There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

In truth, any opportunity to see the film on the big screen is welcome.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I've been watching horror and cult movies for more than twenty years and I've written nearly 3.500 user-comments for this lovely website, and yet … I still make the same damn idiotic rookie mistakes! In spite of the negative ratings and forewarning reviews from fellow horror fanatics, I keep on tracking down obscure and long-forgotten films purely based on their awesome looking vintage film posters. My latest failure is this "House of Terror", released in the generally speaking splendid horror year 1973. Several reviewers, whose opinions I never question, wrote already that this was a dreadfully dull and incoherent low-budget stinker, but – oh no – I spotted a cool poster (with the face of a petrified woman in extreme close-up) and absolutely had to watch it anyway. The opening sequence and the climax are decent horror material, albeit already senseless and irrelevant, but everything in between is literally unendurable nonsense! The film starts with the bloody massacre of an elderly couple, but then they're hardly ever mentioned anymore. They supposedly are the parents of the rich Emmett Kramer, and at the beginning of the film he hires the beautiful young private nurse Jennifer to look after his loathsome wife. From then onwards I lost most of my interest, due to non-stop boring and practically inaudible dialogs, but it's something about the nurse's hoodlum boyfriend wanting to steal the family fortune and a long lost evil twin-sister coming back for vengeance… Oh, and there's a deaf- mute and bearded housemaid running about in the house, but apart from one very essential sequence, she merely just serves as a piece of scenery. "House of Terror" is insufferably boring, ugly, predictable, derivative and badly acted. But hey, the poster is awesome!

Lovely young nurse Jennifer Andrews (ravishing brunette beauty Jennifer Bishop) is hired by nice guy millionaire Emmett Kramer (Mitchell Gregg) to take care of his mean and cranky semi-invalid wife Marsha (an excruciatingly shrill and unpleasant portrayal by Jaquelyn Hyde). After Jennifer's sleazeball boyfriend Mark Alden (an effectively smooth turn by Arell Blanton) kills Marsha in a staged suicide, Mark persuades Jennifer to marry Emmett for his sizable fortune. Complications ensue when Marsha's bitchy and conniving actress sister Dolores (Hyde again gleefully camping it up) shows up to also get get greedy paws on Emmett's money. Sound good? Well, it just ain't. Seriously undermined by Sergei Goncharoff's static direction, further marred by an extremely blah, talky, and by-the-numbers predictable script by Tony Crechales, a painfully slow pace, drab cinematography by Robert Maxwell, a mild PG rating that puts the kibosh on any gratuitous nudity or hardcore sleaze, all the standard insipid clichés (dark and stormy nights, blood dripping from the ceiling, a foul and ugly mute housekeeper, etc.), a generic ominous score by Jaime Mendoza-Nava, and a meandering and uneventful narrative, this dreary dud proves to be a heavy and unenjoyable chore to slog through. Neither the sight of the delectable Bishop in a bikini nor a nasty surprise twist ending can alleviate the severe boredom. A real yawnfest.

not the worst i ever saw but not your cup of tea at all i mean it's not the kinda of movie to spend your evening watching or your weekend for sureeits not phsyco for the great director Alfred Hitchcock , & its not based on a novel for Agatha Cristie either so don't expect much there is not much to talk about in that senseless picture weather in the plot or the acting or the photography or even the directing , the production was poor too so it didn't help in that senseso i'll be short .. if you are bored & need to spend sometime watching an exciting movie, this one had no suspense or excitement guaranteedno luck in that one sorry

An instantly forgettable and routine mystery/thriller which really isn't as awful as all that when you consider the volume of truly wretched films which have somehow managed to generate substantial resonance. What we have here is an undercooked Agatha Christie-ish plot to kill a recently-widower-ed millionaire. The suspects at hand include his own sister, as well as his dead wife's nurse and her scummy lover. In a sleazy swirl of lust, deceit, and murder, the plot thickens...albeit not very much. The film's sole highlight is the presence of underrated cult figure Jaqueline Hyde in a dual role. She's a strong performer, and in this case she steals the show with little effort. A few fleeting instances of mild violence pepper the overall ennui of HOUSE OF TERROR, a film of visibly unconcerned craftsmanship which one might stumble upon as a "Late, Late, Late Show" presentation...a mere vapor of a motion picture. 4/10