The House of Clocks (1989)

This is an astonishing documentary that will wring your heart while it bends your mind

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Lucio Fulci is one of the most important Italian horror film-makers for sure but by the tail end of his career the quality of his output got pretty bad. The House of Clocks falls into this bracket unfortunately. It would only be fair to say that part of the issue in this one was that it was a made-for-TV production, so it was of a noticeably lesser budget than he was used to. Production values are consequently bargain basement in every respect, which does nothing to help this film in any way. Interestingly, despite being a made-for-TV movie, it seemingly was never actually shown on television due to its explicit violence. There are several cheap gore sequences punctuated throughout and do at the very least alleviate the tedium at least to some extent. The story is about three thieves who break into the house of an elderly couple. Trouble is, these oldsters are psychopaths and their house of clocks has supernatural powers with the ability to reanimate the dead.The story is certainly unusual enough to garner at least some credit. But it's just not really executed in a very good way at all. For the most part it's kind of tedious in actual fact, while it never looks anything other than cheap with very little in the way of atmosphere. By the late 80's the Italian film industry was struggling financially and it's certainly an indicator that the man who made so many good to excellent genre pics ended up working on a low quality TV production such as this. Overall, this one can really be recommended to Fulci completists only.

Fulci's early horrors (THE PSYCHIC; ZOMBIE; CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD) featured protagonists that the audience could root for. Goofballs, in some cases, but you cared whether they got splattered or not. Most of his later works were just gore free-for-alls between detestable characters that you hated from Frame One. HOUSE OF CLOCKS definitely belongs in the last category.Sarah and Victor Corsini live with their servants in a remote mansion. We find out immediately that the rich old coots are not only murderers with two corpses stashed in a back room, but killers with elitist attitudes as well. Old Victor has filled the mansion with all manner of watches and clocks, which he talks to as if they were the children he never had, thank God. Into this happy household come two hoodlums and their girlfriend. (When she talks her way into the mansion with the old "broken down car" story, this young lady asks Corsini, in all seriousness, "Do you collect CLOCKS???" Well, Doy-EEEE!!!!) Brief comedy aside, the trio that's come to rob ends up committing mass murder; the Corsinis and caretaker Al Cliver end up as bloody messes on the floor.Then the clocks and watches start running backwards. You can probably guess what happens next.Unlike another late Lucio opus, DEMONIA, HOUSE OF CLOCKS doesn't have one person in it to root for. It does boast some good moments and creepy atmosphere which is more than can be said for SWEET HOUSE OF HORRORS. The ending is pure poetic justice, as a crime committed by the thugs early on catches up with them. And for those who want gore and nothing more, this film delivers blood and guts by the bucketful. Where else but in a Fulci flick would a character suffer a small stab wound and have her intestines come spilling out?Best of all, HOUSE OF CLOCKS is a perfect metaphor for Lucio Fulci's career. Long-time fans and newcomers alike should definitely watch his last films first and then work their way back.

Given that pretty much all of Fulci's latter day efforts (post-Murderock) suck, it's only natural to assume that The House of Clocks will suck too; but it doesn't. Don't get me wrong, the film won't change the way you think about horror, but it is consistently entertaining throughout, which is good enough for me (I've sat through Sodoma's Ghost, so I know just how bad Fulci can get).A supernatural horror that manages to deliver both a fair amount of creepy atmosphere and revolting gore (the film is surprisingly bloody, considering it was made for TV), House of Clocks stars Paolo Paoloni and Bettine Milne as Vittorio and Sara Corsini, a wealthy old couple who live in a remote country villa, where they spend their time caring for their 'children'—a vast collection of antique clocks and watches—and tending to the corpses of their nephew and his wife, who they have murdered for being greedy.One night, the Corsini's routine is disturbed by the arrival of three hoodlums (Keith Van Hoven, Karina Huff and Peter Hintz) who intend to hold the couple hostage and rob the house; their plans go awry, however, when the elderly couple's protective gardener Peter (Al Cliver) intervenes, and a struggle ensues, during which both Vittorio and Sara are blasted with a shotgun (cue mucho giblets and blood) and Peter is brained on the corner of a desk.Free to search the place for valuables at their leisure, the threesome set about turning the place over; meanwhile, the Corsini's 'children' begin to turn back the hands of time, bringing the dead to life for revenge...Stylish direction, combined with gruesome effects (impalements, a bloody knifing, splattery shotgun wounds) and a wonderfully macabre, underlying sense of humour all go to help make The House of Clocks a delightfully surreal and rather absurd (in a good way) experience that should please most followers of the director's work. In fact, the whole thing is so gloriously off the wall that, for once, even the patently ridiculous Fulci ending seems strangely fitting.6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.

After The New York Ripper in 1982, the quality of Fulci's efforts as a filmmaker drastically declined. The impenetrable dark atmosphere and genuine artistry of his previous films was definitely on the way out, as is evidenced by such unremarkable video fodder as "Daemonia", "The Ghosts of Sodom", and "The New Gladiators".Not everything the man did after "Ripper" is entirely forgettable, however - 1983's "Conquest" retains a lot of Fulci's hyper-gory, atmospheric sensibilities, and is demented fun in it's own right. "The House of Clocks" is also a fairly accomplished piece of work, and is probably the best of his post-1982 films.Originally made for Italian television as part of a horror series (ala Tales from the Crypt), but deemed to gory for release, "The House of Clocks" really works fairly well. It has moments of genuine creepiness; hints of the strong, evil atmosphere Fulci was so adept at creating pop up here and there. The film is quite interestingly lit (many of his later pictures have a similar, glowing-like look to them), and contains a few memorable characters - not the least of which being the demented, wizened old couple, who seem kind and hospitable one moment, and are disemboweling you with a large metal spike the next. Also, there are several moments of the kind of gut-spilling gore we've come to expect from Mr. Fulci, which is more than welcome. One of the reasons that many of his films succeed are the over-the-top, positively nightmarish gore scenes. Save for "Cat in the Brain" and "Touch of Death", many of Fulci's later-career efforts shy away from the excessive gore, which turns many of them into colossal bores. This is not the case with "House of Clocks" - while not nearly up to the violence level of "The Beyond" or "New York Ripper", there are enough violent murders and scattered entrails to please the average Fulci fan, and nauseate anyone else.While many Fulci fans will simply overlook "The House of Clocks", being that not only was it made in Fulci's autumn years but also for television, this would be a mistake - "The House of Clocks" is well-worth seeing for any admirer of the work of Lucio Fulci. Others might wanna beware, though.