The Castle of the Living Dead (1964)

Wow, this is a REALLY bad movie!

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Low budget Italian horror film is no big shakes but there's a few things worth mentioning about it. First, it's Donald Sutherland's film debut (in two roles, no less). Why they had him dress up as old hag I do not know. Budgetary reasons I suppose. Sutherland does nothing to impress in his debut. We also have the great Christopher Lee slumming here and giving a typically solid Lee performance, though not his best. There's also a dwarf among the circus performers. He's pretty good and gets to be a hero, which will impress certain types.The story is about a troupe of circus performers summoned to a castle to entertain the mysterious Count Drago (Lee). Little do they know Drago is a weirdo who performs experiments involving embalming animals and people. This certainly sounds intriguing enough but somehow the film manages to be unexceptional and, for the most part, boring. Lee completists and Spaghetti horror fans will want to check it out. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

"Castle of the Living Dead" sounds like quite a generic title that could be given to just about any movie; but in this case it actually is relevant to the plot of the film. The plot is actually not bad and is something of a cross-over between the mad scientist and Gothic horror genres as we follow the owner of an old castle as he lures people to him and proceeds to mummify them to 'preserve their beauty'. The plot actually isn't bad, but unfortunately the execution is lacklustre in the extreme and what we end up with is a frankly boring horror film. Apparently it took three people to direct this film - I have no idea how - but interestingly, one of the names on the directors list is Michael Reeves; the unfortunate director behind the masterpiece 'Witchfinder General' in 1968. The film feels very cheap and the black and white cinematography only adds to that, rather than adding atmosphere as is often the case with Gothic horror from this period. The most notable thing about this film is obviously the presence of the great Christopher Lee, though in fitting with the rest of the movie; he's not at his best and his performance feels rather flat. There's also a triple role for fellow legend Donald Sutherland. The movie drones on for about ninety minutes with barely a scare in sight and we finish on an unsurprising note. Overall, this is not a good film and I don't recommend it.

The idea of CASTLE OF THE LIVING DEAD is pretty exciting--a crazy Count has created a process to instantly embalm any living creature and is always on the lookout to increase his sick menagerie. When a traveling performing troop is invited to this bizarre castle, you know that he's up to no good and their lives are in danger.Unfortunately, while the idea is rather original and cool, this Italian production bears the marks of a very, very low-budget production. While Christopher Lee is just fine in the lead, most of the rest of the cast appear to be amateurs and their limp performances betray this. Of all the cast, the weirdest decision was having a young Donald Sutherland (in his first major film role) play two major parts--poorly (he also plays a 3rd role--standing in the audience at the beginning of the film). I really think that they had him play the sergeant and old lady simply to save money--because I can't think of why they'd do this otherwise. If you like hammy first performances, then you might like watching Sutherland--particularly as he plays the crazy old lady with the same gusto as you'd expect in a high school production.Oddly, the print quality of this film when it was shown on Turner Classic Movies was very poor--it was very, very dark and the print wasn't very crisp. Yet, at the beginning of the film, it indicated it had just been restored. I sure would hate to see what it looked like BEFORE the restoration.So overall, it's a diverting film with a nice story idea that just doesn't hold up due to the lousy budget. Lousy acting, lousy camera work and a very poor sound track--this one is for fans of horror and that's really all.

Back in the '50s and '60s, these Evil-Count-Doing-Something-Bad movies were a dime a dozen. Nowadays, you're lucky if you get one every five years. Which is not necessarily a bad thing if all the entries turned out like this one.The movie involves a traveling band of minstrels traveling to the castle of Count Drago (Christopher Lee, sporting an odd makeup job) to perform. Once there, they find that the Count has an interesting taxidermy hobby. As you will have figured out in the first 15 minutes, the Count has more in store for the minstrels than they expected.This movie isn't so much about Lee's plans to turn everthing into a statue (his creations aren't stuffed carcasses; they're permanently frozen while living); it's about the stupidity of the minstrels. Look at these examples of how they completely miss the fact that they are in danger:* they don't suspect anything being invited to a remote castle for a private appearance for three gold pieces (!!), or when they're warned by an old hag (Donald Sutherland, for Christ's sake!!) that they will die if they go to the castle;* when Lee tells the lead minstrel that he has started using humans, but substitutes the word "animal" for "human", the minstrel doesn't catch on;* the strongman/firebreather doesn't notice the evil henchman standing 10 feet away, preparing to shoot him in the eye with a crossbow;* the female minstrel doesn't realize that a man she knew is dead, even though he is completely immobile and attached to a stand, nor does she catch on when the Count talks of giving her "eternal beauty" as codewords for killing her.This film does have other problems. The print I saw looked like it had been through the washing machine (I really don't see a big preservation movement for this one). The acting is pretty wooden (the terrible dubbing doesn't help either). Sutherland (who plays a soldier as well the hag) plays the soldier role with all the seriousness he played the surgeon Hawkeye Pierce. There are a few redeeming moments, though: when the henchman throws the midget minstrel off the top of the castle (he lives, but it's nice to believe that he won't), and the great expression Lee has to hold at the end of the movie (he sure is shaking a lot for a statue). Other than that, there no reason to recommend this movie. Die-hard Lee fans may not even enjoy it.