Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Walter Sloane Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

PrometheusTree64 Funny about HOMICIDAL. For a Castle picture, it's at least a valid B-movie (while most of his stuff is C or D). But the irony in his obvious and unmitigated imitation of PSYCHO is that Hitchcock made PSYCHO to begin with because of William Castle! Hitch saw that Castle's movies were doing well at the box office, but weren't very good. So he wondered what a film like that might be like if someone good (i.e., himself) made it. Hence, PSYCHO... And then Castle sees PSYCHO and copies it with HOMICIDAL.So you have the imitator imitating the imitation of the imitator: Castle copying Hitchcock copying Castle copying Hitchcock! But you can't really even call it a "rip-off" of PSYCHO; it's more of an homage, being so similar and coming out the very next year.Of course, it's stupid, the film. But I rather "like" it. In an odd way, it's actually one of Castle's most polished -- well, comparatively -- films. And if anything, it's slightly creepier than PSYCHO, perhaps because of its downmarket elements.

Martin Teller 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.

nomoons11 Since I knew this was a William Castle film I knew what to expect gimmick wise but not plot. Halfway through when we see the "Warren" character, I knew why it seemed familiar...Psycho!!! This film is for those who just watch em to get a kick and don't really look too deep. Unfortunately for me I dig in films to see and when the "Warren" character arrives I knew he and the "Emily" character were one in the same. Unless you are blind you couldn't miss it. This may have fooled people back in 1961 but it didn't slip by me at all.The only thing that held me to this was why the character was doing this. I mean you know right off this chick/guy...or whatever they were...was a little bit off...but you really don't get the answers until the very last minute. With that, it cleared things up and I had the answers I was looking for.This isn't a blatant ripoff of Psycho at all. It just has 1 of the same story devices...guy or girl dressing up as a guy or girl etc. Everything else is a bit different so it's was no rip-off. I imagine if you need somethin' to watch on a lonely Saturday night this will fill the bill. If you miss it, don't shed a tear.

Lechuguilla 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.