Youth Runs Wild (1944)

Youth Runs Wild (1944)

Comments 1 comment

“There’s more to war than fighting — what it does to kids, that’s just as much our job.”

Synopsis:
During WWII, a teenager (Glen Vernon) whose parents (Mary Servoss and Art Smith) work the night shift at a munitions factory dates the girl next door (Vanessa Brown), whose parents (Elizabeth Russell and Ben Bard) are equally absent from her life. When Vernon gets in trouble for petty crimes, he’s told not to see Brown anymore; meanwhile, Brown befriends a woman (Bonita Granville) whose boyfriend (Lawrence Tierney) runs a tire-stealing “trade”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bonita Granville Films
  • Juvenile Delinquents
  • Lawrence Tierney Films
  • Mark Robson Films
  • Val Lewton Films

Review:
The teenage “hoods” in this earnest, low-key social interest drama are just about the nicest “delinquents” you’d ever want to meet. Best known as a curio in the estimable oeuvre of RKO producer Val Lewton, Youth Runs Wild remains a sincere if overly sanitized attempt to address an emerging concern at the time (absentee parents during the war), offering audiences sympathetic protagonists to root for, and a convenient solution to walk away with (just build youth centers to keep kids busy and out of trouble!). The storyline itself is laughably simplistic, but helped a bit by the welcome presence of Brown (an Austrian-Jewish emigre reminiscent of a young Ingrid Bergman), and the always-excellent Granville in a supporting role as her “corrupting” new buddy. Perhaps of most interest to film fanatics, however, will be seeing a small handful of Lewton’s regulars (i.e., Kent Taylor and Elizabeth Russell from both Cat People films) in the cast. Given that Peary lists all of Lewton’s films produced during the height of his acknowledged “creative period” (beginning in 1942 with Cat People, and ending in 1946 with Bedlam), I guess his completist nature wouldn’t allow him to avoid throwing this oddball title into the mix as well (he lists it as a Sleeper). But it’s not must-see.

Note: One can’t really blame Lewton for wanting to disown this title, given that it likely reflects little of his original vision; one wonders what it was like before a negative audience screening caused the studio to make drastic cuts. (See IMDb’s trivia for an extensive list of actors whose bit parts were reduced or eliminated entirely — including Dorothy Malone).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Vanessa Brown (billed as Tessa Brind) as Sarah Taylor
  • Bonita Granville as Toddy
  • An interesting social document

Must See?
No, though most Lewton fans will probably be curious to seek it out. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Dracula (1931)

Dracula (1931)

Comments 3 comments

“Listen to them: children of the night. What music they make!”

Synopsis:
A lawyer (Dwight Frye) travels to Transylvania to meet with the vampire Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), who promptly bites him, then moves to England to pursue other victims; but with Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) on his trail, Dracula’s days are numbered.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bela Lugosi Films
  • Horror
  • Tod Browning Films
  • Vampires

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this “horror classic was once considered terrifying”, it’s now “often appreciated solely for its camp value” by movie fans who “regard it with tremendous affection”. There’s some truth to the latter part of this statement (Dracula is beloved by most horror fans simply for its pivotal role in cinematic history), but I’m not sure I agree that its “camp value” remains its primary allure — though there’s certainly some fun to be had in Dwight Frye’s loopily over-the-top performance as the bug-eating Renfield. Also arguably of camp value is Lugosi’s oft-imitated central performance as Dracula — though Peary generously argues that Browning’s “close-ups of Lugosi’s heavily rouged face and those wide, aggressive eyes are genuinely frightening”, and posits that while “Lugosi is no great actor… he is a great Dracula”. Peary accurately points out that director “Tod Browning’s direction is too stagey” — perhaps in part because the screenplay was based on a theatrical adaptation rather than Bram Stoker’s original novel — but notes that “cinematographer Karl Freund” (who purportedly directed numerous scenes) “manages to give [the] film some haunting atmosphere, particularly in the [early] Transylvania scenes” (which remain the most chilling moments in the movie). While undeniably creaky at times (it feels longer than its 75 minutes), this one is ultimately too historically important for film fanatics to miss.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bela Lugosi’s highly influential performance as Dracula
  • Dwight Frye’s campily mad portrayal as Renfield
  • Magnificently baroque sets

  • Karl Freund’s atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a flawed but historically relevant classic of horror cinema.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Historically Relevant
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Princess and the Pirate, The (1944)

Princess and the Pirate, The (1944)

Comments 1 comment

“If you don’t tell anybody I’m not a gypsy, I won’t tell anybody you’re not an idiot.”

Synopsis:
A traveling minstrel (Bob Hope) and an undercover princess (Virginia Mayo) escape from the clutches of a vicious pirate (Victor McLaglen), in possession of a treasure map given to them by a wily tattoo artist (Walter Brennan); soon the corrupt governor (Walter Slezak) of a town overrun by pirates is on their trail, desiring both Mayo and the map.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bob Hope Films
  • Comedy
  • Historical Drama
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Pirates
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Victor McLaglen Films
  • Virginia Mayo Films
  • Walter Brennan Films

Review:
If you’re a Bob Hope fan, you’re sure to enjoy this genial costume comedy, co-starring Virginia Mayo in her first substantial role as the object of Hope’s romantic yearnings.

Hope (as usual) essentially plays a variation on his standard cinematic presence, flinging droll one-liners at a fast and furious pace, and overcoming his cowardly nature just in time to help save a damsel in distress (who may or may not really be interested in him). Hope is almost immediately upstaged, however, by Walter Brennan, giving a truly demented performance as a tattoo artist determined to embroil Hope in treasure-map shenanigans:

He’s missed when he’s not on-screen. Indeed, other than Brennan (and a nicely villainous turn by typecast Slezak):

… there’s not much here that’s particularly memorable — but it’s a finely mounted production if you’re in the mood for just this kind of fare.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Walter Brennan’s delirious turn as the pirate Featherhead

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for fans of Hope’s unique comedic style.

Links:

Reflections on Website — July 15, 2011

Reflections on Website — July 15, 2011

Comments 1 comment

Greetings to my fellow Film Fanatics,

I’ve never used FilmFanatic.org to blog about my ongoing progress with the site, or to share my thoughts in general on watching and writing about the unique niche of “pre-1986 must-see films”, but I’ve thought about doing so for quite a while — so, here I finally am.

Since posting my first brief review on March 4, 2006 (of Jean-Jacques Beineix’s Moon in the Gutter), I’ve added 1,405 reviews to the site — which is roughly one-third of the 4300 titles included in GFTFF (for those who care to keep track). At this rate, it should only take me another 10 years or so to complete this project! Not that completion is the goal per se… By the time I finish (re)watching and writing about all the titles in Peary’s book, I’ll probably be ready to visit and/or comment on many of them again. Or I may finally get serious about diving into my ModernFilmFanatic.org site, which I’ve had to put on hold for now… In addition to maintaining this site, I’m married with two little kids and a full-time job, so time and energy are severely limited!

(I’ll post more on this topic another time, but I actually find that having a really busy life with limited time for movies helps me appreciate them all the more. I may complain quietly to myself on a daily basis that I wish I had more time to devote to the site, but ultimately, a diet of pure cinema has never been a healthy choice for me; hence, my decision to enter into a non-film-related career. Peary himself admits to burning out after writing GFTFF, which should be taken as a cautionary warning of some kind.)

At any rate, recently I’ve found myself watching and posting on movies in thematic “clusters” — I’ll suddenly notice I’ve been watching a bunch of a particular actor or director or producer’s films, for instance, and decide I might as well finish watching all of them to really get a sense of the gestalt of that particular person’s work (as selected by Peary, and only up until his 1986 publishing deadline, of course). My most recent attempt has been to finally finish up rewatching and posting on all of the 41 Hitchcock films included in GFTFF (I only have 7 left at this point). He’s probably my favorite director (if I had to choose), and it’s been a true pleasure to revisit the majority of them. 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (a well-meaning but horribly pretentious and flawed book, btw, yet nonetheless the one used by most modern film fanatics as their go-to checklist, so I continue to reference it) lists no less than 18 of his titles, which is impressive, and speaks (I believe) to their enduring power.

In contrast, I also recently watched nearly the entire Universal Studios Frankenstein series — a project it made sense to attempt in one go, given that serialized films like this really are best reviewed in comparison with one another, and at least relatively in order (to get a sense of their chronological progression). However, while there are very few GFTFF-Hitchcock titles I’ve voted “no” on (and even those “no” votes are, I believe, worth a one-time look by serious film fanatics), Peary’s inclusion of ALL the Universal Frankenstein titles in his book is an example of what I refer to repeatedly as his sense of “completism” — a symptom either of his inability to decide which of the many titles are must see (so why not include them all??), or his genuine belief that any true film fanatic will WANT to have seen all the titles in a particular “series” or franchise (no longer really a sustainable choice, given the wealth of new titles produced all the time — a film fanatic only has so much viewing time to spread around!). Since beginning the site, I’ve been working hard to sift through all such titles and make critical decisions on behalf of my fellow film fanatics — which, of course, you can and should feel free to disagree on.

Just as mysterious to me is Peary’s random inclusion of certain titles by a particular performer and/or director — say, Danny Kaye or Jerry Lewis — to the exclusion of others. While he nearly always includes all the “big name” titles of a star (for obvious reasons), I’m puzzled why, for instance, Peary includes Lewis’s lame The Sad Sack in his book when there are other “bigger name” titles he could have chosen to include instead, if he really wanted to beef up the number of Lewis offerings (which he DIDN’T need to do!). At any rate, ultimately this kind of thing comes down to personal taste — and I’ll admit that a tiny part of me is secretly tickled by Peary’s blatant favoritism. He’s not afraid to call a personal favorite a Must See title — and while I may fervently disagree with his choices, he’s at least (covertly) admitting that subjectivity is an inherent element in any such daunting undertaking.

I’ll continue to post occasional “check-in” blog entries in future weeks and months, on various topics that have occurred to me — including:

* how I decide which film to watch and review next (partially touched upon here)
* how my thinking about which films are must see or not has evolved over the years (and continues to evolve)
* my summative thinking on the oeuvres of various actors or directors whose Peary-listed work I’ve finished reviewing (including Jerry Lewis, Danny Kaye, Abbott and Costello, and others)

Back to viewing and reviewing! Thanks for reading.

–Film Fanatic

I Confess (1953)

I Confess (1953)

Comments 1 comment

“I never thought of the priesthood as offering a hiding place.”

Synopsis:
A priest (Montgomery Clift) hears the confession of a murderer (O.E. Hasse), but is unable to say anything about it to the prosecutor (Karl Malden) who questions him, and soon finds himself the prime suspect — especially when his friendship with a married woman (Anne Baxter) is revealed.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anne Baxter Films
  • Brian Aherne Films
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Falsely Accused
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Karl Malden Films
  • Montgomery Clift Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Priests and Ministers

Review:
Opinions vary wildly on this relentlessly somber, somewhat dated Hitchcock outing (based on a 1902 play by Paul Anthelme), with some finding it seriously flawed, and others (a smaller group, to be sure) ranking it among his finest films. An overtly religious movie in many ways, it deals with issues of ethics, conscience, and clerical duty (with thriller elements thrown in for good Hitchcockian measure); indeed, as noted by DVD Savant, it actually features thematic similarities to Bresson’s Diary of a Country Priest (1951). Many have complained that Clift’s performance is overly stoic — and it’s true that it’s difficult to really get to know his character, just as it may be to get to know any priest.

Baxter (whose story one can’t say too much about, at risk of giving away spoilers) ends up as the most “human” of the protagonists in the movie — the one we’re most meant to relate to — but she’s unfortunately not all that sympathetic.

Even more viewers have complained about the central conceit around which the storyline pivots: Clift’s refusal to give away even the slightest hint of what he’s heard in confession. Non-Catholics may have a hard time understanding this, and I’ll admit to feeling frustrated by it myself — but ultimately, Clift’s utter devotion to his character’s ethos pays off, such that the final shot truly gave me chills, and suddenly placed the entire film in a different light.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Robert Burks’ cinematography
  • Dimitri Tiomkin’s score

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for one-time viewing, and certainly a must for Hitchcock fans.

Links:

Made for Each Other (1939)

Made for Each Other (1939)

Comments 1 comment

“Don’t ask for your rights; demand them!”

Synopsis:
A newlywed lawyer (Jimmy Stewart) tries to gather enough courage to demand a raise from his bullish boss (Charles Coburn), while his new wife (Carole Lombard) struggles to please her picky mother-in-law (Lucile Watson).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carole Lombard Films
  • Charles Coburn Films
  • Jimmy Stewart Films
  • John Cromwell Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Newlyweds

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this film about “the trials and tribulations” of a young married couple “starts out like a standard comedy, but becomes better as their problems increase and [the] characters take a more serious approach to improving their financial woes”. He accurately notes that “Lombard and Stewart are appealing even when their characters let us down or the script becomes overly melodramatic or mawkish” — which, unfortunately, is exactly what occurs during the film’s final half-hour, when the storyline suddenly turns into (as DVD Savant puts it) “a ridiculous mess”. Indeed, the film’s lengthy, admittedly nail-biting denouement nearly ruins the heartfelt veracity of what’s come before: just as we’re beginning to truly empathize with these characters and their challenging situation, we’re thrown into a plot twist straight out of Melodramatic Screenwriting 101.

It could be argued — as DVD Savant does in his review — that the Masons’ entire situation is overplayed as much more dire than it really is. After all, the couple’s worst troubles consist of a dinner party gone awry (no more wine left!), Stewart unable to get a raise and promotion (though he DOES have a stable job during harsh economic times), having to house their newborn baby’s crib in the dining room (horrors! I’m guilty of that one as charged), and — the worst case scenario — actually being unable to afford their housemaid anymore (!). With that said, it’s still easy enough to sympathize with a couple who (in Savant’s words) “are about as endearing as a movie pairing can get”, and are ultimately “trying to cope with familiar financial problems” — and Lombard’s interactions with her meddlesome mother-in-law (nicely played by Watson) ring true. It’s just too bad the script fails the characters completely by the end — though I’ll guiltily admit that my heart was in my mouth throughout. Watch for unexpectedly Expressionistic sets by William Cameron Menzies, lit atmospherically by D.P. Leon Shamroy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Carole Lombard as Jane Mason
  • Jimmy Stewart as John Mason
  • The Masons’ nicely realistic interactions with their newborn son (reminiscent of similar scenes in Penny Serenade)
  • Louise Beavers in a tiny but memorable role as Jane’s maid, Lily
  • William Cameron Menzies’ Expressionistic sets (during the final half hour)

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look simply for Lombard and Stewart’s fine central performances.

Links:

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941)

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941)

Comments 1 comment

“If you had it all to do over again, would you still have married me?”

Synopsis:
When a quibbling but happily married couple (Robert Montgomery and Carole Lombard) find out their marriage isn’t valid, Montgomery tries to woo Lombard all over again — but his co-worker (Gene Raymond) has his eyes set on Lombard as well, and soon proves to be a serious rival for Lombard’s affections.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carole Lombard Films
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Jack Carson Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Robert Montgomery Films
  • Romantic Comedy

Review:
Hitchcock purportedly directed this screwball comedy (his only entry in the genre) because he wanted to work with Carole Lombard — and who can blame him? Indeed, Lombard remains the primary reason to check out this frothy but oddly forgettable farce, based on a paper-thin premise (then again, which screwball comedy isn’t?), and featuring a fine rapport between Lombard and Montgomery.

Unfortunately, bland Gene Raymond is badly miscast as the pivotal third lead:

While he’s supposed to be somewhat of a milquetoast (which, by the way, doesn’t jive with his aggressively sneaky initial play for Lombard), one can’t help wishing that Jack Carson — truly hilarious in a bit role as Montgomery’s well-meaning friend, who sets him up with a floozy — were playing this meatier role instead.

Meanwhile, Hitchcock’s direction — in spite of his claim that he couldn’t relate to the characters in any way — is seamless if undistinguished; clearly, he was a man capable of carrying out any directorial duty placed before him.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Carole Lombard as Mrs. Smith
  • Robert Montgomery as Mr. Smith

Must See?
No; this one is only for Hitchcock completists, though it’s certainly worth a look — especially for Lombard.

Links:

Rope (1948)

Rope (1948)

Comments 1 comment

“The power to kill can be just as satisfying as the power to create.”

Synopsis:
A pair of roommates (John Dall and Farley Granger) murder their “inferior” classmate (Dick Hogan) simply to demonstrate their superiority. After placing the body in a chest in their living room, they throw a dinner party to celebrate their crime, inviting their former housemaster (Jimmy Stewart), Hogan’s fiancee (Joan Chandler), Chandler’s ex-boyfriend (Douglas Dick), and Hogan’s father (Cedric Hardwicke) and aunt (Constance Collier).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Farley Granger Films
  • Hiding Dead Bodies
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Jimmy Stewart Films
  • John Dall Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Plot to Murder
  • Psychopaths

Response to Peary’s Review:
Hitchcock’s adaptation of Patrick Hamilton’s 1929 play — scripted by Arthur Laurents and inspired by the infamous “Leopold-Loeb thrill-killing” in 1924 — is best known for being the director’s most overtly experimental film. Hitchcock used just “one large apartment set” and had “one camera follow the characters about, with cuts coming only once every 10 minutes” or so, thus designating the framing of the film as its central “character”. While Rope undeniably suffers from lack of editing (and Hitchcock himself later dismissed the film as merely a “stunt”), it remains surprisingly engaging, at least on a technical level. Indeed, after learning about the work that went into coordinating such a tremendously challenging stunt (see here and here), it’s a bit easier to forgive the film’s patent staginess; as Peary puts it, “Camera gimmick works well, but picture remains theatrical, as actors all seem a bit stiff — only Dall and Collier seem unafraid to change expressions, [and] Stewart has never been so unanimated.”

Unfortunately, while the film’s technical bravado excuses its staginess, it only partially hides the storyline’s more obvious flaws — most notably the fact that Stewart’s character boldly preaches an outrageously Nietzschian philosophy (“After all, murder is — or should be — an art”, he says; “And, as such, the privilege of committing it should be reserved for those few who are really superior individuals.”), then acts horrified when his impressionable young charges carry out exactly the actions he has just condoned. (Apparently he takes issue with the young men’s positing of themselves as “superior individuals” — but who, pray tell, WOULD fit this bill in his eyes?!?)

On the other hand, while some believe that Hitchcock should not have chosen to show the murder itself taking place as the film opens — instead allowing viewers to remain in suspense about whether the duo actually committed the crime — I don’t believe this negatively impacts the storyline, which remains inherently suspenseful simply given the omnipresence of the chest where Hogan’s freshly killed corpse has been placed.

Peary makes an interesting observation near the end of his review, noting that it’s “tough to be in [the] audience” while watching such “morbid subject matter” because, “while you despise the two killers, for some reason you hope the crime goes unresolved”. Actually, I find it difficult to truly “despise” Granger’s character, who — unlike the “arrogant Dall”, “immediately feels woozy [and] guilty” about what he’s done. To that end, it’s clear from the get-go that the sociopathic Dall is the dominant partner in this thinly veiled homosexual partnership, and that Granger has likely been bullied somehow into committing the murder. It’s interesting to contemplate what kind of different impact the movie would have if: a) Dall and Granger’s characters were written as more openly homosexual, and b) Stewart’s character were portrayed as a homosexual as well (given that this was Hamilton’s original intention). At the very least, it would add another level of tension and thematic interest — though in some ways, of course, it’s refreshing NOT to see two cold-blooded murderers overtly portrayed on-screen as gay, given all the implications that would engender.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Truly impressive — and often quite effective — direction

Must See?
Yes, simply for its notoriety as one of Hitchcock’s most technically innovative films.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Son of Paleface (1952)

Son of Paleface (1952)

Comments 1 comment

“You, sir, have cast aspersions on my dear old daddy — the brave, low-down, mangy, crooked, drunken hero that won the West!”

Synopsis:
The grown son (Bob Hope) of a notorious pseudo-sharpshooter travels West to retrieve his father’s fortune, but quickly finds that it’s been hidden. Meanwhile, a federal agent (Roy Rogers) is hot on the trail of the beautiful leader of a gang of thieves (Jane Russell), who Hope promptly falls in love with.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bob Hope Films
  • Frank Tashlin Films
  • Jane Russell Films
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Thieves and Criminals
  • Westerns

Review:
This sequel to the enormously popular comedic western The Paleface (1948) is widely considered to be even better, thanks to the direction and vision of Frank Tashlin (who scripted the original film, but was disappointed with how it was executed by director Norman Z. McLeod). To be honest, however, I don’t really find this one to be all that funnier or more original — with the exception of some amusing visual gags sprinkled throughout (sure to appeal to those who enjoy Tashlin’s uniquely “cartoonish” sense of humor). On the plus side, Russell is just as bodacious and sassy here (playing a character named “Mike”) as she was portraying Calamity Jane. On the negative side, Hope’s character (an acknowledged “idiot”) is even more of a ninny than his notorious father, Painless Potter the dentist. The presence of Roy Rogers and Trigger provides a bit of historical interest, but Rogers’ acting range isn’t all that broad, and Trigger’s tricks — while cute and impressive — are few and far between.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Creative visual gags
  • Russell’s stunning gowns

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for fans of Hope, Russell, and/or Tashlin.

Links:

Invisible Ray, The (1936)

Invisible Ray, The (1936)

Comments 1 comment

“The universe is very large, and there are some secrets we are not meant to probe.”

Synopsis:
A scientist (Boris Karloff) exposed to a rare element known as Radium X finds that he can kill people simply by touching them, and becomes increasingly reclusive. Soon he allows jealousy of his colleague, Dr. Benet (Bela Lugosi) — who wants to use Radium X for healing purposes — and his beautiful young wife (Frances Drake) — who has fallen in love with another man (Frank Lawton) — to drive him to vengeful murder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Atomic Energy
  • Bela Lugosi Films
  • Beulah Bondi Films
  • Boris Karloff Films
  • Horror
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Revenge

Review:
This uneven but atmospheric mad scientist/revenge flick — co-starring notorious Universal Studios “rivals” Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi — is primarily notable for providing Lugosi with one of his rare non-villainous roles (with which he does a fine, subtle job). Indeed, having recently rewatched so many of Universal’s Frankenstein films — in which Lugosi either played the demented Ygor, or The Monster himself — it’s truly astonishing to see him here playing a “normal”, rational male. If you can ignore the often silly and sloppy “science” behind Karloff’s death/healing machine (which, to be fair, is actually remarkably prescient in theory), you may find yourself at least enjoying the fun special effects and sets. Note that, as in Werewolf of London (1935), the screenplay for The Invisible Ray makes somewhat clumsy use of a convenient “replacement partner” for the doomed central character’s beautiful young wife. With that said, doe-eyed Frances Drake (best known for co-starring with Peter Lorre in Mad Love the previous year) is quite compelling here in one of her few better-known leading roles.

Note: Click here to read a detailed essay about Karloff and Lugosi’s fabled, often overlapping careers.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bela Lugosi as Dr. Benet
  • Frances Drake as Diana
  • Some nifty special effects and sets

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look.

Links: