I briefly tasted the extravagance of "The Theatre Bizarre" nearly one year ago, during a modest genre festival in country. Halfway the second segment, however, there were some technical issues and everybody got reimbursed and had to leave the theater. It took me until now to re-watch the whole thing, but my expectations were quite high because I remembered quite a number of good things from my abruptly ended first viewing. "The Theatre Bizarre" is an anthology, and the one element that immediately determines whether or not an anthology is worthwhile is the wraparound story! This film features one of best wraparound stories, with some of the grimmest and most macabre scenery ever seen. A timid young girl is lured to the sinister and seemingly abandoned Grand Guignol Theater across the street of her apartment, where she's "friendly" welcomed by a marionette version of cult legend Udo Kier and numerous other grisly dummies. As the presented stories pass by, both Udo and the girl undergo a nightmarish metamorphosis. The wraparound is courtesy of Jeremy Kasten, the underrated director of one of the better horror remakes of the decade, namely "The Wizard of Gore". As usually the case with horror omnibus movies, some of segments are good, some of the segments are bad and some of the segments are just too plain weird and flamboyant to judge properly. Unfortunately none of the six tales qualifies as truly outstanding, but at least the segments "I love you", "Vision Stains" and "The Accident" rate as well above average. They are diverse stories with either original basic concepts or uniquely tense moments. "I love you" is a prototypic mini psycho-thriller, but benefices from the ravishing Suzan Anbeh and her monologues that will make every male viewer cringe. "Vision Stains" is about a woman who kills homeless/troubled women and injects their eyeball-fluids in her own veins to live their memories… Until she witness things she didn't want to witness. This little plot is inventive and genuinely horrific, but it could have used a better climax. "The Accident" is somewhat of an alien segment, as it's more of a melodrama instead of a horror story, but it features a wonderfully grim atmosphere and a couple of harrowing moments. The other three tales vary from mediocre to inferior. The first segment "Mother of Toads" is very H.P Lovecraft like, with creepy monsters and nasty make-up effects, but writer/director Richard Stanley totally forgot to tell a story. Tom Savini's "Wet Dreams" contains a few solid moments, but the plot is derivative and rather nonsensical. The final chapter "Sweets", somewhat a crossover between "La Grande Bouffe" and "Delicatessen", tries very hard to be artsy and controversial, but it's actually just ridiculous and preposterous. Recommended viewing for experienced and open-minded horror fanatics.

I really like when people get ecstatic about a movie. Even if it's a movie I can't get behind that much. The other reviewer (up til now), was having fun watching this. I am glad for him, but I can't quite share the enthusiasm. While that is debatable, I don't think comparing this to the Creepshow is a good move.

Creepshow stands on it's on right and this movie does not really try to imitate this. It tries to be as crazy as a movie can be. It is more like the British film "Little Deaths" that was made in recent years. Though that was really OTT. This one has recognizable actors and a very good camera (visually stunning most of the times, even/especially when it feels odd). Still there is something missing to make it really good. As it is, I feel it's just mediocre.

Down a seedy city street in her neighborhood, young Enola Penny (Virginia Newcomb) is obsessed with what appears to be a long abandoned theater. One night, she sees that the front door is slightly ajar and impulsively decides to sneak inside.

This film is just one disappointment after another. I generally enter into a movie with low expectations, and this is no exception. But I had a bit of hope that this could be a decent anthology. The stars are respectable: Debbie Rochon, Udo Kier, Catriona MacColl. The directors have talent: Richard Stanley, Tom Savini, Jeremy Kasten. What went wrong?

I feel like a variety of problems plagued this one -- but it can be summed up in two basic categories. Either the story was not thought-out enough or the segment was not long enough to develop the characters, or both.

Tom Savini's segment was just too confusing, and revolved around an unfaithful man. I feel like the cheating was never made clear. And we are not given time to sympathize with him or his wife or anyone. Should I care about either of their problems?

The concept of stealing memories through eye fluid was brilliant. While the concept is clearly impossible, and it is not clear how someone would have discovered this secret, it is a remarkably good idea that could have been its own film. But even with that one, it went downhill towards the end. I was completely deflated.

The "Sweets" segment was the most visually appealing... but what was going on?