Corruption
Performance & Direction: Corruption Review
Last updated: March 6, 2026
Quick Verdict: Hit or Flop?
Is Corruption (1968) worth watching? According to our cinematic analysis, the film stands as a ABOVE AVERAGE with a verified audience rating of 5.8/10. Whether you're looking for the box office collection, ending explained, or parents guide, our review covers everything you need to know about this Horror.
Cast Performances: A Masterclass
The success of any Horror is often anchored by its ensemble, and Corruption features a noteworthy lineup led by Peter Cushing . Supported by the likes of Sue Lloyd and Noel Trevarthen , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
Final Verdict: Is it Worth Watching?
Story & Plot Summary: Corruption
Quick Plot Summary: Released in 1968, Corruption is a Horror film directed by Robert Hartford-Davis. The narrative crafts an atmosphere of dread and suspense, using psychological terror and visual scares. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict involving Peter Cushing.
Ending Explained: Corruption
Ending Breakdown: Directed by Robert Hartford-Davis, Corruption attempts to tie together its various plot elements. The finale presents its approach to horror resolution.
The conclusion addresses the core thematic questions involving Peter Cushing, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
Ending Analysis:
- Narrative Resolution: The story concludes by addressing its primary narrative threads, providing closure while maintaining some ambiguity.
- Character Arcs: Character journeys reach their narrative endpoints, reflecting the film's thematic priorities.
- Thematic Payoff: The ending reinforces the horror themes established throughout the runtime.
The final moments of Corruption reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Who Should Watch Corruption?
Consider Watching If:
- You're a completist for Horror films
- You're curious despite mixed reviews
- You have low expectations and want casual entertainment
Top Cast: Corruption
All Cast & Crew →













Corruption Parents Guide & Age Rating
1968 AdvisoryWondering about Corruption age rating or if it's safe for kids? Here is our cinematic advisory:
⏱️ Runtime & Duration
The total runtime of Corruption is 91 minutes (1h 31m). Ensuring you have enough time for the full cinematic experience.
Verdict Summary
Analyzing the overall audience sentiment, verified rating of 5.8/10, and global performance metrics, Corruption is classified as a ABOVE AVERAGE. It remains an essential part of the 1968 cinematic calendar.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Corruption worth watching?
Corruption is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Horror movies. It has a verified rating of 5.8/10 and stands as a ABOVE AVERAGE in our box office analysis.
Where can I find Corruption parents guide and age rating?
The official parents guide for Corruption identifies it as R. Our detailed advisory section above covers all content warnings for families.
What is the total runtime of Corruption?
The total duration of Corruption is 91 minutes, which is approximately 1h 31m long.
Best Movies to Watch if you liked Corruption
How Corruption Compares & Where it Ranks
Critic Reviews for Corruption
**_Cult flick with Peter Cushing as a dubious doctor in swinging 60’s England_** A surgeon in London (Peter Cushing) is dating a much younger woman, a model (Sue Lloyd), who becomes dependent upon him after a tragedy. How far will he go to prove his love for her? "Corruption" (1968) takes its plot from “Eyes Without a Face,” aka “The Horror Chamber of Dr. Faustus” (1960), which can be traced even further back to Bela Lugosi’s “The Corpse Vanishes” (1942). Yet it’s different enough to stand on its own, mixing in elements of the quirky “Cul-de-sac” (1966) with a groovy glimpse of England's ‘hip’ counter-culture, as witnessed in the future "Dracula A.D. 1972." Like that Hammer film, Cushing appears in the modern day rather than a gothic setting. (While this isn’t a Hammer flick, it’s comparable). You could say it mixes the basic Frankenstein story with the legend of Countess Bathory and places the story in mod 60’s London. Speaking of which, there’s an early scene wherein the doctor (Cushing) is invited to a ‘rad’ party and it’s amusing how uneasy he is. Cushing was 54 during shooting while the girlfriend (Lloyd) was 28. Also on the female front is Kate O'Mara (Val), Wendy Varnals (Terry) and Vanessa Howard (the blonde at the party with the annoying voice). There are a couple of others (Valerie Van Ost and Alexandra Dane) but, for me, the top whoa-man is the redhead in the red corset at the swinging bash. I like the fact that the film isn’t set-bound. There’s some nice location photography, like the vacation home by the shore. I also favored the unexpected turn in the last act (not talking about the twist at the very end) that is thoroughly comic booky, but energizes the climax with colorful eccentricity. Don’t take the ending in a negative way. The filmmakers wisely leave open what’s going to happen next. It all comes down to what a certain character is going to do with the dubious knowledge he now has. The movie runs 1 hour, 31 minutes, and was shot at Isleworth Studios, which was just west of London; with stuff done in the city and the greater London area, including the beach sequence at Seaford, East Sussex, which is on the coast about a 45-minute drive south. Lastly, there are two versions of the film: The UK version and the international version; I saw the former, which features the negligee-wearing Jan Waters as the Soho prostitute. The other features topless Marianne Morris. GRADE: B-/B (6.5/10)
"Sir John Rowan" (Peter Cushing) is an accomplished surgeon who is dating the rather vain and flighty "Lynn" (Sue Lloyd). When the latter is involved in a disfiguring accident, he decides to try to find a way to restore her beauty. He quickly discovers that by extracting fluid from the pituitary gland into the affected area, the skin recovers miraculously. What they equally swiftly realise is that this treatment isn't just an one-off. It needs to be repeated - ergo, he needs more glands and that needs volunteers! From here on in it loses it's way as it marries "Frankenstein" themes with a bit of murder and bodysnatching before leaving us with a final half hour that is just silly. Cushing is really just going through the motions and neither the wooden Lloyd nor an early appearance from the always unremarkable Kate O'Mara really add very much to this increasingly hysterical drama. Not one of Cushing's films he'd want you to remember, I don't think.
movieMx Verified
This review has been verified for accuracy and editorial quality by our senior cinematic analysts.
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.










