GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is one of the scariest movies of all time. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It so scary. This is scarier then The Exorcist. If this movie does not scary you know movie will. Boo!

Sean Jump While not exactly a classic in the true sense that many of Vincent Price's films are, MADHOUSE is still a lot of fun and a worthy tribute to the genre of horror filmmaking. Price is to some degree playing himself here--or at least essaying the stereotypical version of himself that most fans probably consider the real thing--in the role of a veteran actor whose signature role is the wicked "Dr. Death." Naturally, Price does a great job, although it's fairly obvious he doesn't take the part altogether seriously--which, after all, is only appropriate. While it might not be completely accurate to label MADHOUSE all-out camp, it's close in the sense that the script has tongue firmly in cheek throughout and this is one of those horror movies that works best as a tribute to the genre that can be enjoyed by longtime fans. Price has a couple of excellent guest stars to work with, including Robert Quarry, Peter Cushing, and the radiant Linda Hayden in a small bit as a vampish aspiring actress who wants to manipulate Price for the good of her own career. Production values are good for a 70s horror film and direction is solid if unremarkable. Overall a fun flick for horror enthusiasts and fans of the strong cast.

fedor8 Just one of many amazingly idiotic thrillers. Won't I ever learn? In my defense, I hadn't seen one in years, and I did think this was a horror film. Otherwise I doubt I would have seen it. It starts off promisingly, but soon starts spiraling rapidly into abject stupidity. And a painfully predictable "surprise end-twist". Who didn't see it coming that Cushing was the killer? The foster parents of the second murdered woman: did they escape from a Monty Python set? They grin slyly right after being questioned by the police (following their daughter's murder), then they follow Price around like some deranged out-of-work mimes, and then lash out at the defeneseless viewer with that over-the-top performance when they actually attempt to blackmail Price with the watch. How the hell does the watch prove Price killed the girl? All it might prove is that she stole it from him. Naturally, Price doesn't give them the time of day, let alone money, in this utterly bizarre and pointless scene.All of the murders had been committed within a rather laughably complex set of circumstances. In other words, you would need a team of a dozen carefully orchestrated murderers – with magical powers including foretelling the future – in order to carry them out exactly as planned, not some old fogey such as Cushing.The murder of the fourth blonde, for example, required that no-one be roaming around the BBC building – in broad daylight – when the killer was first chasing Price and then the girl. Dumber still, Price doesn't immediately report the attack on himself, but first does a live TV interview, which is so convenient for the killer (yet again) coz he commits the other murder more easily. The murder of the third blond required that she be isolated from everyone else right at the time when the murderer needed her to be alone. The murder of the second blond required Price to be hypnotized by his own movie. Hang on! Just wait right there! Where did Herbert (Cushing), a mere actor, suddenly get such divine powers from? This was never explained, in this silly mess of a film.Did anyone really believe for a second that Price wasn't being set up all along? I didn't understand why they would set up the story as a whodunit mystery, but then give away the murderer's identity after only 20 minutes. That seemed a rather daft way to construct a screenplay. It was quite obvious that it was Cushing (as soon as he played Price that old movie), so the only remaining question was Cushing's motive, but the writer thought he'd be stretching out the mystery by adding several more murders – all of which were superfluous because by that time anyone could have guessed the killer.Of course, I knew that Cushing's motive would be something typically daft, because what common motive could there possibly be for the current murders and the old murder he had committed years ago when he had helped advance Price's career? Well, the explanation is as dumb as I'd expected: Cushing had wanted to play Dr.Death himself, all along, hence was jealous of Price getting the role instead, hence the mayhem. Duuuh. Nevermind the fact that it was clearly explained at the outset that Cushing willingly gave up an acting career for one in writing. Hence this movie's entire premise stands on rather shaky legs.The less said about that entire nonsense surrounding the character of Faye, the deranged woman living in Cushing's basement, the better.Still, a couple of very attractive blonds in the movie. Unfortunately, both get bumped off very quickly.

amesmonde An ageing horror star comes out of retirement only to find murder follows him everywhere he goes.There's nothing better than watching two stars, in this case horror stars grace the same screen. Very loosely based on Angus Hall's novel Devil day (1969) Madhouse is certainly of it's time (1974) which is a good thing, making it contemporary of that time and different to their older films. After parties, Cine films, film reels, film launches, tributes and the trappings of fame are on show indicative of film world at that time. Madhouse is wonderfully shot, rich in contrast, with excellent set design and locations. It exudes atmosphere in places and is genuinely creepy in spots, still it's an odd film, almost surreal in places, especially the scenes in the cellar and the body on the boat.With a striking looking supporting cast both Vincent Price and Peter Cushing are excellent. Even though in their fermenting ages which is a shame, it's fitting to the story, and you can't help feel that there's irony baste over irony in Prices role of Paul Toombes, even maybe a hint of truth in the dialogue of his character. Mild-mannered Cushing as Herbert Flay unfortunately doesn't get as much screen-time as you'd like. This is certainly Price's show and he effortlessly captures the viewer with his immense presence and deep tones as much as he did 10 years earlier in The Last Man on Earth (1964).Although reminiscent in feel of The House on Haunted Hill (1959) and The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973) it's my no means a 'classic' but there is enough killings, spiders, old horror clips, kooky cops and good performances to keep you watching veteran editor Jim Clark's (Charade (1963), Memphis Belle (1990)) last and only horror directing contribution.All in all, Madhouse an intriguing must see for its possible comparable look at how much real life Price was injected into Dr. Death by Ken Levison in his screenplay.