3/10
Over-acting at a level that would make community theater seem like the heights of great acting by comparison.
14 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I was surprised by this film. The featured review currently showing on IMDb for "Crimes at the Dark House" gave it a 10 and they obviously loved it. However, I found the film was pretty bad--mostly due to lots of very broad acting. No, perhaps BAD acting is what I should have said, as the acting is clearly from the Snidely Whiplash school of over-acting.

The film begins on a grisly but exciting note. In Australia, a man receives a letter that he's just inherited an estate--and his 'friend' kills him and takes the letter--planning on impersonating the beneficiary. Once in England, the fake heir learns that his grand estate is mortgaged and in debt...but there is some good news. It seems that a rich neighbor had betrothed his daughter to the heir--and once he marries the unsuspecting lady, he can pay off his debts and live the life of a country squire. However, problems arise and once again, the new lord of the manor needs to kill to keep his secret.

Tod Slaughter (great name) played the heir, Sir Perceval, with as much subtlety as Jerry Lewis or Pee Wee Herman. With mustache-twirling, bombastic over-annunciations and bluster, he's downright funny...though the film is meant to be a scary mystery-suspense film! Most of the rest of the actors are either adequate or bad--with no performance that rose above the crappy script. The script lacks subtlety as well--with too many very obvious moments and clichés. And, needless to say, with such bad acting, the direction was also quite horrid.

The bottom line is that the film has an interesting IDEA but does nothing with it. A bad film that could have been worth seeing had the folks associated with the production been even semi-competent.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed