Just rewatched this for the first time in about 30 years and it is every bit as good and bad as I remembered. It has so much going for it - some real heavyweight acting talent; fantastic settings and atmosphere; Judy Matheson at her most luminous in a substantial role; and, best of all, a really off-kilter story. The pieces are all there. Of course it often belies its low budget and while there are some great actors on display others may not be quite so top-drawer. But none of that reduces the enjoyment of Crucible of Terror. Like several other British horrors it succeeds because of its shortcomings rather than in spite of them. If you're a fan of the genre you owe yourself a viewing.

Very slow, atmospheric, acting OK, Not recommended Most of the acting sucked. The painters acting was the best. He actually looks like Christopher Lee and is a better actor than Lee. Some killings were good, but the whole story was slow and needed a much better script. The cinematography was good, and the movie had atmosphere. It's a mystery but not enough clues given to solve this mess. The ending was spelled out, too contrived to wrap this thing up.Rating is a C- for effort, or 4 stars. I cannot recommend. But if you do watch, there are a few interesting scenes.

As with the majority of the 70s B-movie horror flicks which have survived the ages to make it onto modern day television, I first saw this piece of classic film at around 3am on some god-forsaken low budget television station...Initially, my interest was sparked at the prospect of high profile nudity following the introductory scene which featured a naked lady being turned into a statue or something ludicrous. The anticipation of nudity is a key technique by the author of 'movie' in order to secure the attention of the unfortunate viewer.The possible forecast of a brief lesbian sexual congress is hinted by one of the key female performers (who can be seen with her kit off in one of the Robin Askwith 'confessions' films for those who were let down by this travesty of a motion picture). However, true to the inexcusably horrendous nature of this film it is systematically shattered by the impending death of one female party.Possibly one of the most ridiculous elements of this flick is the artist's wife. Portrayed as a senile Dorothy-from-the-wizard-of-oz-wanna-be who tries to persuade her significant other out of evil is impossible to take seriously and one of the key players in the downfall of this moving image.As a fan of cheesy 70s B movie horrors I had high (low) expectations of the "Crucible of Terror". The fact the title has about -6% relevance to any part of the film whatsoever is just another reason I would tell anyone thinking of watching it to instead turn off the TV and go play laser tag.

~Spoiler~ Crucible of Terror...nice title. As soon as the film started, I was thinking to myself "I liked this movie better when it was called A Bucket of Blood." It does become its own film as it goes on, however, it might have been a better idea to just rip off Corman's masterpiece. It seems an artist (cult figure Mike Raven) likes to create sculptures from live women and it turns out that they sell rather well. So a gallery owner finds the home of the recluse sculptor and tries to proposition him to make more works of art. Once there, people start dropping off one at a time, the norm for the genre. What's not normal is the copious amounts of red herrings thrown into the mix. Is it the eccentric artist Victor, his jealous son (played by Ronald Lacey of Raiders of the Lost Ark fame), the crazy wife, or the knowledgeable assistant? You'll never guess, so don't bother. The ending was just so random, but after thinking about the previous murders and some bit of exposition, it did make some sense. Still, don't go out of your way to watch this one.