+++++++ THIS COMMENT CONTAINS SPOILERS +++++++
Although the idea of a terrible secret hidden and locked up in the attic of an old sordid manor in the middle of nowhere in the British country was not new when this film was released, it has always been a "catching" ingredient for those of us who enjoy horror films. This is what happens in "The Ghoul" but the film comes out in an inferior level than that you might expect in its first half an hour or so.
The secret in the attic here is the son of a Reverend (Peter Cushing) that while in India with his father has been driven into cannibalism by mysterious ancient cults followers and has to be fed accordingly. But the point is that when we finally get to see the doomed man he doesn't appear to be menacing or even scary; in fact, you inevitably feel pity for the big guy that even looks sort of nice and insignificant (for a merciless and hungry cannibal of course). And this is, in my opinion, the fact that hurts the film that could have been a good one with a more impressive and disturbing "man-monster".
On the other hand, Cushing is very good as usual and there is also a good job from a young John Hurt as a weird gardener. The rest of the cast (or victim's list if you prefer) is correct. The sinister and sordid atmosphere that surrounds the mansion is very well achieved and no complaints on the musical score.
I don't relate "The Ghoul" with "Psycho" as some reviewers do here (the story of Norman Bates is far more complex and elaborated and the film is much better); I think this picture has a clear resemblance with the previous "The Oblong Box" (1969) with Vincent Price and amazingly both films are weak in the same point: both have a light and not significant villain, monster, or menace or whatever and you feel sort of disappointed when they finally appear; a sort of "and this was it?" sensation.
"The Ghoul" is worth a watch but just for us fans of the genre.
Although the idea of a terrible secret hidden and locked up in the attic of an old sordid manor in the middle of nowhere in the British country was not new when this film was released, it has always been a "catching" ingredient for those of us who enjoy horror films. This is what happens in "The Ghoul" but the film comes out in an inferior level than that you might expect in its first half an hour or so.
The secret in the attic here is the son of a Reverend (Peter Cushing) that while in India with his father has been driven into cannibalism by mysterious ancient cults followers and has to be fed accordingly. But the point is that when we finally get to see the doomed man he doesn't appear to be menacing or even scary; in fact, you inevitably feel pity for the big guy that even looks sort of nice and insignificant (for a merciless and hungry cannibal of course). And this is, in my opinion, the fact that hurts the film that could have been a good one with a more impressive and disturbing "man-monster".
On the other hand, Cushing is very good as usual and there is also a good job from a young John Hurt as a weird gardener. The rest of the cast (or victim's list if you prefer) is correct. The sinister and sordid atmosphere that surrounds the mansion is very well achieved and no complaints on the musical score.
I don't relate "The Ghoul" with "Psycho" as some reviewers do here (the story of Norman Bates is far more complex and elaborated and the film is much better); I think this picture has a clear resemblance with the previous "The Oblong Box" (1969) with Vincent Price and amazingly both films are weak in the same point: both have a light and not significant villain, monster, or menace or whatever and you feel sort of disappointed when they finally appear; a sort of "and this was it?" sensation.
"The Ghoul" is worth a watch but just for us fans of the genre.