Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Nonureva Really Surprised!

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

calvinnme Remember that this is a horror film of British origin, not American, and as such if you're looking for a typical film of the genre, this is not one of them. British horror films tend to give more attention to the psychological aspects of horror and short shrift to the physical aspects. If you realize this, you should really enjoy this one.The story revolves around a German plastic surgeon who, in 1947, botches a job badly and has to leave England to escape the notoriety. Fortunately a horrible car accident and near brush with death makes almost everyone convinced of the doctor's death and makes his escape easy. In France he runs across a young girl who was scarred in the war. He repairs her face and in turn inherits the father's circus when the father is mauled by a dancing bear. And I'm not talking about the parts that are a hoot yet.Now for the discrete charm and campiness of it all. The doctor decides that, along with a name change and a new face for himself, running a circus will be a great front for continuing his plastic surgery practice and experiments. He seems to have no trouble finding scarred female criminals - they practically fall into his lap - and once repairing them he not only has no trouble bedding them, all of the doctor's girls have a talent for walking the high-wire, eating fire, lion taming, etc. - talents that befit a circus. Not a clumsy or shy one or one who would rather be an accountant in the lot.The doctor does resent it though whenever one wants to leave. Every time one of them announces a desire to leave or an engagement they die a horrible "accidental" death in the ring during what was supposed to be - and tragically is - their last performance. In spite of the bodies piling up, the authorities allow the circus to remain open, and stranger yet - the girls keep TELLING the doctor whenever they want to leave! As for me, after the third freak accident, I'd be packing my things in the middle of the night and disappearing if I had any desire to change careers.However, without these confrontational and agile girls there would be no story, so it's an understandable plot device. Don't think I'm disrespecting this film - it is great entertainment, just not horror in the conventional sense. And that hammy yet hummable little tune "Reach for a Star" that gets played during every performance is pure 60's British cinema.

Neil Doyle ANTON DIFFRING is a plastic surgeon under cover at a circus because he has left one of his patients disfigured. The first part of the story deals with how he acquires the circus through a strange set of circumstances involving a young girl and her father (DONALD PLEASANCE).When the circus becomes a success, after he has successfully cured a number of pretty women by removing their scars and puts them to work performing in his "Circus of Beauty," he treats them with cool indifference if they reject his advances and when he tires of them he gets his female assistant and her brother to dispense with them in various ways before the circus audience.That's the gist of the plot which uses the circus atmosphere to great effect and makes brilliant use of its handsome Technicolor production values.Anton Diffring is the man you love to hate. There's a Vincent Price quality about his over-the-top acting, but his magnetic screen personality carries the film into the realm of believability no matter how foolish the plot becomes.Although there are many beautiful women in the cast, it's Diffring you will remember in the central role as the surgeon with blood on his hands. His screen career consisted of mostly European films with occasional smaller parts in American films. Too bad he didn't find more leads to play in Hollywood.Intriguing story holds up pretty well although there are obvious weaknesses in the script.

dbdumonteil Anton Diffring is the reason why you would like to watch this average horror movie.Plus a bevy of beautiful women.Diffring was a character actor and he succeeds in portraying a circus manager as well as a scientist even with his aristocratic looks.The story is implausible from start to finish ,but in this kind of flick,does it really matter?As soon as they are in France ,the threesome runs into a disfigured young girl (there are plenty of them there,as anybody past infancy knows) .The surgeon (plastic surgery) suggest father Donald Pleasance he give her a beautiful face in return for an occupation in his circus.Dr Schuler (=Schoolboy)soon owns the circus where he takes on disfigured shady persons he "cures" and puts on the bill of the show.It's not difficult:the first time the surgeon has taken a walk through the dark city ,he finds a disfigured whore (there are plenty of them in France ,as everybody knows).What is downright disturbing is that we never see the thespian operate. The circus background is smartly used: snakes,bears,lions,acrobats ,moving targets,and clowns who are very useful when an "accident" happens.A lovely song ,very very early sixties/late fifties ("look for a star" ) adds to the acrobatics scenes.Like this?try these...."Berserk" (O'Connolly ,1967)"Les Yeux Sans Visage" (Georges Franju,1960)

Paul Andrews Circus of Horrors starts in England during 1947 where Evelyn Morley (Colette Wilde) sees the mess that demented plastic surgeon Dr. Rossiter (Anton Diffring) has left her face in after an unsuccessful operation, Rossiter manages to escape the country & ends up somewhere in France with two allies Angela (Jane Hylton) & Martin (Kenneth Griffith). They try to make their way across France & meet up with Vanet (Donald Pleasance) who runs a circus & has a young daughter named Nicole (Yvonne Monlaur) who has scars on her face, Rossiter who now goes by the name of Dr. Schueler senses an opportunity & offers to perform an operation on Nicole to repair the damage. The operation is a success but Schueler thinks he's on to a good thing & after he lets Vanet be killed by a bear he takes control of the circus as a front to hide behind while he continues his experiments on various criminals who he then turns into performers in his circus...This English production was directed by Sidney Hayers & I'm amazed at how many people seem to like it, I don't really care that I have a different opinion of it but it didn't do anything for me at all & it took me two attempts to sit through it. The script by George Baxt doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, is it a horror or a thriller? I think the film doesn't manage to balance the two that well. I'd say it's more of a thriller than a horror as it's not scary, it focuses more on the investigations surrounding Schueler's plastic surgery rather than any more traditional horror elements. What it boils down to is that I simply didn't like the film & it's as simple & straight forward as that. The character's & dialogue seem stiff & very dated much like the rest of the film, it plods along at a reasonable pace but it's not what one would call quick & it just failed to engage or entertain me in any way. I was also thinking why did Schueler carry on with his experiments? I mean judging by the film the circus was doing rather well & must have been making decent money so why not just stick with that & not try to attract any unwanted attention while on the other hand if he did want to be a plastic surgeon why didn't he just reveal his 'groundbreaking' findings & get a grant & of course he'd become famous within the medical profession which is what he seems to want anyway.Director Hayers does OK I suppose, another problem with Circus of Horrors is that I can't relate to circus' as an attraction & the constant clips of the performances & crowd reactions bored to to death. I've never wanted to go to a circus & after watching Circus of Horrors I still don't. There's virtually no gore despite what anyone says, there's a shot of a woman with a knife in her neck but nothing else & there's a hilarious bit where a woman is attacked by a snake but this snake looks so uninterested, slow & nonthreatening that the scene falls flat on it's face & the best it can do is wrap itself around her feet.Technically the film is alright, it has a nice bright colour scheme & is quite garish, the production values are good although some of the sets are a bit fake looking & as a whole the film has dated quite badly. The special effects are poor & the man in a fury bear suit looks terrible. The acting is OK although I thought Diffring's accent was annoying.Circus of Horrors was a disappointment to me, as far as I'm concerned there's nothing here that I particularly enjoyed. A lot of people seem to like it so maybe it's me but overall I didn't think much of it.