranger, if the stranger will marry her quickly. We follow this woman through the film as she exhibits behavior that is not entirely benevolent; yet her motives remain veiled. Plot pacing lags at times. But the film's ending is suspenseful, as a person enters a big house at night, no lights, just shadowy rooms and a strange tapping sound; and then ...The scriptwriter lays a trap for viewers in the film's first thirty minutes. Unless viewers can extricate themselves from this trap, the story's underlying premise will remain baffling until the end. Yet, even after the explanation, I still found the premise confusing. Some extra lines of pivotal dialogue scattered through the plot would have helped.The film's climax scene becomes the big payoff to viewers, many of whom never extricated themselves from that trap. But then that's it. There's nothing else to the film ... no substantive story, no thematic depth, just a gimmicky premise and that shocking climax.The visual shocks, the film's lurid title, the unsubtle acting, the cheap production design, and that hokey "fright break" near the end combine to telegraph "Homicidal" as b-grade drive-in flick. And that's not necessarily bad. The film does have some value as cheap entertainment, especially if one hasn't seen any of the prominent films of the early 1960s. Otherwise, "Homicidal" could be construed as something of a rip-off.