Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

kevin olzak What first began life in 1966 as "Dr. Terror's Gallery of Horror" evolved over the years with new titles for cinema ("The Blood Suckers") and television ("Return from the Past"), easily available today under the shortened title "Gallery of Horror." John Carradine had earlier garnered the title role in "The Wizard of Mars" for director/special effects maven David L. Hewitt, who here managed to corral Lon Chaney and Rochelle Hudson to add greater marquee value to what arguably appears to be his masterwork. Rather than science fiction, truly impossible on such chintzy budgets, we have traditional, old fashioned horror, an anthology film inspired (as one can guess by the title) by the 1964 Amicus feature "Dr. Terror's House of Horrors" (one character even named after Peter Cushing!). Conceived by CREEPY editor Russ Jones, an expert in short stories, Hewitt spent approximately $20,000 on a super fast 5 day schedule at Ray Dorn's Hollywood Stage that left the actors breathless, and audiences speechless (Al Adamson and John Carradine filmed "Blood of Dracula's Castle" there around that same time). Virtually all the stock footage is culled from AIP's Roger Corman/Poe films (plus "The Terror"), its main musical theme cribbed from 1960's "The Hypnotic Eye." Carradine is the unnamed narrator, introducing on screen all five stories but only appearing in the opener, "The Witches Clock" (13 minutes), in which a young couple move into a New England castle that 300 years before housed a Salem witch, with an enchanted clock that revives the spirit of Carradine's Tristram Halbin (little characterization in just two scenes). Second, and perhaps weakest, is "King Vampire" (12 minutes), feebly depicting Scotland Yard's hunt for a vampire that supposedly has the face of a corpse, and how they've detained all suspects that fit that description! Next is another poorly executed story, "Monster Raid" (16 minutes), with Rochelle Hudson's adulterous wife getting her comeuppance from her dead husband, whose resurrection was made possible by his own curiously vague formula. Fourth, "Spark of Life" (15 minutes) casts top billed Lon Chaney as Dr. Mendell, the only mad scientist of his entire career, a colleague of Hamburg's Baron Erik Von Frankenstein, continuing experiments that involve bringing the dead back to life via electricity. His greatest mistake is in choosing the corpse of an executed murderer out for revenge, but Chaney really acts up a storm, running the gamut from elation to disappointment, deadly serious as he attempts to undo his success, with predictable results. Last is "Count Dracula" (13 minutes), a seriously crippled retread of Stoker's familiar tale, featuring a woefully inadequate Mitch Evans in place of Carradine as Dracula. As bad as it undoubtedly is, this film remains ideal for younger audiences who favor harmless terror for late night viewing, which was how this monster kid saw it on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater on four occasions: Nov 11 1972 (paired with first feature "Son of Frankenstein"), Dec 29 1973 (paired with second feature "Monster on the Campus"), Nov 30 1974 (paired with first feature "The Horror of Frankenstein"), and Jan 7 1978 (paired with first feature "Count Dracula").

John Bender I also saw this in the late 1960s and/or 1970s on Chiller Theater here in Pittsburgh (WIIC Channel 11 NBC affiliate). I only ever saw this on Chiller Theater - never anywhere else. The title it had when I saw it on Chiller Theater was "King Vampire". The title refers to one of the episodes. This film utterly amazed me in that it so completely had all the production values of a high school play! This thing makes Ed Wood look like a big-budget A-list director! I kept thinking that any minute Chilly Billy was going to break in and announce that the movie was a joke, a phony production slapped together by the Channel 11 guys. You have got to see this to believe it.

jonathan-577 Hewitt's trademark is vaulting ambition approached with the scantest possible means, and when he applies himself to a horror anthology format the result is gruesome and calamitous, and kind of fascinating for it. The first story relates to a bewitched grandfather clock and just about the whole damn thing is shot from a single camera setup. The second tackles vampirism, first from a police HQ with the unmistakable acoustics of an empty warehouse, then from a streetside crowd scene almost entirely composed of offscreen murmurs; the louts who do wander into frame offer the most fascinatingly various and mangled British accents on record. Volume three mainly features the rantings of a corpse over some looped footage borrowed from Roger Corman, to whose bountiful resources Hewitt can only aspire longingly, with the added bonus of Rochelle Hudson (James Dean's mom in Rebel Without a Cause!) playing one seriously antiquated love interest. Lon Chaney Jr. stumbles on set for part four, a Frankenstein variant whose loutish flatness does actually take on a certain lovable aspect in this company, especially the two lab guys with their frat boy impersonations. Finally we return to the vampire theme in part five, accompanied by the dumbest twist ending of the lot, not to mention the most haphazard pan-and-scan job in a crowded field. Toastmaster John Carradine shows up once in a while and mumbles into his sleeve.

hsisselman I found this movie interesting.particularly the tale of the witch's clock.I have always wondered if the idea of a clock being enchanted for this purpose was an idea of the writers or if it was taken from an existing magical practice. all of my delvings into writings on enchantment speak of love and other things.And those into necromancy speak mostly of mediums.I am an avid reader of the occult although i do not actually practice any rituals.I have rented many horror movies and find that references to actual demonology or witchcraft to be few.If anyone had any suggestions as to any sources (books or movies)that might be along the lines of my interest i would be happy to hear (recieve) them thank you