Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

TwylaLucy I just watched the recent 3-D restoration. I thought it was a well done B movie. The storyline was interesting, acting was good.

cstotlar-1 William Cameron Menzies directed an odd bag of films and designed some fabulous sets in his lifetime. As usual, he was working on an uncompromising budget and that, to some reviewers, seems to mean that his talent wasn't somehow up to the task. This is a sorry reward for such an intelligent designer. The script gets in the way at times, admitted, but the sets - and the fabulous musical score by Marlin Skyles - give us so much more than a few laughs from dated dialogue. It's all far-fetched with the explanations at the very end but it builds up nicely, the actors are all on cue, and the lighting alone make it worth the visit. In general, so many of the horror films of the 50s are fascinating to watch today.

JohnHowardReid Not exactly a crime movie, although it seems to start off that way. It's more a horror outing, designed to show off some really startling 3-D effects. Actually, there are really three versions of the movie. The 3-D, the flat, and the flat with censor cuts including a severely truncated climax. Directed and designed by the fabulous William Cameron Menzies, it must be admitted straight off that the 3-D effects lose much of their impact in 2-D. In fact, in the censored flat version the horror element is pretty tame, but the plot of course seems even more wildly and ridiculously implausible. If this were not bad enough, the sets look quite ordinary and give the appearance of being constructed on an extremely limited budget. In 3-D, however, not only do the sets look grimly menacing but there are some quite ingenious tricks to startle us and keep our eyes glued to the screen. Also the photography now seems quite slick with some really effective atmospheric shots, e.g. the motionless silhouette of the late baronet slumped in a high-backed chair, and the tense climax with our super-attractive heroine lost in the maze. In fact, 3-D proves such a wonderful distraction that we don't notice the holes in the plot or any gaps in continuity.

Prichards12345 I've docked two stars from this film for what must surely be one of the silliest endings in horror movies - and that's saying something! This is up there with the climax of Night Monster for sheer cheek, but for around an hour this is an absorbing and atmospheric Gothic drama.Richard Carlson, always a welcome presence, plays the heir to a Scottish laird called away from his pre-nuptial holidays in the South of France by some strange emergency at his ancestral home - a rambling castle he hasn't visited in years. Promising to return to his fiancé as soon as he can, he then does a disappearing act, before writing a mysterious note telling his beau she's the next Jennifer Anniston! Naturally she doesn't take kindly to this, and with Aunt in tow (you can tell this was made in the pre-rock and roll era - the leads would be groovy teenagers if this had been made in 1958) she undertakes the trip to the castle, where the sinister servants and her one-time love are acting all mysterious....The Maze of the title is a part of the castle grounds, and seems to hold the key to the mystery. What are those strange slopping sounds heard in the night? Why must everyone be locked up in their rooms at a certain time each evening? The answer, when it comes, proves to be hilarious. MAJOR SPOILER HERE. Er, it turns out to be a 200 year-old frog, who happens to be one Sir Roger! A deformed ancestor who has an extended life, is very shy and retiring and yet cultured. (come off it, guys he's a frog!) The minute he's discovered Sir Rodg takes a great froggy leap through a window to his doom. You might say he croaked! Cue Carlson's laugh-out loud explanation for the mysterious events...All I can say is they must have some sizable insect life in the Scottish Highlands to keep Kermit, er, Sir Roger, well-fed. Okay, I fess up. It's a bloke in a frog suit....There's one great Lovecraftian shot of the frog fumbling about in the darkness which is genuinely creepy, though. And if you can get past The Muppet Show explanation you might like it.