OK. So there was this dude back in the Middle Ages who went insane and started torturing people left and right. You've got your basic Iron Lady, rack, and the like, but this fellow, who called himself the Crimson Executioner, also came up with a few handy dandy instruments of torment all his own. Of course, he was eventually caught and put to death – but he swore he would return and have his revenge. Fast forward to the present day (which would be 1965, the year the film was released). An editor decides that a certain ancient castle would be a perfect place to shoot some cover pictures for his company's upcoming horror novel releases, so he brings a troupe of photographers and models to the place. They think it's deserted – but it isn't. The owner is one huge grouch, yet he does give in and lets his unwelcome guests spend the night. They immediately go about their business, quickly wandering into the basement they were ordered to stay away from. It doesn't take long for their numbers to dwindle – it looks like the Crimson Executioner is back, and he's getting right back into the swing of things. Wait until you hear the story of the castle's hermit-like owner. His rationale for everything he does is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard in a horror movie. He's one of these Buff Hardbody types, only he is so far out in left field that he actually withdrew from society in order to deep his perfectly toned body free from contamination by riff-raff like you and me. We even have to watch him oiling himself up as he delivers his one big speech that explains basically everything in the movie. The negatives easily outweigh the positives of his strange film, but I certainly must discuss the torture scenes that play such an integral part in the closing scenes. They're pretty darn impressive, actually – and amazingly risqué for the mid-1960s. The best one has to be the turntable thing that allows a knife to cut in the area of a rather obvious female body part. Still, you can never go wrong with a good old-fashioned rack, either. The guy has it all – torture by fire, water, stretching, stabbing, etc. Sadly, there's almost no blood or nudity involved, but I was still surprised that Bloody Pit of Horror got away with as much as it did back in 1965.
Our Price: £2.66 (subject to change)
Great torture scenes, but the film's just too darn weird
Review date: 2006-01-18 Rating: 4 out of 10
Bloody Pit of Horror is one weird Gothic horror film. It apparently has some sort of cult following, but I just didn't think it lived up to its promise. Most of the important elements were there: a creepy castle, a legend of a ruthless torturer promising vengeance from the grave, really cool instruments of death all over the place, an alleged connection to the writings of the Marquis de Sade, and a fairly good Gothic atmosphere. It was even "filmed in Psychovision," whatever that means. Unfortunately, though, the story just never hit the ground running, and it eventually took a couple of really silly turns. I thought it really blew out a tire around midway through when a woman in a fiendishly clever trap not only begs our would-be hero not to try and save her, she quickly describes every facet of the trap to him in incredible detail. Anyone looking death squarely in the face is going to scream bloody murder, and he/she couldn't possibly explain deliver a lecture on advanced torture trap design – I mean, this lady does everything but draw the guy a diagram of the whole room. That was just a stupid scene; a film really can't hope for much of a recovery from that kind of thing – not in this horror fan's book, anyway.