Vincent Price leads an impressive cast in this ‘horror-comedy’ “Theatre of Blood”. The plot is a standard one – a second-rate actor who is obsessed with Shakespeare, is also convinced he is a genius. Despite every critic in a ‘critic’s circle’ having given him a bad review for his plays, he thinks he will get the ‘critic’s circle’ award, and when they (naturally) don’t give it to him, he berates them, performs a monologue from “Hamlet” and then jumps into the river. He is presumed dead, but naturally is not, instead plotting to murder all the critics.

Price was a great actor, being capable of superior serious performances as well as hammy comedic ones. This performance falls into the latter category, though as horror comedies go I don’t find this one particularly funny. Price, however, is great fun, as he wears various disguises, attempts some truly atrocious accents, and declaims great swathes of Shakespearian monologue. He is truly a master at portraying a happy little maniac, and does so with great glee and gusto. Whatever else you can say about this movie, Price is always worth watching.

This is a British production, and the supporting cast include a great many well-known actors. Among the ensemble are Michael Hordern, Diana Rigg, Arthur Lowe, Robert Morley, Dennis Price, Eric Sykes, Joan Hickson, Diana Dors, and Jack Hawkins. It is unexpected to find such names in what appears to be strictly B grade fare. These actors all do a fine job with their roles, even though most of their appearances are quite brief. (Their main scenes are the ones in which they are dispatched.)

The murders are quite fun, because they are all based on Shakespeare plays. The murderer (Edward Lionheart) kills off each character in a manner befitting the play they wrote a bad review about. So the first victim is stabbed by multiple people as he reviewed ‘Julius Caesar’, the second victim is dragged behind a horse (‘Troilus and Cressida’) and so on. There was a creative touch with one of the reviews being of ‘A Merchant of Venice’ which has no deaths. However the victim for that one was told they were doing an experimental work with a different outcome, meaning he as the merchant is actually carved up by Shylock and has his heart cut out.

Lionheart is helped in his schemes by his daughter, and a group of homeless people (listed as meths drinkers in the credits.) Apparently it was quite common for homeless people in London at this period to drink methylated spirits, as it was cheap and they wanted to get drunk. The consequences could be quite severe to their health, which can explain the odd behaviour of most of Lionheart’s entourage. I do have some issues with this aspect of the plot – there seems no reason why the group decided they would do what Lionheart says. We are to believe that their state meant they did not care, or maybe did not understand, what they were participating in. It is an aspect of the plot that I don’t think has aged well – it suggests a judgemental attitude of the poor (ie they are homeless, they drink meth, so they must be crazy murderers.)

Another aspect of the movie that has not aged well is the depiction of homosexuality. Robert Morley plays Meredith Merridew, a homosexual critic. He has two poodles and dotes on them, calling them children, which seems to me to be cliched and a caricature. In another scene Lionheart pretends to be a hairdresser to lure in one of his victims. He calls himself ‘Butch’ (I had to roll my eyes) and plays it outrageously camp, calling the policeman a big hunk. This was a normal way of portraying homosexuality at the time, and no doubt seemed very funny to contemporary audiences. As I say, it has not aged well.  

On a more humorous note, many of the victims are quite outrageously dumb. They know they’re being targeted, however one accepts an invitation to a wine-tasting that he knows nothing about, another finds her regular hairdresser is not present when she attends her appointment and accepts an appointment with someone she does not know, one goes to his fencing club which he finds empty except for one person he doesn’t know and happily agrees to fence with him (it is Lionheart, of course). The character who returns to his own home to find a ‘film crew’ on premises and gets excited about being on TV instead of asking who they are and how the hell they got in, really takes first prize for stupidity. I would be staying at home and going nowhere until they caught the crook and would be speaking to no one I did not know. Their obliviousness makes it very hard to feel sorry for them.

The police officers fare no better. The ones who are supposed to be guarding the various people are very bad at it – one officer sits at the hairdresser and reads a magazine, not noticing til it is too late that the woman he’s supposed to be looking after has been killed a short distance away. Another happily agrees with the man going to the wine tasting to wait outside (sorry, aren’t you supposed to be watching the guy?) The police are almost Keystone Cops in their ineptness, only redeemed at the end when the police officer in charge has one of the homeless men in custody and refuses to give him alcohol until he talks.

**Spoiler alert** The ending unfortunately is something of a cliché, though I suppose that was unavoidable. Lionheart sets the building on fire, His daughter is knocked out or killed, and he carries her up to the roof (as you do when you’re the villain in this kind of movie) and they die in the flames. One could wish for something a little less pedestrian.

“Theatre of Blood” is by no means Vincent Price’s best work. The film has issues and plot contrivances. It is also fun and darkly comedic in parts. There are many excellent actors to watch here, and for this reason I would strongly recommend it.