William Castle seems more like a ham than a man who wants to be Hitchcock. Hitchcock never hosted his movies only his TV show, but he does have charisma, more so than the fat man.Jean Arless is outstanding as Emily. I really believed she fell off the deep end, and should not be messed with.I could tell from the moment Warren, Emily's fiancé, appeared in the movie that something was up with him, but I could not put a finger on it, which made the ending great. It was a good job by all the actors and filmmakers to one-up Psycho in brilliance.Psycho got a lot of cred for it's lack of blood and a few bodies, which is a 180 on this film that has way more blood and a few more gruesome deaths. the killing that opens the movie comes out of nowhere which makes it more gruesome.The one downplay from the Campy Castle was his fright break, a gimmick that probably works better in a Grind house than it does on home video. The clock that appears on screen timing down when the real scary stuff is about to happen while William Castle tells you to leave if you are too scared was cheesy, but Ironically once the break is over, the actual fight lives up to the clock's purpose.If you've seen Psycho you should check this out and compare.

Call it inspiration or homage or ripoff, this is clearly influenced by PSYCHO from the previous year. Whether Castle was capitalizing on that film's success or simply knew a good idea when he saw one, the similarities are all too obvious. Castle's take on it has some ludicrous stuff in it, but is a ton of fun. The film really keeps you guessing for the first half, you're dying to know the story behind Joan Marshall's (here credited under the alias Jean Arless) ruthlessly psychotic behavior. There's a final reveal that's telegraphed far too early (who knows, it may have fooled 1961 audiences) but it hardly matters when it's all so giddily twisted and enjoyable. Marshall is a delight and the film has pretty good production value. The score is well done, and although Burnett Guffey's cinematography isn't as striking as his noir work, there are some terrific shots. On, and the gimmick this time around? A "Fright Break" clock that counts down 45 seconds before the climax, giving scared viewers a chance to go out in the lobby and stand in the "Coward's Corner." Hee hee! Definitely one of the better Castle productions, one that makes you wish there was someone of his showmanship making movies today.

I really love this movie. It is unabashedly an effort to cash in on and outdo "Psycho," and as such it is made with audiences who loved that movie in mind, complete with visual references and in-jokes for fans. But better for me, Castle takes the gender-bending murderer/ess theme to a new height, quite daringly for 1961. Every time I see it, I go through a moment of not being able to remember if the actor "Jean Arless" actually is male or female. You'll figure it out pretty quickly, and of course you'll see the "surprise" ending coming a mile away, but it's still great fun to watch, and unusually complex for a Castle thriller. As with most Castle movies, this one had a gimmick. Close to the end it has a "fright break" in which audience members too frightened to watch the end could go over to the "Coward's Corner" and ask for their money back. The break still appears on the screen on video or TV, but you can't get a refund for not watching the end.

A young woman wants to pay a large sum of money to a stranger, if the stranger will marry her quickly. We follow this woman through the film as she exhibits behavior that is not entirely benevolent; yet her motives remain veiled. Plot pacing lags at times. But the film's ending is suspenseful, as a person enters a big house at night, no lights, just shadowy rooms and a strange tapping sound; and then ...The scriptwriter lays a trap for viewers in the film's first thirty minutes. Unless viewers can extricate themselves from this trap, the story's underlying premise will remain baffling until the end. Yet, even after the explanation, I still found the premise confusing. Some extra lines of pivotal dialogue scattered through the plot would have helped.The film's climax scene becomes the big payoff to viewers, many of whom never extricated themselves from that trap. But then that's it. There's nothing else to the film ... no substantive story, no thematic depth, just a gimmicky premise and that shocking climax.The visual shocks, the film's lurid title, the unsubtle acting, the cheap production design, and that hokey "fright break" near the end combine to telegraph "Homicidal" as b-grade drive-in flick. And that's not necessarily bad. The film does have some value as cheap entertainment, especially if one hasn't seen any of the prominent films of the early 1960s. Otherwise, "Homicidal" could be construed as something of a rip-off.