House of Usher

Audience Reviews

View All (325) audience reviews

Hector I I've been looking at Corman's adaptations of Poe, and here's a short story that's been brought to the fore by publishers to give a new lease of life to Gallimard's edition of Poe's short stories and Baudelaire's translation. The story here is quite different from the short story. In the short story, Winthrop is Roderick's (Vincent Price) friend, which is not the case in the film, where Winthrop comes to ask for Madeline's hand in marriage. Roderick refuses, as the family is said to be haunted. The action takes place in a gloomy land where nothing grows, in a house visibly drawn (aie aie aie). Only a servant still holds on to the house, which seems to be falling apart and falling into ruin. The atmosphere is not badly rendered, and you can really feel the house crumbling into dust and looking like it's been inhabited by something else. The ancestors' paintings are also very well rendered in a very avant-garde pictorial style, and Winthrop's dream is quite audacious. But I didn't really enjoy this film. Why shift the plot from the short story to a charming principle trying to save his beloved in the first place? It's a real shame. Secondly, the drawing of the castle is a real shame, and immediately undermines the suspension of disbelief. Price plays well, but I find the other two actors, Madeline (Myrna Fahey) and Winthrop (Mark Damon), more anecdotal. The servant, on the other hand, is more striking (Harry Ellerbe). Rated 2.5/5 Stars •  Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars 05/07/25 Full Review John C This adaptation of the Fall of the House of Usher is much better than I expected it to be, genuinely immersive and atmospheric despite some 1960s campiness and melodrama here and there. Vincent Price is on top form as the crafty and unhinged Rodrick Usher, and the rest of the cast put in reasonably good performances (Myrna Fahey's really comes alive towards the end), but the story itself and the gothic spookiness of the setting is what makes this so good. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 12/22/24 Full Review nick s Solid performances and nicely paced. It had a single set location and just a few actors, so not a grandiose movie. There was the ambience of a horror yet it wasn't what you'd call frightening. Worth watching for the quality directing and acting but not an exceptionally memorable work. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 11/16/24 Full Review Leaburn O A decent adaptation of Poe's classic horror tale. Starts well and gets a bit campy towards the end. Decent enough without being outstanding. Watched on Silent Movies. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 03/02/24 Full Review Tim M Short and devilishly sweet, House of Usher lives up to Edgar Allen Poe's haunting tale with gothic imagery and a persistent sense of foreboding. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 01/05/24 Full Review Dave S After a string of genuinely bad low-budget B-movies in the ‘50s, director Roger Corman used 1960's House of Usher to prove to his detractors that he could actually make a decent movie. Very loosely based on the Edgar Allan Poe short story, it tells the tale of a 19th century New England estate seemingly haunted by the generations of madness of the family who has inhabited it. The movie succeeds on the strength of Richard Matheson's script, some excellent sound effects, striking sets and costumes, and a stellar performance from the always reliable Vincent Price. Yes, it gets a bit hokey towards the end and yes, the visuals of the burning castle at the end are laughable, but the movie works due of the consistent atmosphere of dread created by Corman. This may be the best of his Poe adaptations. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 10/30/23 Full Review Read all reviews

House of Usher

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now