Gallery of Horror (1967)
John Carradine narrates five horror tales, each with a comically predictable surprise ending. In the first, "The Witches Clock," the Farrells have purchased an old mansion in Salem Massachusetts and are warned by the town doctor of the history of witches in the community. The second story, "King of the Vampires," deals with a slight-figured killer called the King of the Vampires by Scotland Yard. The third, "Monster Raid," is about a man turned zombie when he ODs on his experimental drug. "Spark of Life" deals with a doctor Mendell obsessed with the experiments of a thrown-out professor named Erich von Frankenstein. "Count Alucard" is a variation on the Dracula story, with the Count acquiring the deed to Carfax Abbey from Harker as vampiresses and dead bodies start turning up.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
hyped garbage
Highly Overrated But Still Good
Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.
The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
"So Bad It's Good" yes it's one of those type of films. I have not a clue if the viewer is suppose to take the movie as a 'serious' horror film or if the filmmakers deliberately made this a tongue-in-cheek flick. Whichever it is, the movie is a bit camp. No it's not a good film yet it is a good film. I think each story was better than the last - and the very last story is Count Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards) is quite comical. They really did save the best for last.OK, so what if it's a bad film - it's great for those of us who love campy classic B-rated horror movies. I found the film quite entertaining.7.5/10
This is a terrible film and any star, other than John Carradine, would have been embarrassed to be in this mess. After all, that is truly horrible in every way. I am not exaggerating to say that it looks like a particularly bad local community theater had tryouts. Those who did not make the cut were then put in this film!! There are many actors attempting (horribly) English accents--some of which would be worse than if you had Jay Silverheels or Zha Zha Gabor try English accents!! And many could not even read their lines--annunciating the wrong syllables and badly reading the cue cards. In addition, while it's supposed to be a horror anthology, I think they really intended to make it a horrible anthology, as none of the stories are the least bit scary or ironic or intelligently written. I am NOT exaggerating to say that I think "Dr. Terror's Gallery of Horrors(?)" is every bit as bad, if not worse, than the worse Ed Wood film! Because of this, it might make great viewing by bad movie freaks--all others, however, should avoid it like the plague! the bottom line is that nothing about this film works and it is so completely amateurish and banal that it flabbergasted me! Why hadn't I heard about a film this bad sooner?!
Hewitt's trademark is vaulting ambition approached with the scantest possible means, and when he applies himself to a horror anthology format the result is gruesome and calamitous, and kind of fascinating for it. The first story relates to a bewitched grandfather clock and just about the whole damn thing is shot from a single camera setup. The second tackles vampirism, first from a police HQ with the unmistakable acoustics of an empty warehouse, then from a streetside crowd scene almost entirely composed of offscreen murmurs; the louts who do wander into frame offer the most fascinatingly various and mangled British accents on record. Volume three mainly features the rantings of a corpse over some looped footage borrowed from Roger Corman, to whose bountiful resources Hewitt can only aspire longingly, with the added bonus of Rochelle Hudson (James Dean's mom in Rebel Without a Cause!) playing one seriously antiquated love interest. Lon Chaney Jr. stumbles on set for part four, a Frankenstein variant whose loutish flatness does actually take on a certain lovable aspect in this company, especially the two lab guys with their frat boy impersonations. Finally we return to the vampire theme in part five, accompanied by the dumbest twist ending of the lot, not to mention the most haphazard pan-and-scan job in a crowded field. Toastmaster John Carradine shows up once in a while and mumbles into his sleeve.
Of course "Dr. Terror's Gallery of Horrors" is no classic, but I'm fond of David Hewitt's films and everyone seems to be having fun here. John Carradine, in full evening wear, introduces five not-very-scary tales; he also stars in one, while Lon Chaney Jr. stars in another. Other familiar faces include Roger Gentry ("The Wizard of Mars", also directed by Hewitt and co-starring Carradine) and Joey Benson (Al Adamson's "Horror of the Blood Monsters" and "Blood of Ghastly Horror"). Among the highlights of the movie are Carradine's fantastic booming voice, the dreamy soundtrack, and the cheesy, $1.95 special effects. There are some unintentionally funny moments, too, like the extended scenes of a horse-drawn carriage barreling down a dirt road (very obviously taken from Roger Corman's "The Raven"), and the vampire who is trying his hardest to speak with a Hungarian accent but ends up sounding like a Mexican bandito from some cheap western. Every time I watch something like this, I can't help but wonder whatever became of the people who made all those no-budget horror flicks of the '60s and '70s. They worked under such primitive conditions, and I'm sure they would have been doing something else if they'd had their druthers, but they almost always turned out an entertaining product. Now they've disappeared. Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Gentry, Mr. Benson...where are you? :)