The Vault of Horror (1973) Comic Influences

[Silver Nemesis]

Back in October 2013 I posted a thread detailing the comic influences on Amicus Studio's 1972 Tales from the Crypt movie. And now, just in time for Halloween, I'm posting a similar analysis of the sequel: The Vault of Horror (1973).

Like its predecessor, this movie is structured as an anthology comprised of five stories adapted from EC Comics' classic line of horror titles. Of the five stories featured in the Tales from the Crypt film, only two were actually adapted from the Tales from the Crypt comic. The remaining three stories were adapted from the sister publications The Vault of Horror and The Haunt of Fear. Despite its title, none of the stories in The Vault of Horror movie are actually adapted from The Vault of Horror comic. Instead one story is adapted from Shock SuspenStories, and the remaining four are adapted from issues of Tales from the Crypt.

Three later feature films were produced based on the Tales from the Crypt franchise: Demon Knight (1995), Bordello of Blood (1996) and Ritual (2002). However none of these were adaptations of Tales from the Crypt comic stories. So out of the five feature films which have so far been released under the Tales from the Crypt banner, The Vault of Horror is the one with the most amount of content (80%) adapted from the Tales from the Crypt comic. It was even rereleased in the US in 1981 under the title Tales from the Crypt II.

Later cuts of this film were clumsily edited to remove almost all of the gore. Some of the bloodier special effects were flat-out replaced with static freeze-frames. If you're going to watch it, then make sure you see the uncut version for the full experience. I'll be referencing the uncut version in this analysis. Obviously this thread will contain spoilers about the twist endings to each segment, so if you'd rather see the film first then stop reading now. But for everyone else, let's get started.

Like Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror features a wraparound story that introduces the five main segments. But unlike the previous film, there is no 'host' character. The host of The Vault of Horror comic was the Vault-Keeper, but he is absent from the film. Instead the wraparound story in the movie concerns five strangers who descend to a mysterious subterranean room where they exchange details of their most horrific recurring nightmares.

'Midnight Mess'

The first story is adapted from 'Midnight Mess!' (Tales from the Crypt Vol 1 #35, April 1953) and features a young man named Harold Rogers (named Harold Madison in the comic) who journeys to a small, quiet town to visit his sister Donna. In the film Harold and Donna are portrayed by real life siblings Daniel and Anna Massey.

The film segment begins with a prologue in which Harold discovers his sister's whereabouts from a private eye, whom he them strangles. This scene is not in the comic and was likely included in the film to make Harold less sympathetic and add a moralistic twist to his fate.

Shortly after arriving in the town where Donna lives, Harold encounters a strange man who warns him to leave before it gets dark. In the comic the man explicitly cautions Harold about vampires, while in the film his warning is less specific.

Vaguely disconcerted by this encounter, Harold notices a local restaurant is still open and proceeds inside.

The restaurant interior features a large mirror on one of the walls. Harold takes a seat and attempts to order a meal, only for the elderly waiter to inform him the establishment is about to close for the evening.

Confused, Harold demands to know why the restaurant is closing so early. The waiter explains they are closing because it will soon be dark. In the comic he explicitly states there are vampires afoot, while in the film he only cryptically alludes to such things. In both stories Harold angrily leaves the restaurant.

He then goes to his sister's house and rings the doorbell. Donna asks who is there without opening the door, and Harold replies it's her brother.

Donna lets Harold in and quickly shuts the door behind him. He asks why everyone is so afraid of the dark, and his sister repeats the local superstition about vampires. In the comic she uses the word "vampires" while in the film she refers to the monsters simply as "them". In both stories Donna states that seventeen people have been killed and their bodies found drained of blood.

In the comic Harold is visiting his sister simply because he happens to be in the area. The film offers a more sinister take on their relationship where Donna has been hiding from her brother out of fear. In the movie Harold reveals their father has recently died and left all his money to Donna. He then draws a switchblade, stabs his sister repeatedly and leaves her corpse with the knife embedded in her chest.

In both versions of the story, Harold leaves his sister's house and goes for a walk at night. In the comic he does this because he can't sleep, while in the film he is fleeing the murder scene. In both stories he sees that the restaurant he visited earlier has reopened and people are now going inside.

The mirror on the wall of the restaurant has been covered over by a curtain. Harold observes the establishment's peculiar clientele, but decides to eat there anyway. He is serviced by a different waiter than the one he'd encountered earlier. This waiter brings him a red drink. Upon receiving it, Harold remarks "Ah, tomato juice." This line is spoken in both the comic and the film.

The waiter brings Harold a strange red soup which he begins tentatively consuming. The waiter then asks him how he'd like his "roast clots", to which Harold replies "Roast what?" The waiter answers "Clots. Blood clots." The dialogue in this scene is almost exactly the same in the comic and the film. In both stories, Harold realises he is consuming blood and spits it out in disgust.

The waiter has the curtain drawn back to expose the mirror on the wall. Harold gazes into it and sees that none of the other patrons cast reflections. They are all vampires.

As the vampires converge on Harold, Donna suddenly walks into the restaurant and reveals herself to be one of the undead. In the comic she is sorry to see Harold in his current predicament but makes no effort to help him. In the film she is carrying the knife he stabbed her with and takes pleasure in witnessing his unhappy fate.

The comic and film segment both end on the same gruesome image of Harold suspended upside down with a tap inserted in his neck as the waiter serves glasses of blood direct from his artery.

The edited version of the film replaces this shot with a still image, but the uncut version features a graphic zoom-in on Harold's face, still alive and twitching, as the waiter dispenses his blood through the tap. In the comic Harold had done nothing to warrant such a horrible fate, but in the film he is a coldblooded murderer who receives his just deserts.

'The Neat Job'

The second segment is the most comedic story in the film and the only one not to be adapted from an issue of Tales from the Crypt. Instead it is adapted from 'The Neat Job!' (Shock SuspenStories Vol 1 #1, February 1952). This one stars Terry-Thomas as Arthur Critchit, a wealthy mature bachelor with an obsessive attitude towards orderliness. At the beginning of the segment he announces his intent to marry a younger woman named Eleanor (played by Glynis Johns). The comic story begins with Eleanor being questioned by the police about her husband's death and then recounting the rest of the tale in flashbacks. The film segment eschews this framing device in favour of a linear narrative.

The couple are married and move into a house together. In the comic Eleanor secretly hates Arthur, while in the film she seems to genuinely like him at first. Arthur quickly turns abusive and starts yelling at his wife whenever she moves any article of furniture without telling him. One day he becomes enraged upon discovering she has moved his underwear to a different drawer in the bedroom.

He takes her down to his workshop in the cellar and shows her the collection of jars in which he keeps all his tools neatly organised.

On another occasion Arthur offers to cook dinner for Eleanor, but then flies into a rage when he discovers she hasn't replenished his store of ingredients. He keeps an inventory on the cupboard door and insists she mark it to keep stock whenever she uses an ingredient.

Arthur's aggressive fastidiousness takes its toll on Eleanor and she becomes increasingly stressed. One day, while her husband is out, she experiences a domestic crisis. In the comic this begins when a picture falls from the wall. The film has a longer and more comical sequence that begins with Eleanor placing a drink on a table without using a coaster. In trying to clean up the stain, she inadvertently dislodges more items and creates an even bigger mess. The sequence culminates in her knocking a picture off the wall.

Seeking to repair the hook before Arthur comes home, she heads down into the cellar. There she accidentally knocks over some of the items in his workshop and disorders his neatly arranged collection of tools.

The house is in complete disarray and Eleanor's stress level has reached breaking point. At that exact moment, Arthur comes home and catches her in the cellar.

When he sees the mess she has made he begins screaming at her. He maniacally repeats the phrase "Can't you do anything neatly? Can't you?" in both the comic and the film.

At this point Eleanor finally snaps and kills Arthur using one of his own tools. In the comic we just see Eleanor brandishing a hatchet while the actual killing occurs off panel. But in the film we see her bury the claw of a hammer in her husband's head.

The story ends with us seeing what has become of Arthur's corpse – Eleanor has dismembered it and placed every individual limb and organ into neatly labelled jars on the shelves in his workshop.

'This Trick'll Kill You'

The third segment is adapted from 'This Trick'll Kill You!' (Tales from the Crypt Vol 1 #33, December 1952) and stars Curd Jürgens as a stage magician visiting Calcutta in search of new illusions. In the comic this character is called Herbert Markini, while in the film he is named Sebastian. Both stories begin with him exploring an Indian marketplace. In the comic Herbert sees an old fakir perform an illusion and contemptuously disregards it. In the movie Sebastian goes out of his way to expose and humiliate the fakir in front of the crowd.

Herbert/Sebastian is wandering the marketplace when he encounters a young woman, played by Jasmina Hilton. This is the first time we see this girl in the comic, while in the film she was shown assisting the fakir in the previous scene. In both stories she performs a magic trick that involves causing a rope to rise from a basket with the aid of a musical instrument.

Once the rope has risen to its full height, the girl gracefully ascends it.

Herbert/Sebastian examines the basket but cannot figure out how the illusion is performed. The girl tells him it is not a trick, insisting that the rope itself is magic. He then offers to buy the rope, but the girl says she cannot sell it as it had belonged to her mother. In the comic Herbert offers her 500 rupees, while in the film Sebastian offers her 40,000 rupees. But she declines both offers.

The magician then returns to his hotel room and recounts what he has seen to his wife, played by Dawn Adams. She is named Inez in both the comic and the movie. In the comic Inez reveals that she too has seen the magic rope trick and has already invited the young woman to perform it for them in their hotel room. The film offers a slightly different sequence of events, where Sebastian returns to the market and invites the girl to perform the illusion for his wife. The young woman initially declines, but changes her mind after Sebastian offers her 200 rupees.

In both stories the young woman comes to their hotel room and performs the rope trick as they requested. In the middle of her act, Herbert/Sebastian sneaks up behind the girl and murders her. In the comic he strangles her, while in the film he stabs her through the back.

Inez then examines the rope and confirms that it isn't hollow and contains no wire.

Herbert/Sebastian plays the dead girl's instrument and the magical rope begins to rise.

Inez tells her husband to "keep playing" as the rope rises higher and higher. She tests the rope to make sure it can take her weight and then commences climbing it.

But when she reaches the top of the rope, Inez gazes up in horror and screams.

The next instant, she vanishes altogether. In both stories Herbert/Sebastian then cries out: "Inez! Inez! Where are you?" The scene in the film includes a direct panel recreation as he shouts this. In the comic Herbert is framed in a circular spotlight as he delivers this line. In the film Sebastian is similarly framed by an octagonal rug. I don't know if the director did this on purpose or if it's just a coincidence, but I thought the visual similarity was worth pointing out.

But what has become of Inez? In the comic her dismembered body parts appear out of thin air and begin to rain down from the ceiling. The film offers a different but equally gruesome image where an expanding pool of blood gradually appears on the ceiling directly above where she vanished.

Her husband's fate isn't much better. Before he can escape the room, the magical rope descends and coils itself around his neck.

The comic ends with the hotel manager entering the room and finding Herbert's corpse hanging by the magical rope. The closing narration states that the body of the murdered Indian girl disappeared, suggesting she is still somehow alive.

The film segment ends on a less ambiguous note with a scene featuring the elderly fakir Sebastian had humiliated at the beginning of the story. The fakir is once again performing in the market when he looks over his shoulder and sees Sebastian's hanging corpse framed in the window of his hotel room. The fakir then turns to his side where we see the young woman that was murdered earlier in the story, alive and well, and controlling the rope with her musical instrument.

The film segment implies the Indian girl is a relative of the fakir and that she deliberately manipulates Herbert/Sebastian in order to pay him back for humiliating the old man. This gives her actions a premeditated edge they lacked in the original comic, making her seem more like a predator and less like a victim.

[Silver Nemesis]

'Bargain in Death'

The fourth segment is a darkly humorous tale adapted from 'Bargain in Death!' (Tales from the Crypt Vol 1 #28, February 1952). It begins with a man named Maitland proposing an insurance scam to his friend Alex, whereby the former will self-administer a drug to make it appear as though he has died of heart failure. Maitland instructs Alex to collect the life insurance money and then dig him up following his funeral. Maitland and Alex are portrayed by Michael Craig and Edward Judd respectively.

In the comic it is Alex who proposes the scheme. He convinces his friend (named George, not Maitland) to use the drug on himself and promises to dig him up before he suffocates in his coffin.

The movie makes it clear that Maitland is planning to murder Alex once the plan is complete. Maitland proceeds to inject himself with the drug, while in the comic it is George who injects himself while Alex supervises.

The film features a gag where Maitland, while waiting for the drug to take effect, sits down to read the novelisation of the 1972 Tales from the Crypt movie.

The film then transitions to a pair of down-on-their-luck medical students as they bemoan the lack of cadavers necessary for their anatomical studies. In the comic these characters are called Mel and Sid, while in the film they're named Tom and Jerry (played by Robin Nedwell and Geoffrey Davies).

In the comic the young men resolve to exhume a dead body. In the film they wish they could get their hands on a cadaver, but initially make no plans to procure one.

Eslewhere, the landlady discovers George/Maitland's 'dead' body and screams in fright.

In the comic the landlady summons a doctor, who quickly pronounces George dead. In the film the landlady's scream attracts the attention of Tom and Jerry, who just happen to live in the same building as Maitland. They examine Maitland's drugged body and believe him to be deceased. The two medical students then realise their prayers have been answered – they now have a fresh cadaver on which to perform the dissections necessary for their studies. In the comic Sid and Mel learn of George's 'death' after reading his obituary in the newspaper.

In both stories, the two medical students proceed to the graveyard at night where they intend to exhume the recently deceased George/Maitland with the aid of a handyman they've bribed.

Underground, George/Maitland has awoken in his coffin and is waiting for Alex to dig him up. But his air supply is rapidly depleting and he begins to panic.

What George/Maitland doesn't know is that Alex has already collected the life insurance money and is planning to leave him buried alive. George/Maitland grows frantic inside the coffin. When the two students and their assistant finally unearth him, he erupts from the casket in a frenzy of terror.

The startled students flee the cemetery into a nearby road, where it just so happens that Alex is driving by with his ill-gotten insurance money. The sight of the two young men bolting in front of his vehicle causes Alex to swerve, resulting in an explosive crash that claims his life.

In the comic the two students retreat to a nearby bar before heading back to their apartment. In the film they immediately return to the graveyard. But both stories end the same way – with the handyman they'd hired announcing that he has the cadaver they wanted. It's then revealed that the handyman has killed George/Maitland by bludgeoning him with a crowbar. In the comic we do not see George's corpse and the gruesome condition of his remains is simply described in the narration. The film however ends on the gory image of Maitland's face, with a large hole in his forehead where the crowbar struck.

'Drawn and Quartered'

The final tale is a story of voodoo and revenge adapted from 'Drawn and Quartered!' (Tales from the Crypt Vol 1 #26, October 1951). The film segment stars future Doctor Who Tom Baker as an impoverished artist named Moore (spelled 'Moor' in the original comic). Moore lives on the island of Haiti where he paints pictures that are sold for pittance back in his home country (America in the comic, England in the movie). When we first see him he is painting a self-portrait.

One day Moore meets an old friend of his named Bob Dickson, (played by Maurice Kaufmann) who is vacationing in Haiti.

Bob is surprised to see Moore living in such squalid surroundings. The artist explains that his pictures are not selling well, but Bob replies that he recently saw one purchased for five grand. Apparently the picture was sold by Arthur Gaskill (called Arthur Green in the comic) on behalf of Laurence Diltant (named Larry Diltant in the comic) after being highly praised by an art critic named Fenton Breedley (spelled 'Breedly' in the comic). Breedley had previously told Moore that his art was worthless, and Gaskill/Green and Diltant had informed him they were struggling to sell his pictures. Moore now realises the three men have been lying to him in order to exploit his talent.

Moore goes to see a local voodoo witchdoctor. He tells the witchdoctor that he wishes to "buy voodoo" for the purpose of "revenge" against the men who wronged him.

The witchdoctor instructs Moore to dip the hand he paints with into a cauldron of scalding liquid. The artist briefly hesitates before complying. His hand emerges from the boiling water unscathed.

Moore asks if he will get a doll "to stick pins into", but the witchdoctor tells him that he is an artist and as such does not require a doll. Moore pays the man and leaves. He returns to his own hut and begins working on a picture of a vase, which he subsequently tears to pieces in frustration.

The next moment, the vase unaccountably falls to the floor and shatters.

Moore then sketches a piece of bread which is lying on the floor of his hut. He erases a section of the illustration to make it look as if the bread has been gnawed at. Soon afterwards, a large rat scurries into the hut and eats the corresponding section of the real bread.

To test whether his new voodoo powers will work against living flesh, Moore paints a small cut on the cheek of his self-portrait. When he next falls asleep, he tumbles to the floor and cuts his cheek on the shards of the broken vase. The injury leaves him with a mark identical to the one he painted on his self-portrait.

Bob lends Moore enough money to pay for his flight back to London (New York in the comic). The artist takes with him the self-portrait he painted in Haiti.

He returns to his old studio building and the landlord gives him back the room he had occupied before going to Haiti. In the comic the artist bears a grudge against his landlord for once evicting him when he was unable to pay his rent, but in the film there is no bad blood between them. In both stories Moore places his self-portrait inside a safe where it will be protected against harm.

The film features a scene which is not in the comic where Moore meets with the three men who cheated him. He confronts them over their actions, but they remain completely unrepentant. Moore tells them he will have his revenge and they merely laugh in his face.

Both the comic and the film then show Moore back in his studio where he creates portraits of the men who wronged him. In the comic this includes his landlord. One by one, Moore disfigures the three paintings. In the comic he starts by erasing a leg from the picture of his landlord. This causes the real landlord to be run over by a car in the road outside, resulting in the loss of that same leg. This doesn't happen in the film.

Moore's first victim in the movie is the art critic Breedley. Breedley is his second victim in the comic. In both stories Moore removes the eyes from the portrait of the art critic. In the comic he does this using an eraser, while in the film he stabs the portrait through the eyes. In both stories Moore says "you'll never see another picture again" as he does this.

We then cut to a scene with the real Breedley (Terence Alexander), whose wife is confronting him regarding his extramarital shenanigans. The argument escalates until Breedley's wife blinds him by hurling acid in his eyes.

Back in Moore's studio, the artist mutilates the painting of the art dealer Arthur Green/Gaskill by removing his hands. In the comic Moore uses an eraser to accomplish this, while in the film he cuts the hands from the portrait with a blade. The dialogue in this scene, where Moore speaks to the portrait of Green/Gaskill, is almost identical in the comic and the film.

In accordance with Moore's will, the real Green/Gaskill (John Witty) then has his hands sliced off during an accident with a mat cutter. In the comic the dismemberment occurs off panel, but in the film it is depicted on screen in graphic detail.

There then follows a sequence in the film which does not happen in the comic where Moore goes to see Diltant, played by Denholm Elliot. Diltant has read about the deaths of Moore's other victims and has a pistol ready to defend himself. But Moore has brought the portrait of Diltant with him and draws a red dot on its forehead. This causes the real Diltant to shoot himself between the eyes while Moore watches.

Soon after this, Moore begins to feel short of breath. He realises that by locking his self-portrait in an airtight safe he has set himself up to suffocate.

He manages to open the safe door in the nick of time.

He places the picture beneath the skylight in his studio where it can get plenty of air.

In the comic Moore then leaves his studio to go and see Diltant. In the film Moore has already killed Diltant by this point, but has to return to his office after realising he left his wristwatch at the scene of the crime. What Moore doesn't realise is that a sign painter is decorating a billboard above the skylight of his studio.

The sign painter steps backwards and accidentally dislodges a bottle of turpentine, which falls through the skylight of Moore's studio and spills all over his self-portrait.

At the exact same time this happens, the real Moore is run over by a speeding vehicle on his way to Diltant's office. In the comic it's a subway train, while in the movie he is killed by a lorry. Both stories end with the image of the turpentine dripping down the self-portrait, giving us a gruesome impression of what Moore's corpse must look like.

The wraparound story ends with a rather predictable plot twist where the five protagonists realise the mysterious room they have been exchanging stories in is in fact the titular Vault of Horror. It turns out they are already dead; that their ghosts are cursed to gather in the vault each night and relive the sins they committed when they were still alive. The movie ends with the phantoms returning to their graves in the cemetery. However some photographs exist which show the characters walking through the graveyard wearing zombie makeup, suggesting a possible alternate ending.

Anyway, that's The Vault of Horror. I don't think it's anywhere near as good as the first Tales from the Crypt film, but it's still a decent horror movie. If nothing else, it's a lot better than Bordello of Blood. Fans of horror comics should give it a watch.

[The Joker]

As always, another outstanding write up analysis by Silver Nemesis!!!

I admit, I have a soft spot for this one. As I specifically recall being sick that day, taking a sick day from school and watching this sometime around noon on Showtime many, many years ago. Funny how some stuff just sticks in your memory? But yeah, I knew the film was a "sequel" to the original "Tales from the Crypt" movie, and I remember thinking VAULT was pretty good despite it being very much the EDITED version that was aired. I have the DVD double feature of Crypt/Vault, but once again, it's the edited version of Vault. I'll eventually get around to purchasing the uncut blu ray double feature of these films one day.

[Silver Nemesis]

How would you rank the five Tales from the Crypt feature films, Joker? I like the HBO series, but I never thought the films they produced during that era were particularly good. Demon Knight's ok, but watching it today it feels like a poor man's From Dusk Till Dawn. I never saw Ritual, so I can't comment on that one. Of the four I have seen, I'd rank them as follows:

1.   Tales from the Crypt
2.   The Vault of Horror
3.   Demon Knight
4.   Bordello of Blood

[GoNerdYourself]

Out of the all the films I've seen in the bunch, I'd rank the Amicus films above the films branded to the HBO series. Demon Knight is entertaining. Bordello of Blood is unwatchable. It's hard to believe it went to the theaters. Everything about it screams "straight to cable." I've never seen Ritual. 

[The Joker]

How would you rank the five Tales from the Crypt feature films, Joker? I like the HBO series, but I never thought the films they produced during that era were particularly good. Demon Knight's ok, but watching it today it feels like a poor man's From Dusk Till Dawn. I never saw Ritual, so I can't comment on that one. Of the four I have seen, I'd rank them as follows:

1.   Tales from the Crypt
2.   The Vault of Horror
3.   Demon Knight
4.   Bordello of Blood

I'm pretty much in agreement with your rankings, Silver Nemesis. To me, Demon Knight and Bordello of Blood are about what and what. With Bordello, I have a soft spot for Dennis Miller, and with Demon Knight, I think I like the premise more than the actual movie. Like you and GoNerdYourself, I haven't bothered with Ritual either. I do recall thinking, after watching Vault of Horror for the first time, that it's a shame Amicus didn't produce a "Haunt of Fear" movie following Vault. Which would have given us a 1970's Amicus EC Horror anthology trilogy....

[Silver Nemesis]

Out of the all the films I've seen in the bunch, I'd rank the Amicus films above the films branded to the HBO series. Demon Knight is entertaining. Bordello of Blood is unwatchable. It's hard to believe it went to the theaters. Everything about it screams "straight to cable."

Agreed 100%. The nineties TftC movies can't compete with the Amicus films or the best episodes of the HBO series.

I do recall thinking, after watching Vault of Horror for the first time, that it's a shame Amicus didn't produce a "Haunt of Fear" movie following Vault. Which would have given us a 1970's Amicus EC Horror anthology trilogy....

I wish they'd made a Haunt of Fear movie too. Then Amicus would have produced the first classic CBM trilogy. Even as things stand though, I'd still rank their TftC cycle amongst the best CBM duologies, along with Donner's Superman I & II and Burton's Batman B89 & BR.

My favourite entry in the Amicus anthology series has always been Dr Terror's House of Horrors (1965). I've loved that movie since I was a kid. It's not adapted from a comic, but it has a colourful visual sensibility and a campy tone that are typical of the Silver Age vintage. It's very atmospheric and has an amazing cast that includes Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Donald Sutherland, Michael Gough, Roy Castle and Bernard Lee. If anyone reading this hasn't seen it yet, go out and get a copy. You'll have a blast.

Tales from the Crypt would be my second favourite Amicus anthology. I'm also a big fan of Amicus' sci-fi movies starring Peter Cushing; particularly the two Doctor Who films and At the Earth's Core (1976).

Hammer Studios get a lot of love and respect from film historians, but I feel like Amicus is generally overlooked. It's a shame. They made some really fun and imaginative films in the science fiction and horror genres.

[GoNerdYourself]

Hammer Studios get a lot of love and respect from film historians, but I feel like Amicus is generally overlooked. It's a shame. They made some really fun and imaginative films in the science fiction and horror genres.

I sometimes suspect that many people mistake Amicus films for Hammer movies. It seems like everything that stars Lee, Cushing, and Vincent Price is often labeled as such. At least, that's the impression I get.

[The Joker]

There's something to that. It's funny to think that if Christopher Lee would have accepted John Carpenter's offer to play Sr. Samuel Loomis in the origiinal 1978 Halloween, that very film might have been erroneously thought of as a Hammer production by some people.