People unfairly bash this movie without understanding that it was originally meant for TV and it was made with a limited budget. In my point of view cinematography is actually very decent for a TV movie and it shows that Fulci really had a talent even with tight budgets. If this had been made with higher budget and better actors, then it could be an instant giallo horror classic of all time.The plot is very original and it's so bizarre that it has to be seen. The actual message is right there. It can be interpreted in several ways, for example the movie could have some symbolism to politics and it all depends on the viewer. Also the proverb in the beginning sums it all up what the film is mainly about.All in all this is very entertaining rare piece of cinema.

** Lucio Fulci was renowned for his gore-soaked, entrail-laden spaghetti epics, held in particular regard by some of us, accustomed to watered- down, assembly line slashers and their endless line of sequels as the totality of the horror flick experience. Dreamy and incoherent as well as repulsive & palpable, Lucio's movies are an acquired taste. To accuse him of being liberal with narrative is putting it lightly. In the world according to the maestro, insane strokes of bad luck strike with the disfavor of a sadistic god; guard dogs rip your throat out, cellar walls collapse onto hell-mouths, and jealous father's power drill craniums with demented glee. It's a mad, mad world of grisly freak accidents, usually of the supernatural variety & mankind is little more than playthings. Such a uniformed unconformity to the strictures of plot and even common sense have been used as ammunition for criticisms, but I find his wacky gutter-surrealism charming. I've had enough cookie cutter story lines and half baked scare tactics to last a lifetime. Unpredictability & restraint will never be an issue with a Fulci film and we should be glad. House of Clocks is like this. Three thugs decide to rob an elderly couple's estate and end up murdering the occupants when it all goes haywire. However, when the hundreds of clocks adorning the mansion begin running backwards, time itself begins to unravel and the victims return to life, turning the tables on their accosters with interesting results.Logic is conservatively adhered to throughout this scattershot tale, and Fulci has his usual schlock gore on hand to spice it up, though not nearly at the strength of his earlier classics, sadly. Though clearly upper tier output from his awful final phase, the inspired nihilistic vision of the early 80's just isn't there. Unfortunately too, the photography has a hazy indistinctness which apparently is a trademark of his later work, but that's small potatoes compared to the horrible dubbing which saddles the actors with ill-suited voices (like a lot of Italian genre movies) that over and under accentuate sentences constantly and sound like parodies of their respective characters.The real delight of this bizarre little ditty is the elderly duo, presented as polite, thoroughly insane geriatrics. These are your kindly grandparents filtered through the Italian sleaze ethic: upon graciously accepting the resignation of their maid, the old lady casually picks up a wooden pole and impales the woman, twisting with glee and watching her intestines un-loop .She then tosses off her gardening gloves and sashays out of the greenhouse(!?). Such throwaway moments of off-the-wall tastelessness (the screen writer also penned House on the Edge of the Park) ensure House of Clocks is, if you can stomach the slow-pacing, a decent time killer. But there are no earth shattering gore operatics here.

After The New York Ripper in 1982, the quality of Fulci's efforts as a filmmaker drastically declined. The impenetrable dark atmosphere and genuine artistry of his previous films was definitely on the way out, as is evidenced by such unremarkable video fodder as "Daemonia", "The Ghosts of Sodom", and "The New Gladiators".Not everything the man did after "Ripper" is entirely forgettable, however - 1983's "Conquest" retains a lot of Fulci's hyper-gory, atmospheric sensibilities, and is demented fun in it's own right. "The House of Clocks" is also a fairly accomplished piece of work, and is probably the best of his post-1982 films.Originally made for Italian television as part of a horror series (ala Tales from the Crypt), but deemed to gory for release, "The House of Clocks" really works fairly well. It has moments of genuine creepiness; hints of the strong, evil atmosphere Fulci was so adept at creating pop up here and there. The film is quite interestingly lit (many of his later pictures have a similar, glowing-like look to them), and contains a few memorable characters - not the least of which being the demented, wizened old couple, who seem kind and hospitable one moment, and are disemboweling you with a large metal spike the next. Also, there are several moments of the kind of gut-spilling gore we've come to expect from Mr. Fulci, which is more than welcome. One of the reasons that many of his films succeed are the over-the-top, positively nightmarish gore scenes. Save for "Cat in the Brain" and "Touch of Death", many of Fulci's later-career efforts shy away from the excessive gore, which turns many of them into colossal bores. This is not the case with "House of Clocks" - while not nearly up to the violence level of "The Beyond" or "New York Ripper", there are enough violent murders and scattered entrails to please the average Fulci fan, and nauseate anyone else.While many Fulci fans will simply overlook "The House of Clocks", being that not only was it made in Fulci's autumn years but also for television, this would be a mistake - "The House of Clocks" is well-worth seeing for any admirer of the work of Lucio Fulci. Others might wanna beware, though.

I'm a big fan of Italian horror maestro Lucio Fulci, but in spite of that; I put off seeing this made-for-Italian-TV movie, as I feared it wouldn't be very good compared to earlier Fulci offerings. Now that I've seen it, however, I am happy to report that with this film; Fulci doesn't disappoint! While it lacks the grandiose of Fulci's excellent Zombie Flesh-Eaters and the intrigue of his early Giallo offerings, House of Clocks still shows Fulci's talent for making horror movies, in spite of the conditions under which it was made. The plot certainly is intriguing enough, and it follows an old couple that live in a house full of the man's 'children'; namely, a bunch of clocks. The trouble starts when a troupe of pot-smoking crooks, who see the house as an easy target, decide to break in and rob it...only to find that after murdering the inhabitants; the 'children' start running backwards, and our protagonists may only have a matter of time before they meet their own gory demise...Speaking of gore, Fulci is famous for it; and this film certainly has it; but from some of the scenes, you do get the overwhelming impression that the gore is only there to satisfy his fans. Not that that's a bad thing. Like many Italian horror films, this one suffers from poor dubbing, worse acting and lots of incoherence in the script. It's easy to forgive the film for these negative aspects however as it breathes a great atmosphere and there's some absolutely great horror shots, that are sure to delight fans. That's the thing about Fulci – people see the gore and then write him off as a hack, when this isn't the case at all. This film does pretty much write itself off by the end, however, as, for some reason, Fulci has opted to tack on one of those endings that just sucks all the credibility out of the film; and on the whole it means that you will leave the film with a very sour taste in your mouth. Really, I recommend turning it off at about the 70-minute mark. Still, while the ending ruins it and it suffers from lots of imperfections; this is still a very nice horror film, and one that is very enjoyable too!