MovieChat Forums > The Vault of Horror (1973) Discussion > 1/10 (could've been 0). Here's why:

1/10 (could've been 0). Here's why:

posted 9 years ago by IMDB_Vits
3 replies | jump to latest

I don’t think there’s ever been an anthology film where all the segments are on the same level of quality. VAULT OF HORROR is no different. I must point out that all the segments here have bad acting. Whatever individual problems the script has in each segment, in the end, the movie is just not scary.

You can read comments of other movies (including the 1st installment) at http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.cl/2015/10/comments-round-up-september-2015.html

Any thoughts?

[–] RIP_IMDb 9 years ago

True, none of the stories were scary (but films just don't scare me because they're...films). They could and should have done a better job at making them much more disturbing. Films can be disturbing to me. None of the stories in this were. However, I did enjoy some of them especially the Tom Baker one at the end. So because I did get some enjoyment from them (again especially the Tom Baker one) I give this a 4/10.

Well, most people are idiots with bad taste...so there!

[–] PurpleProseOfCairo 9 years ago

Not "scary", but creepy, with a very British undercurrent of (nicely) inappropriate black humour, which adds to the creepiness (see also The House That Dripped Blood).

[–] velvoofell 9 years ago

The film is creepy. However I think reviewers who may give it 4/10 for some ergonomic failure - i.e. That it did not scare - are missing somewhat of the point of why this film is revered, nay loved.
A particular British audience, for example, will savour deeply tongue in cheek performances, eccentric characterisation, casting and set design and have an appreciation for the vintage aspects - that much if the cast are from British cinema's brilliant past (Terry Thomas) or British television's glory days (Tom Baker) that reviewing the film on its pragmatic capabilities as a horror film is missing the boat to a naively embarrassing depth.