Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Thanks for the memories!

Awesome Movie

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

I don't really like the title of this movie seeing as its not really accurate and sounds kinda daft. The house is the centre point of the movie as its where everything happens, hence the dripping blood part. But the movie is relatively tame with little to no blood, hardly dripping. To top that one of the stories doesn't even take place within the house. I prefer the original title of 'Death and the Maiden'.The premise here is very simple (and much the same as all other anthology movies). The main plot bookends four individual little tales which all fit into or make up the main plot. In this case police Inspector Holloway (John Bennett) is on a case to investigate the disappearance of a famous movie star. The Inspector is pointed in the direction of an old house where the movie star was last seen. Upon meeting with the local estate agent the Inspector is told all about the previous tenants leading up to the movie star.The first story is about a horror writer (Denholm Elliot) moving into the house with his wife, mainly to help his creative writing. The writer soon finds himself haunted by the very character he created within his current book, or does he? Its this first story that introduces us to the creepy old house and bottom line, its perfect. Both the exterior and interior are exactly what you might think of when it comes to an old creaking British spook house. There are gargoyles on the buildings exterior, old fashioned stained glass windows, and much of the interior is solid wood paneling with all the gothic/Victorian style trimmings you might expect to see in a period house. Its these visuals which help this initial story greatly because to be frank its pretty weak. Sure it offers a nice twist on twist at the end but the makeup on the murderous villain is laughable which really doesn't help.Up next we see Peter Cushing as a retired stock broker moving into the old house merely to spend his days relaxing and enjoying life. One day he wanders off down to the high street (of an unknown location) and stumbles across a horror waxworks. Curious he ventures inside and eventually comes across a mysterious female figure that seems to bewitch him. Later an old friend (Joss Ackland) visits who also ends up going to the waxworks and also becomes bewitched.This little tale is also pretty weak in my opinion as it offers no real explanation for anything. We don't find out anything about Cushing's character of his friend (Ackland) other than they are old friends who seemingly fell for the same woman and both lost her. The wax figure reminds both of them of said woman whilst at the same time seemingly hypnotising them. Of course the wax figure turns out to actually be the woman they both loved, the owner of the waxworks killed and mummified her in wax cos he fancied her too (its a small world). Naturally all this is a bit silly because of course you'd never be able to conceal a body like that for obvious decomposition issues. And the fact the waxwork owner then displays the heads of both men (yup he kills them both) in his display kinda seems like shooting yourself in the foot really doesn't it (I think people would notice). I think we are led to believe this guy does this a lot to various people...because they fall in love with the wax mummified dead body of this woman? If you say so.The third story is easily the best and surrounds a little girl called Jane (Chloe Franks), her father (Christopher Lee), and the hired nanny (Nyree Dawn Porter). Hired help Ann is concerned with the cold attitude John Reid has towards his daughter. He's not physically abusive, just cold and heartless, he doesn't seem to love her; he also speaks badly of his late wife. Of course little Jane is not your average little girl, she's a witch, as was her mother. This segment is not exactly original or particularly hard to fathom but its certainly the most eerie and more cinematic of the stories. You could easily have seen this being made into a full length movie as the whole demonic child angle is a popular one. Little Chloe is highly adorable throughout which makes it even more chilling because you struggle to think how she could ever be evil. Lee is doing his usual stoic faced thing and comes across very well as a stern father, whilst Porter is very good as the confused nanny. This story works on many levels but mainly because it made me wanna know more about what happened before with the mother and what happened going forward with Jane.The last segment surrounds a flamboyant and arrogant actor (Jon Pertwee) who moves into the old house whilst filming his latest horror movie. Not happy with the current state of the movie and his costume he goes to an old mysterious antique shop which sells various creepy artifacts and knick-knacks. There he picks up a black cloak for his latest vampiric role. Everything is fine and normal until he realises the cloak actually gives him real vampiric powers when he puts it on.This by far the most goofy and more comedic of the four short stories. You can see how this could well have influenced many silly 80's horror comedies with its ideas and visuals. The highlight is easily Pertwee who really enjoys himself hamming it up with all manner of rubbery facial expressions and over the top vampire hijinks. Lets not forget about the owner of the old spooky shop played by Geoffrey Bayldon who fights Pertwee all the way with his own over the top goofiness. This doesn't really offer anything you haven't seen before. By today's standards its a pretty stereotypical vampire offering on all fronts, but its that good old fashioned quirky charm that grabs you.On the whole this is most definitely one of the most iconic anthology films I've seen. Its well known, the title is outrageously and hilariously overblown, and of course the cast is stellar. I wouldn't say its one of the best anthologies though, its split down the middle for me. The first story is acceptable, the second is kinda weak, the third is the best, and the fourth is fun in a daft way. On the whole everything looks good with (as said) the house being a great setting for all the tales. The costumes are gorgeous, the acting is solid, and the makeup and effects...well they vary a bit as expected.But for me this movie really seemed to highlight the actors and what they were best known for. Here Cushing looks exactly as you remember him, as you'll always picture him. Extremely debonair and dapper with the classic red smoking jacket with elegant neck scarf whilst sitting in an old classical hardback chair. On the other hand you then have Christopher Lee marching his lean 6ft plus frame around with widows peak combed and perfectly presented. He constantly looks like he's about to lose it and smack someone, of simply bite their neck. As for Pertwee, well here he just comes across as Dr Who in a cape, but that's just fine.So overall I'd say thoroughly recommended if you're into these old horror films. Obviously they won't be everyone's cup of tea with the limited visuals (of the time) and dare I say (admittedly) corny stories. But with things like this its all about the charm of it all really, the quaintness and enchantment if I can use that term. Not the best but definitely enjoyable for a cozy night in when its cold outside.7/10

The House That Dripped Blood: An Amicus anthology consisting of four scary stories from Robert Bloch wrapped around a police and well a realtor investigation into the titular house.Episode one "Method For Murder". A horror writers creation comes to life and attacks him during a bout of writer's block. I may be mistaken but I am pretty sure that the House That Dripped Blood appears in the Stephen King non-fiction horror treatise Danse Macabre under the chapter "Where I Get all My Ideas". This is a decent entry marred only by the old fifties chestnut of the dull Freudian psychiatrist and a really bad make-up job on Tom Adams looking like a silent movie antagonist.Episode two: "Waxworks" A gay stockbroker "Peter Cushing" retired from the city rents the titular house to enjoy some gardening and classical music. An old friend "Joss Ackland" stops by unexpectedly and a tension from their shared past rises up consuming them both.I understand that this is a horror anthology made on the cheap but the character development in this episode is simply non-existent. Apparently, we are lead to believe that both men are obsessed with the same woman from many years ago. Since they refuse to talk about it themselves we are meant to fill in the blanks. When a local waxworks in town has a wax statue of the same woman both men become obsessed unable to leave town.The episode simply fails to give enough information for us to care for the fates of our two leads. Add in lighting from the Batman TV Series, hammy acting from the Waxworks proprietor, very poor props and an ever increasingly ridiculous display of ascots on both our lead characters and any tension is out the window.Episode three: "Sweets to the Sweet" Probably the most solid of the four outings it has great acting from Christopher Lee and Chloe Franks as his daughter. A straightforward telling of a man who has a "special child" and a nanny/teacher to look after her. A little slow and certainly an often told tale but competently done.Episode Four: "The Cloak" Of the four episodes The cloak tells the most interesting of tales. A hammy horror actor (Dr. Who's own Jon Pertwee) buys a vampire cloak that turns him into a real vampire while worn. This episode is played for laughs with the always enjoyable Ingrid Pitt matching the hammy acting with her loose knowledge of English and her tight cleavage. Completely out of tone with the rest of the film it actually deserves its own feature.The Wraparound: An While it is only there to tie the four stories together it simply doesn't do the job. If this was outtakes of a short called "How to Rent Real Estate" featured on an MST3K shorts collection I would not have been surprised. Really drains the fun out of a film that needed no help.In Conclusion: At no point does the house drip blood. In fact, at no point does anything or anyone drip blood. This is clearly a film meant for the wee ones. A good your first horror film for the grade school crowd. For one thing, they might actually be surprised by the twists in the stories. For adults, the slow pace, predictable stories and the lack of wardrobe malfunction on Miss Pitt make this a pleasant time waster down memory lane but also an easy pass.

"The House That Dripped Blood" is one of the defining Amicus horror films.In spite of its rather trashy title, there isn't a single drop of blood to be seen anywhere in the films 97 minutes.This film works in the way it is directed and photographed. As the director Peter Duffell explained in an interview, the budget was very tight and also the filming schedule. As a result, the director aimed to shoot the sets in the house in various ways and angles so as to allow for variety.From the opening credits where the camera is roaming around the house, I got a strong sense of imagining someone having once lived there and also there being incidents involving the paranormal.Each story offers something different and they are all excellent. The framework story and epilogue are also very well done and the latter is decidedly creepy!

I've seen "Dr. Terror's House of Horrors" and "Torture Garden". I liked them both and went searching for more. I've seen many users claiming that "The House That Dripped Blood" was the best. So I watched it. And I was a little disappointed.The cast is great of course. The performance of Christopher Lee was the best thing about this film. But the stories had very little to do with this "house that dripped blood". I mean the "house" was just a place to spend the night in three stories! I expected the house to be alive.. hungry.. anything.. anything but a normal house! I expected it to have some kind of "effect" on the protagonists, but apparently they came in ready. They just were strange bunch of people looking for a place to rent! Maybe the first story - one of the silliest - was the only story with a sinister house. Peter Cushing's story was basically about a wax museum. We hardly see him in the house! The last story was just a silly joke. But I didn't hate the film. I just like it way less than the other two.