Web of the Spider (1971) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Journalist Alan Foster (Anthony Franciosa) is having a conversation with Edgar Allan Poe (Klaus Kinski) when a bet is made. The bet is that Alan can't spend an entire night inside the Blackwood Castle where there are rumors of strange things inside.I've always enjoyed watching remakes because it gives someone a new stab at some familiar material. There were a handful of directors like John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock who managed to remake their own works, which is an even more interesting thing to do. Italian director Antonio Margheriti made CASTLE OF BLOOD in 1964 and seven years later he'd do a color remake with WEB OF THE SPIDER. As I said, I really do enjoy watching remakes but there's no question that this film is really lacking when compared to the original. I think the biggest issue that this film has is the fact that it's in color and this just takes away so much from the story. The original film contained some great B&W cinematography that actually added to the atmosphere and it actually helped make a rather eerie picture. The sets and costume design look great here and the cinematography is great but the color just really doesn't help matters.I'd also argue that the slow nature of the film really doesn't help matters either. The problem is that there's really not much of an atmosphere here and it's certainly not creepy so the slow-burn that the director goes for just isn't as successful as I'm sure he was hoping. Yet another problem is that there just isn't anything fresh or original done with the material outside of the opening scenes with Kinski playing Poe. These early scenes were actually quite good and it's too bad that Kinski doesn't stick around for long.I thought Franciosa was good in the lead role and Michele Mercier is good as the mysterious Elisabeth. Kinski clearly steals the film but he's only at the beginning and end. As I said, WEB OF THE SPIDER is technically well-made but on its own it just doesn't have enough to really work. When compared to the original, it makes this one all the more forgettable.

Thanks for remaking a film you made just six years earlier, Antonio. Seriously, as if I have got enough of these to watch already, we get Castle of Blood remade in colour, with no real differences at all, except that this time Klaus Kinski gets to play Edgar Allan Poe (and therefore 'do a Kinski' by only showing up for a fraction of the film's running time).To jog your memory, a friend of Poe's called Alan Foster takes up a bet that he can't stay the whole night in the haunted old castle of Lord Blackwood. Foster heads for the seemingly deserted castle, wanders around a bit, then realises that he's not quite alone as Lord Blackwood's sister turns up and starts putting the moves on him, but don't get excited though, it ain't that kind of film.Is there any point in describing the plot? It's the same as Castle of Blood - the dead come alive and replay the last moments of their lives and Foster is trapped in there with them. Foster even meets the doctor who tells the same speech as last time and kills another snake! Didn't need that then, don't need it now. I didn't think Castle of Blood was that great a film the first time around, but at least it had Barbara Steele in it. I've no idea what Margharetti was thinking by remaking it, but at least he could have brought the tone in line with the films that were emerging from Italy in the early seventies.

Antonio Margheriti's 1971 remake of his classic "Castle of Blood" has always been criticized for being inferior in every level to it's predecessor. While I do think "Castle of Blood" is a better film, "In the Web of the Spider" does not stand so far behind. Made on a bigger budget than the 1964 version, Margheriti does a good thing by taking a different aesthetic approach than the candle-lit B&W nightmare that is the latter, and instead lighting up the set with a nice range of deep blues and orange gels to show off the more elaborate locations. It also enjoys a better cast than the original, with a highlight being the presence of Klaus Kinski as Edgar Allan Poe. At first glance, he might not seem very right for the role, but he truly nails it in a absolutely maddening performance. They even made his role slightly larger than the original, by adding a superbly creepy introduction scene in a crypt that sets the tone for the rest of the picture. Albeit not as memorable as Barbara Steele, Michele Mercier (the protagonist from the Telephone segment of Mario Bava's "Black Sabbath") is a good replacement and she has great chemistry with Anthony Franciosa (Argento's "Tenebre"), even more so than Steele and Riviere in "Castle...". Also, I found the film to be somewhat more frightening than it's predecessor, specially towards the ending. The best example of which is the scene where Carmus descends into the crypt and coms across a corpse being reanimated. The effects used in the scene are more subtle, but all the more effective in my view. Riz Ortolani's score is rather uneven. There are some memorable tunes, particularly the hauntingly beautiful love theme and the song that plays during the ball sequence, but the rest is a routine and rather distracting orchestra piece intended to create a creepy environment, whereas there are more than a few scenes where I think absolute silence would've made it all the more effective. Still, it doesn't really ruin the picture, and as I've said, it wasn't all bad. The film's major problem is the fact that it's virtually a scene-by-scene remake of the original. Surely, there are some slight improvements, such as the shirtless, hunky ghost that was looked silly in the original is now dressed and more menacing-looking, and the ending is also more subtle and tragic. Still, these elements are only a very small portion of the piece, and while they do make a difference, the whole thing failed to impress me story-wise, because I knew exactly what was going to happen next in every scene. There are no big changes and/or improvements to make it essential viewing for those who have already seen "Castle of Blood", which is a pity really, since it does have some great assets and even surpasses the latter in some ways. Also, where "Castle of Blood" felt provocative and ahead of it's time with it's depiction of sex and lesbianism, "In the Web of the Spider" feels way too restrained and tame, specially for a film that came one year after "The Vampire Lovers", which dealt with some similar themes. The sole 'gore' scene we get to see is in the very end, and is restrained to a brief shot of blood flowing from Franciosa's wound. Mind you, I'm not a gorehoud, nor do I think violence is essential to make a horror film good, but in this case I think it was more than necessary, if only to make it stand out from the original. None of these cons stopped it from being a fun and atmospheric slice of Italian Gothic, but it makes me sad to give it a mere a 7/10. If you're a fan of this type of film and haven't seen "Castle of Blood" yet, I think you might better watch this one first, but otherwise I unfortunately can't go as far as calling it the forgotten gem of continental horror it could have been.

I REALLY like Klaus Kinski. He made some wonderful movies like Aguirre: Wrath of God, Fitzgaraldo, Android and Nosferatu...so I buy anything with him in it.I bought Web of the Spider because of Klaus. Well, you can forget about that. I peered into the darkness of the opening scenes and tried with some difficulty to tell if I was looking at K.K. or not.At the end of the movie there was more of the same, and most of it could have been left out...plotwise.I was a little let down, but I stuck with it, and was surprised at the quality of this little gem! It's atmospheric and moody and well done.I enjoyed my first viewing of it tonight, and I'm looking forward to watching it again.