Stylish but barely mediocre overall

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Malpertuis starts as a sailor named Jan (Mathieu Carriere) arrives at his home port only to discover his old house has collapsed, he ends up in a seedy bar where a fight breaks out & he is knocked unconscious. When he comes round Jan finds himself being tended to by his sister Nancy (Susan Hampshire) in his Uncle Quentin Cassavius' (Orson Welles) imposing old house called Malpertuis, they are also joined by various other family members & obscure relatives as Cassavius is not far from death & he has ordered a reading of his will. The will states that his immense fortune will be split equally but the inheritors can never leave the grounds of Malpertuis ever again which sounds a bit harsh to me but there you go, anyway it becomes apparent to Jan that all is not right at Malpertuis & that it's hiding some bizarre secrets that Jan finds himself in the center of...This French, Belgium & German co-production was directed by Harry Kumel & didn't do much for me but that could be down to other factors besides the film at hand, you see apparently there's a long 2 hour odd version of Malpertuis & shorter cut down version & since the one I watched yesterday ran for less than 90 minutes I think it's safe to assume I'm missing out on a lot so maybe you should bear that in mind although what the extra footage is & whether it would have improved my viewing experience I don't know. The slightly slow going script by Jean Ferry was based on a novel by Jean Ray & has a certain loose strange bizarre quality to it, while it's an odd film for sure I have to say I always knew what was going on & it's not abstract or weird in that sense but weird in the sense of what's happening on screen. Who was the supposed killer? Is this answered in the longer version? Were little stitched together people really running around in the attic? Again, is this made clear in the longer version? I don't know which is why I feel awkward about either praising or rubbishing the film because I'm not quite sure where the version I saw stands, going by the 90 minute cut alone I thought it was OK & nothing more although I must admit I quite liked the twist 'come out of absolute nowhere' ending which I deify anyone to see coming...Director Kumel does a good job & there are plenty of memorable scenes plus the film has a great atmosphere about it. The house itself is nice & imposing & there's some cool production design. I wouldn't call any of it particularly scary though, there's not much gore apart from a bit when an Eagle eats someone's guts & someone gets a nail through their head although it's off screen.Technically Malpertuis is good, impressive even with decent production values. Since the film was made in Dutch & dubbed into English it's hard to tell about the acting although maybe Welles spoke English during filming & he stands head & shoulders above everyone else in the cast & puts in a memorable performance for the brief screen time he gets.Malpertuis, also known as The Legend of Doom House, is an OK horror/mystery/thriller but I can't help but feel I wish I'd seen the long version because as it stands I think I'm missing out on a potentially better film. However the version I watched is the version I watched & that's all there is to it, as it stands it's a decent enough film but it didn't do much for me & I doubt I'll be in any hurry to see this 90 minute cut again anytime soon.

I saw an english spoken version with 110m informed on the video box, but really 95min in video band. I remember, a long time ago, I saw this film in cinema with more as 110m. A lot of scenes disapeared: The face from Alecta, two times that the antiquaire appears in the film. I remember it was another end too, or maybe I'm wrong? Was ever the last scene a close of Jan's eye? Where is a complete copy of this film? It's very sad this cutting of scenes.

That's what the title means;or at least,that's what the priest explains to Matthieu Carrière.The subtitle is overkill and was added for commercial reasons,probably unbeknownst to the director."Doomed house" is a stupid title:are we so sure it's the story of a house? Isn't it rather the story of a mind? of a fantasy? of a folly?This poesque subtitle is not suitable for Jean Ray's world,who keeps a certain logic inside a nightmarish swarming of monsters,werewolves,Gorgons and mad scientists.Some of his obsessions surface here:the Gorgon,turning mortals into stone,the taxidermist working on alive bodies,are topics we find not only in "Malpertuis" but also in "the adventures of Harry Dickson" ,his favorite hero (he wrote dozens of stories of this detective and his pupil Tom wills)Prometheus recalls here how suffering and sadism were haunting the Belgian writer.Because Belgian,this definitely is.Kummel's closest relative is none other than his compatriot André Delvaux who quoted Jean Ray in his masterwork "un soir,un train".I urge the users who have liked "Malpertuis" to try "Un soir ,un train".It's the same kind of atmosphere,simply it's more mastered,the emotional power -cruelly lacking in Kummel's work- is increased tenfold ."Malpertuis" has a dream of a cast:Orson Welles-in a short part,but he makes every of his word count-,Matthieu Carrière ,"Der Junge Törless" wunderkind,Susan Hampshire,Two Chabrol favorites (Michel Bouquet and Jean-Pierre Cassel,both in "la rupture" some months before),and,most amazing thing,French singer Sylvie Vartan and in a cameo(uncredited) her then-husband ,Johnny Hallyday.The plot may be hard to swallow for horror buffs.It's a film "à tiroirs",and the ending has in store at least three unexpected twists.The last picture leaves the spectator bewildered.Hampshire and Carrière seem unreal,and the world that surrounds them is no longer a world in ruins,but a world that forgot he's in ruins.And what kind of world is it?

Opening scenes that confuse instead of establish a story, followed by more obscure scenes and dialogue that go nowhere, topped off with an ending completely unrelated to the rest of the movie.And all of it peopled by non-actors, save for Orson Welles with his usual gravitas (no pun intended), as the dying master of the house, and Susan Hampshire cutting loose in three different parts: a flighty, sheltered, and developmentally-arrested young girl; a repressed school-marm type who is a sex-maniac underneath; and a draped, firey-wigged ur-dame with the coolest set of eye-contacts this side of "Count Dracula" (1977) with Louis Jourdan.The only evil in this picture was the wasting of these two Lights of Stage and Screen in this waste of film and time.Yes, the movie could have been better if it had been made differently. VERY differently.