House of Usher (1960)
|
Roderick Usher has a very unique tale to tell but the real problem is he might not live long to tell it. Phillip Winthrop has barged thru the doors of the house in search of his love, Madeline...and only encountered the wrath of the Man of the House, Roderick Usher. To get his love out, Phillip will try anything to convince Mr. Usher of his love but Roderick knows all the secrets and won’t let anything happen...not while he’s alive. But there is a 3rd character to the Usher tale and it’s about ready to vanquish them all.
Overall: The film has the right characters and the right ending but the rest is all Roger Corman’s attempt to re-write history. I admit I dislike the way “Dracula” was written and that’s a story for another day but today is the day for “House of Usher” and Corman is not happy with the book. Thinking it’s not “Hollywood” enough no doubt, he drops the character of the “narrator” and adds a lover to Madeline. A nice love story which then makes Roderick look like the bad guy, per Vincent Price’s image. The film is moderately entertaining but it’s lack of similarity to the book is disappointing. And don’t get me started on Robert McCammon’s “Usher’s Passing.” I see this book as what “Highlander 2” did for that film series. The original story makes it very clear how many in the family are alive. The “Fall” of “The House of Usher” occurs because no one of that lineage remain. “There can be only 1” quickening only occurs because so few are left. By “Hollywood-ising” these stories and creating spawn for a sequel, only serves to damage the original idea. If you assume that McCammon’s book could occur, then explain how the “House” falls while Usher’s are still alive elsewhere? Comparison: Highlander meets Breeders |
Links to other sites at The Sinning Room
Horror Films A-K Review Page
Horror Films Review Page
