The Legend of Doom House (1971) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
We'll always have Olympus.
awalter124 May 2001
Based on the novel by Jean Ray (the so-called "Belgian Poe"), "Malpertuis" begins with Jan, a young sailor, being summoned with a motley company of acquaintances and family to the death bed of his mysterious Uncle Cassave. Cassave soon dies, leaving his considerable fortune to the dozen or so people he has summoned. However, there are stiff terms attached to his gift: The inheritors must all live for the rest of their lives at Malpertuis, Cassave's mansion. Jan soon realizes there is something amiss at Malpertuis (a name meaning either "house of evil" or "house of cunning"). There is something odd in the attic, in the labyrinthine hallways, and in the surrounding wood. There is something even stranger about Malpertuis' other inhabitants: the mad hermit Lampernisse who haunts the mansion's dark corridors, the coy and beautiful Euryale who will not look anyone in the face, and the diabolic taxidermist Philarete, to name only a few. When the secret of Malpertuis is finally brought to light among this bizarre cast of characters, the mansion erupts into a seething cauldron of terror, and both heaven and earth seem to collapse around Jan.

While fans of Jean Ray's novel will find the story much changed, the film is visually engaging at the very least, and the casting is excellent, for the most part. Orson Welles plays the dying Uncle Cassave, delivering the second performance of his career as a large man stuck in a very large bed (the other performance being, of course, in his adaptation of Kafka's "The Trial"). Susan Hampshire gives an admirable performance in four different roles--excellently well disguised and made-over in each--as Euryale, Nancy, Alice, and a nurse. The sets are extraordinary, filling the screen with an unending stream of vivid detail. Also, the film's cinematography is often both aggressive and intelligently creative, employing just the sort of unpredictable perspective necessary to portray the mansion's mystifying interior.

Disappointments with the film begin small. Jean-Pierre Cassel as Lampernisse does not look the part. Instead of a tall, shadowy, aged-but-ageless, and profoundly mad hermit, he looks like a leper who has wandered off the set of "Ben-Hur." Accompanying Lampernisse is the laughable, high-pitched babble of the "creatures in the attic." In these rare instances, the filmmakers miss by a wide margin the texture of Ray's novel. At other times the film slightly underplays or rushes some of the book's strongest scenes. The one serious offense, though, is the film's ending; the muddled chaos here is a poor substitute for Ray's synchronized anarchy.

This is not to say that the film loses itself completely. The strength of the first hour and more cannot be entirely undermined by the ending. The inspired cinematography and many of the sets, performances, and special effects are truly exceptional. The scenes with little, crazed, mousy Philarete and his morbid workroom are reason enough for the film to exist. Subtlety and humor are here as well, perhaps best represented in the recurring static shot of the inheritors occupying themselves in Malpertuis' small drawing room.
28 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fascinating and tiresome, could be shorter
bob99825 February 2005
My hopes were high for this film. I'd seen Kumel's Le Rouge aux levres/Daughters of Darkness, the most stylish vampire/kinky sex movie ever made, and I love its sly wit and arresting visuals. Malpertuis is not as effective, alas, and I put that down to an overly-complicated story weighed down by too many classical references taken from the novel. Lampernisse, standing in for Prometheus, just doesn't work as a character. Why introduce the Erinyes, the three women who punished offenders against blood kin, when they don't advance the story? It's not an easy thing to watch a movie with a handbook of classical mythology by your side.

Having said this, I will add that it is wonderful to watch film that shows a great visual sophistication (crowd shots that evoke an Ensor painting, or that wonderful twisting staircase in the house) and never needs F/X. We have lost a great deal by the subservience to CGI today.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Your eyes, I've got a box full of eyes but not like yours." Maybe I've missed something important.
poolandrews20 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Malpertuis starts as a sailor named Jan (Mathieu Carriere) arrives at his home port only to discover his old house has collapsed, he ends up in a seedy bar where a fight breaks out & he is knocked unconscious. When he comes round Jan finds himself being tended to by his sister Nancy (Susan Hampshire) in his Uncle Quentin Cassavius' (Orson Welles) imposing old house called Malpertuis, they are also joined by various other family members & obscure relatives as Cassavius is not far from death & he has ordered a reading of his will. The will states that his immense fortune will be split equally but the inheritors can never leave the grounds of Malpertuis ever again which sounds a bit harsh to me but there you go, anyway it becomes apparent to Jan that all is not right at Malpertuis & that it's hiding some bizarre secrets that Jan finds himself in the center of...

This French, Belgium & German co-production was directed by Harry Kumel & didn't do much for me but that could be down to other factors besides the film at hand, you see apparently there's a long 2 hour odd version of Malpertuis & shorter cut down version & since the one I watched yesterday ran for less than 90 minutes I think it's safe to assume I'm missing out on a lot so maybe you should bear that in mind although what the extra footage is & whether it would have improved my viewing experience I don't know. The slightly slow going script by Jean Ferry was based on a novel by Jean Ray & has a certain loose strange bizarre quality to it, while it's an odd film for sure I have to say I always knew what was going on & it's not abstract or weird in that sense but weird in the sense of what's happening on screen. Who was the supposed killer? Is this answered in the longer version? Were little stitched together people really running around in the attic? Again, is this made clear in the longer version? I don't know which is why I feel awkward about either praising or rubbishing the film because I'm not quite sure where the version I saw stands, going by the 90 minute cut alone I thought it was OK & nothing more although I must admit I quite liked the twist 'come out of absolute nowhere' ending which I deify anyone to see coming...

Director Kumel does a good job & there are plenty of memorable scenes plus the film has a great atmosphere about it. The house itself is nice & imposing & there's some cool production design. I wouldn't call any of it particularly scary though, there's not much gore apart from a bit when an Eagle eats someone's guts & someone gets a nail through their head although it's off screen.

Technically Malpertuis is good, impressive even with decent production values. Since the film was made in Dutch & dubbed into English it's hard to tell about the acting although maybe Welles spoke English during filming & he stands head & shoulders above everyone else in the cast & puts in a memorable performance for the brief screen time he gets.

Malpertuis, also known as The Legend of Doom House, is an OK horror/mystery/thriller but I can't help but feel I wish I'd seen the long version because as it stands I think I'm missing out on a potentially better film. However the version I watched is the version I watched & that's all there is to it, as it stands it's a decent enough film but it didn't do much for me & I doubt I'll be in any hurry to see this 90 minute cut again anytime soon.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wrong way.
dbdumonteil5 November 2001
That's what the title means;or at least,that's what the priest explains to Matthieu Carrière.The subtitle is overkill and was added for commercial reasons,probably unbeknownst to the director."Doomed house" is a stupid title:are we so sure it's the story of a house? Isn't it rather the story of a mind? of a fantasy? of a folly?

This poesque subtitle is not suitable for Jean Ray's world,who keeps a certain logic inside a nightmarish swarming of monsters,werewolves,Gorgons and mad scientists.Some of his obsessions surface here:the Gorgon,turning mortals into stone,the taxidermist working on alive bodies,are topics we find not only in "Malpertuis" but also in "the adventures of Harry Dickson" ,his favorite hero (he wrote dozens of stories of this detective and his pupil Tom wills)Prometheus recalls here how suffering and sadism were haunting the Belgian writer.Because Belgian,this definitely is.Kummel's closest relative is none other than his compatriot André Delvaux who quoted Jean Ray in his masterwork "un soir,un train".I urge the users who have liked "Malpertuis" to try "Un soir ,un train".It's the same kind of atmosphere,simply it's more mastered,the emotional power -cruelly lacking in Kummel's work- is increased tenfold .

"Malpertuis" has a dream of a cast:Orson Welles-in a short part,but he makes every of his word count-,Matthieu Carrière ,"Der Junge Törless" wunderkind,Susan Hampshire,Two Chabrol favorites (Michel Bouquet and Jean-Pierre Cassel,both in "la rupture" some months before),and,most amazing thing,French singer Sylvie Vartan and in a cameo(uncredited) her then-husband ,Johnny Hallyday.

The plot may be hard to swallow for horror buffs.It's a film "à tiroirs",and the ending has in store at least three unexpected twists.The last picture leaves the spectator bewildered.Hampshire and Carrière seem unreal,and the world that surrounds them is no longer a world in ruins,but a world that forgot he's in ruins.And what kind of world is it?
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A family of vultures waiting for their old man to die to grab his inheritance
clanciai24 January 2020
Not even Orson Welles succeeds in lifting this film from a level of morbidity to any quality, although it is esthetically well made and interesting with a fascinating scenery throughout. The problem is the story. It's like a turgid novel by Balzac, all the relatives waiting for the old man to die to seize on their inheritance as soon as he is dead, while all they do while he still lives is to long for his death. That's when the interesting part of the film ends, and the rest is more or less just nonsense, as if Welles was the only pillar supporting the film. The conclusion has pretensions to be ingenious but is a disaster and just leads the film to a dead end of artistic bankruptcy. This is no film I could recommend to any audience, and although it was not a mistake to watch it, I will certainly never watch it again.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Review of Kümel's brilliant re-edited, post-Cannes version.
Coventry23 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Harry Kümel's ambitious & courageous film version of Jean Ray's complex novel was offered one big chance to prove itself internationally and to instantly become a genre classic at the annual Cannes Film Festival in 1972. Sadly enough, the shown version – which later got rejected by the director – didn't impress any audiences then and by the time Kümel came trotting along with his very own (and much better) re-edited version of the film, containing over twenty minutes of extra footage, nobody really cared to see it anymore. Now that's a real pity, because in this restored version "Malpertuis" is a truly brilliant work of Gothic art and unquestionably one of the greatest movies ever made in Belgium. A lot more than in the international-orientated versions, the emphasis now lies on obscure mystery and claustrophobic set designs. Both versions are so incredibly different that the common plot summaries of the international Cannes version, which can be found in newspaper articles and movie websites, actually reveal the mysterious denouement of Kümel's ultimate re-edited version! Those reviews immediately explain what odd types of characters are living in the Malpertuis mansion whereas, in the 'correct' version, it is kept secret to the young protagonist Jan as well as to the viewer. I'm desperately trying not to include any spoilers in this user-comment while the same essential plot twists can be read everywhere over the internet… Evidently this film didn't appeal to anyone in Cannes! You can clearly see where it's going right away and thus the sophisticated and enormously stylish hints that are given to unravel the mystery yourself become completely pointless.

The legendary Orson Welles stars in one of his last glorious roles, as the mighty and fearsome, albeit bed-ridden patriarch of the immense Malpertuis mansion who gathered an eccentric collection of people to announce his last will to. Among them is young sailor Jan, who swore that he would never set foot in Malpertuis ever again and he constantly tries to convince his sister Nancy to do the same. Quentin Cassavius' testament claims that there's a gigantic family fortune to divide, only none of the persons present is allowed to leave the mansion and the last remaining man and woman have to get married. Jan is determined to stay around as soon as he falls in love with the mysteriously beautiful Euryale, but other members of the pact that try to escape the domain are found dead soon after, causing hostility and unrest among the remaining members. Harry Kümel builds up the tension and unfolds the mystery like a genuine master, and all this without showing the slightest bit of graphic violence. Instead, he portrays the ominous mansion like an inescapable surreal dimension with endless dark corridors and spiral staircases. Secondary scenery, like paintings on the wall and statues in the grim attic, magnificently add to the wondrous Gothic atmosphere. Meanwhile, the constant elaboration of patterns and intrigues between the many supportive characters lead the story to one of the most grotesque and devastating climaxes in cinema ever. Of course, you'll only be truly enchanted by this climax if you haven't seen the English/French versions or read any plot descriptions before you watch it. Orson Welles and Mathieu Carrière are great but the true star is Susan Hampshire, playing no less than three different and very complex characters. Harry Kümel's "Malpertuis" is a small masterpiece, combining visual artwork with extraordinary plotting. An absolute must!
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Disturbing yet wonderful. Unforgettable
Eponine-625 March 1999
Based on a novel by Jean Ray, Malpertuis is a "haunted" house, unescapable by those who live in it. Characters hiding their true nature, disguised as a "family" to which sailor Jean-Jacques returns unwillingly. Susan Hampshire plays 3 different characters beautifully, and Orson Welles is the perfect actor to play the dominating shadow. The film has an unreal, nightmarish atmosphere, and goes far beyond the scope of the book. Malpertuis is a labyrinth whose secrets are kept behind locked doors, and reveals itself as the film reaches its climax. We come to realize that the mind has as many labyrinths as the house itself. Full of mythology, dimly lit and spooky as dreams use to be ("what is life but a dream?"), Malpertuis is a cult. Jung would have loved it.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Confusion over this film
jromanbaker3 October 2023
I have just seem the 99 minute version in French on YouTube and have only just realised that the 119 version of this film in Flemish is the complete one to see; a directors cut. I am not sure I want to see this as I found ' Malpertuis ' to be a nauseating experience coming out of a disturbed place that I wish I had not entered. The story itself is based around an enforced entrapment in a house called ' Malpertuis ' and after the highlight of the film, Orson Welles at his best, disappears there is a slow descent into very graphic horror typical of a lot of 1970's films. Is the house real or is it an entrapment in a disturbed young man's mind ? I will give no spoilers but it is pretty clear at the end what the house actually is. I would advise anyone who has had a psychiatric illness not to go near this ( for me ) repulsive film. The music by Georges Delerue is excellent but other than Welles I found the acting to be mediocre. I know it has affected my own mind badly, and some of the images are beautiful and it is finely shot, but it is cruelly sensationalist and that is why I depart from those who consider it a masterpiece. I dislike films and there were many of them in the 1970's that had to go, or wanted to go to extremes so as to get audiences in. I feel as mentally confused as the various versions that have and perhaps still are circulating.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Restored to brilliance
pppatty23 July 2002
Having seen this film some years ago on television in a dark, dubbed and cut print, I had all but forgotten it. Yesterday I saw Kumel's restored cut in his own Flemish language, running 124 minutes, and my reaction was "brilliant". The picture was actually originally made in English, French, German and Dutch versions and then hacked to bits in the various markets. This film is a "must-see" for any serious film fan with its fabulous photography, stylish composition and surreal overtones - Magritte too was Belgian. It's more than a horror film as it has often been tagged, but a series of dreams or perhaps nightmares with all the illogic of dreams. I am fairly certain that Welles did his own Flemish dialog and that too makes it a must for the connoisseur.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Definitely a Horror
eye328 April 2000
Opening scenes that confuse instead of establish a story, followed by more obscure scenes and dialogue that go nowhere, topped off with an ending completely unrelated to the rest of the movie.

And all of it peopled by non-actors, save for Orson Welles with his usual gravitas (no pun intended), as the dying master of the house, and Susan Hampshire cutting loose in three different parts: a flighty, sheltered, and developmentally-arrested young girl; a repressed school-marm type who is a sex-maniac underneath; and a draped, firey-wigged ur-dame with the coolest set of eye-contacts this side of "Count Dracula" (1977) with Louis Jourdan.

The only evil in this picture was the wasting of these two Lights of Stage and Screen in this waste of film and time.

Yes, the movie could have been better if it had been made differently. VERY differently.
10 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Mesmerizing and Unique - A Masterpiece of Atmosphere
Witchfinder-General-66628 February 2009
Before seeing "Malpertuis" (1971), I was already a fan of Belgian director Harry Kümel for his mesmerizing Lesbian Vampire film "Les Lèvres Rouges" (Daughters of Darkness) from the same year. I had great expectations for "Malpertuis", because of my admiration of Kümel as a master of atmosphere, because I had heard the film was Kümel's greatest, and because of Orson Welles stared in it. Even so, it surpassed my hopes and totally blew me away. "Malpertuis" is a bizarre and hypnotic mixture of surreal Gothic Horror, macabre family drama, mad science and mythological fantasy, that no cult film lover should miss. Actually, I'd like to correct myself. The film cannot really be narrowed down by attributing it to a particular genre as such, as it is simply unique. In one sentence: The film has everything, and more than that. "Malpertuis" tells a fascinating tale and does so in a brilliantly moody manner. The film maintains a rich, eerie and foreboding atmosphere that becomes more intense with each passing minute. The sublime atmosphere comes along with breathtaking settings, brilliant cinematography, complex and demented characters and fantastic acting performances. The most fascinating thing about "Malpertuis", however, is the story, which is one of the most incomparable and gripping I ever saw in a film. "Malpertuis" is not a film that can properly compared to anything else. It is like a macabre, haunting yet incredibly beautiful Fever Dream.

The film is an adaptation of a novel by Jean Ray, which I haven't yet read, but the stroy certainly is a fascinating one. Jan (Mathieu Carrière), a young sailor, comes to his hometown and, without wanting to, visits the family mansion owned by his creepy and mysterious uncle Cassavius (Orson Welles). The mansion is named Malpertuis, its inhabitants are (equally creepy) relatives who hate Cassavius, but do everything to brown-nose him in desire of his inheritance. A mysterious palace of a mansion, bears fascinating and terrifying secrets... Though this is only a vague description of the film, I shall stop at this point. I do not want to give too much away, as the story is gripping and fascinating from the very beginning and should be experienced rather than read in a review. The set pieces are some of the greatest I've ever seen. The atmosphere is overwhelming, rich and uncanny throughout the film. Each character is fascinating, most of them creepy and demented, the performances are sublime. Orson Welles is, of course, great as always. The other performances are also magnificent. Particular praise has to go to the beautiful Susan Hampshire, who is wonderful in her triple role, playing three different female leads. The rich atmosphere profits from the Flemish /Dutch language and an ingenious score. The film was once reportedly cut to shreds, watching the uncut 126 minute director's cut is absolutely essential. "Malpertuis" is a brilliant film that should not be missed by anybody interested in cult cinema.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The International Version is a Masterpiece
mac-hammer-fan5 April 2003
An adaptation of a modern gothic tale "Malpertuis", written by Jean Ray aka John Flanders. The acting is good and the story is full of symbolism. There are two versions of this movie: the original (in French or in English) feels more like a horror film but the longer re-edited Dutch version lacks most of the superb atmosphere created by the haunting score of Georges Delerue and is therefore disappointing.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
We wish Harry Kumel has done more horror movies!
svbell1 August 2001
Yes, Malpertuis is extremely impressive, in my opinion the best Euro-horror movie! I read the Jean Ray book - which is by far my favorite horror writer - and the adaptation by Harry Kumel, altough not extremely tight to the novel, is quite decent.

Sadly, this movie is nearly impossible to find...
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Abysmalpertuis.
BA_Harrison6 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
All of these glowing reviews here on IMDb and yet no-one seems to be able to explain precisely what the film is about. On the face of it, it concerns a young sailor (Mathieu Carrière) and assorted relatives convening at Malpertuis, the home of soon-to-be-dead Uncle Cassavius (Orson Welles), for the reading of his will. The man's vast fortune is to divided amongst the family, but they will only inherit the money if they agree to stay within the confines of Malpertuis for the rest of their lives.

This sounds pretty straight forward, but let me tell you that the film is nothing of the sort: it's a baffling oddity with bizarre characters that rarely makes sense, and only gets more confusing as it progresses. By the end of the film, it is revealed that everyone in Malpertuis is actually an ancient Greek god trapped in a human body by Cassavius (that old chestnut). Or everything we have seen has been a dream. Or possibly it's all the hallucinations of a patient in a mental hospital. To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what was really going on towards the end, and I strongly suspect that those who say they love this film don't either.

Anyway, to cut a potentially long review short, I found the whole thing not just utterly confusing, but also extremely irritating. 2/10.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Malpertuis
Scarecrow-8831 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A sailor stops by his old town, realizes his family's home had been removed, attempts to find his sister, gets stuck in a bar fight over a dance hall girl, gets hit across the skull knocking him unconscious, awakening in the home of his bedridden uncle, Cassavius(Orson Welles). The sailor is Jan, portrayed by blonde headed, blue-eyed, scrawny Mathieu Carrière(Born for Hell), and he, at first, just wishes to leave but his demanding uncle has something of importance to tell him regarding a will which could prove profitable if he decides not to leave. Within the house are an eccentric group of oddballs, all attempting to appease their master, hoping to leave Malpertuis once Cassavius kicks the bucket. Even still, Jan has no desire to stay until a ravishing red head, Euryale(Susan Hampshire who plays multiple roles, presenting an astonishing range, making three specific characters completely unique and different, a multi-faceted performance that deserves praise), his cousin, arrives, throwing his life into torment. The proposition in Cassavius' will is for those inside Malpertuis to remain until one couple survives, gaining the inheritance. Relatives and hired help, the greedy vultures they are, remain, awaiting for the chance to gain the giant piggy-bank and property entitled if they can outlast their peers. Meanwhile, Jan decides to trek through the halls, mysterious rooms, and spiral staircases of Malpertuis, a massive ring containing an army of keys, hoping to unlock the secrets of the place, hoping to understand Cassavius. Along the way, Jan discovers that Malpertuis may be much, much more than just a mansion, and those people within it's walls could be more than they appear.

The film incorporates dream logic which has you wondering what Jan might experience next. We are, in a sense, on the same surreal journey as Jan is, experiencing what he does, bombarded by unpredictable behavior, always yearning to learn more. Lots of symbolism, and director Harry Kümel(Daughters of Darkness)establishes the importance of faces..through the multiple characters portrayed by Hampshire(..as not only Euryale, the one Jan desires and seemingly can not touch, but also his beloved sister, Nancy, and a lusting Alice who openly engages him for sexual favors, longing to be "human", despite what she "really is"), we realize that what we are seeing isn't a real world as we know it. The mansion itself(..the astonishing spiral staircases and endless rooms/halls)is a veritable maze, about as maddening as the unusual characters which inhabits it's domain. We keep discovering, like Jan, new things regarding the characters that remain in Malpertuis, and what their true relation to him(..in a dream, faces of people that exist often derive from those you have contacted in real life). Harry Kümel's visual style is magnificent and his camera vividly captures the nuances of this remarkable habitat observing what Jan sees. Everything from the art direction(..every room produces a different kind of mood, and yields a startling color/atmosphere all it's own)to the editing(..the way Kümel is able to feature three Hampshires in one single room is awe-inspiring), everything's first-rate, developed with top-notch skill. Color me impressed because I hadn't ever heard of it's existence until just recently, and I'm thankful I had an opportunity to see it. I watched the director's cut, dubbed into French with English subtitles. Orson Welles, entirely in bed, commands the screen moving very little..it's simply amazing how much presence he had. Hampshire is positively divine, her beauty hypnotic at times. The twists at the end(..who these people are is revealed not once, but twice)really dazzle, but the pace slowly develops so many might grow impatient, but I couldn't wait to see what was gonna come next.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A LOT OF VERSIONS
wetabax-230 December 2001
I saw an english spoken version with 110m informed on the video box, but really 95min in video band. I remember, a long time ago, I saw this film in cinema with more as 110m. A lot of scenes disapeared: The face from Alecta, two times that the antiquaire appears in the film. I remember it was another end too, or maybe I'm wrong? Was ever the last scene a close of Jan's eye? Where is a complete copy of this film? It's very sad this cutting of scenes.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed