6/10
The Title Is Misdirection, The Film Is Something More
31 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
While the title suggests that the film is an adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe's short story (something that had not been done since the 1930s), it is actually far more similar to "Phantom of the Opera", which has been done many, many times.

The film is noteworthy for being one of the two American International Pictures Poe films without Vincent Price -- the other being "Premature Burial". But should this film really count as Poe anyway?

Howard Thompson of the New York Times wrote that "the entire film is a gorgeous eyeful in excellent color, with lavish period decor and costumes and some perfectly beautiful dream montages." While I can hardly disagree, he goes above and beyond the praise I would have offered. I mean, I liked the story and the acting, but I never really noticed the color. And I am not sure what the "period decor" is, since there is no indication this is supposed to be anything but modern (after all, how can you present Poe's story unless it is well after he wrote it).

Thompson does offer one negative piece of criticism, and that involves pointing out that "a tacked-on, drawn-out postscript almost flattens the fun." I completely agree with this. While I enjoyed the film, I felt like it had two or three endings, and just kept going anyway. There is no better way to make a film seem long (wearing out its welcome) than to make it start after the audience has stopped!
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed