My take: A deal with the devil is never a good idea, but it does make for a good movie.

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars

La Main du diable is a French film, which was released as Carnival of Sinners in the U.S. It’s the 27th movie listed in Studies in Terror, and it was an excellent, Faust-style story.

The chef and Monsieur Brissot as he learns of the talisman that will change his life and cost his soul.

It’s about a poor painter named Roland Brissot. He’s in love with a shop girl who is only interested in fame and money. When she dumps him in a restaurant and he is left a heart-broken wreck, the chef comes to Brissot’s table with a curious offer. He has a talisman that can bring him fame, talent and fortune. The cost? His immortal soul.

Of course he buys it. Brissot claims to believe in neither god nor the devil, so what is the harm? As soon as he seals the deal with a handshake, however, he sees the power of what he has done. The chef’s hand vanishes before his eyes and he is left wondering what kind of bargain he just struck.

Brissot does indeed find fame with his new talisman, which is a living left hand curiously poised in a wooden box. His painting improves and his girlfriend returns to him with open arms. But he soon finds himself stalked and pestered by the devil himself who wants to claim Brissot’s soul.

While parts of the film were a bit hokey, the overall story was compelling. I did not know how the story would progress or how Brissot would get out from under the terrible bargain he made. As a result, I was interested from start to finish.

I would recommend this movie to fans of movies involving the devil, supernatural mysteries and French films.

I was only able to find the movie on Hulu plus, which has it as part of the Criterion collection. There is no trailer for the film online. So, I am stuck leaving you with a poster for the film in lieu of a video:

The poster for La Main du diable.

My take: This movie is full of subtle frights and sexual frustration, there were times when I wanted to smack the characters over the head and tell them to get on with it. But that at least kept it interesting.

Rating: 2 out of 4 stars

Cat People is a far departure from other films of the period. While Universal monster movies were all about the visual monsters (The Wolf Man and Frankenstein), this movie kept the horrors hidden in the shadows and left you wondering if it was all in the characters’ minds.

Oliver and Irena when they first meet at the zoo.

Cat People is about Irena Dubrovna, a Serbian immigrant in New York who meets a dashing, young, and naive man named Oliver while she is sketching panthers at the zoo. He sweeps her off her feet in quick fashion.

But there’s a catch for the unknowing Oliver. Irena firmly believes in the folktales from her home village in Serbia, where witches once roamed and took the form of cats. Legend has it that if a young witch kisses a man and is held in his embrace, she will have the uncontrollable desire to kill him.

Irena starts to believe that she is descended from these witches. As a result, she won’t even let poor Oliver kiss her let alone share a bed once they become married.

My 2014 mind could not fathom a world where a husband would not at least kiss his bride prior to marriage. And it didn’t surprise me at all when Oliver’s eyes started roaming toward the girl in his office, Alice. Irena notices Oliver’s wandering gaze, and seeks her revenge in stalking poor Alice like the cats of legend.

In that way, Cat People is a slow-burn thriller. It called to mind Fatal Attraction and other stories of obsession bordering on mental illness. For this reason, I would recommend this to people who like psychological horror and subtle horror movies.

I got a copy of the movie through Netflix’s DVD service. You can also buy it on Amazon. Here is the trailer on youtube:

My take: It’s a solid werewolf/monster movie. Bonus: it stars Lon Chaney’s son and Bela Lugosi has a bit part.

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars

The Wolf Man was a smash hit when it came out in 1941, rising to the heights of Dracula and Frankenstein before it. It’s easy to see why.

Lon Chaney. Jr. in full makeup as the Wolf Man.

In The Wolf Man, Lon Chaney, Jr. (son of the famous “man of the thousand faces” Lon Chaney, Sr.) plays Larry Talbot. Larry is an estranged son who returns to his father’s Welsh estate after the death of his older brother. Larry must now take his place as his father’s heir.

Larry quickly sets his sights on a girl in the village who works at the antique store. While attempting to woo her, he purchases a silver-handled cane carved like a wolf with the pentagram, which she tells him is the sign of the wolf. This is how Larry first learns of the local legend of the werewolf.

While on a (sort-of) date with the girl, he hears her friend being attacked in the woods. He uses his new cane to beat off and kill the wolf, but not before he himself is bitten. You can imagine what happens next.

The story is simple, solid, and easy to follow. The high production value is evident throughout the film, and it adds a gloss to the story that makes it easy to watch. Additionally, the makeup is impeccable. Lon Chaney, Jr. is a hairy, frightening visage when dolled up as the werewolf.

Additionally, the film is studded with great names. Bela Lugosi plays a bit part as a gypsy fortune teller. Claude Rains (from Casablanca) plays Larry’s father, Sir Talbot. And Lon Chaney, Jr. takes the star role, following in the footsteps of his father, who was a terrific character actor in Phantom of the Opera, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Unknown and other films of the 1920s.

I would recommend The Wolf Man to anyone who likes a good monster movie or who is a fan of classic horror.

I bought a DVD copy of the movie off Amazon (which has a really good documentary on it hosted by Jon Landis). Here is the original trailer:

My take: Good, early mad scientist fodder with a dash of Humphrey Bogart.

The 23rd movie in Studies in Terror is The Return of Doctor X. I thought, “How can I watch “the return” when I haven’t seen the the doctor’s first appearance?” Luckily, the box set I bought had both, so I was able to watch Doctor X too. It turns out that I didn’t need to.

Humphrey Bogart in The Return of Doctor X.

The Return of Doctor X has very little to do with the original beyond the fact that they both involve mad scientists. Does this mean that you should skip watching Doctor X? Certainly not. The director of Doctor X is the same Michael Curtiz who made Casablanca eight years later in 1942. It also has a healthy dose of Fay Wray from The Most Dangerous Game and the Mystery of the Wax Museum. Finally, it’s worth watching simply for the mad scientist scenes. They may inspire my next Halloween costume.

While the sequel to Doctor X isn’t really a sequel at all), The Return of Doctor X is a fun film in its own right. The main character is Walter Garrett, a reporter who goes to interview a famous actress and finds her murdered body on the floor. Of course, he calls the paper first and gets the story published. Then, he goes and gets the police.

But when Walter goes back to the scene with the cops in tow, the body is gone. Walter’s editor is further infuriated when the actress shows up at his office ready to sue the paper. But the reporter notices that her skin has a stark white pallor. She seems to have been brought back from the dead, and Walter quickly starts working to figure out how and why.

What makes the movie fun is a view into cutting edge hematology (study of blood) circa 1939. The film does a good job mixing medical science with science fiction, which pulls you into the story.

Additionally, Humphrey Bogart plays a critical role in the film playing a lab assistant with a Bride of Frankenstein inspired hairdo and the bright white skin of the undead. Seeing Bogie with this “graveyard look” alone makes this film worth watching.

I would recommend this movie to people who like zombie films, films with Bogie, and mad scientist movies.

I bought a copy of the movie via Amazon. Below is the original theatrical trailer, which is fun to watch but includes spoilers. Consider yourself warned.

My take: Insurance agents can be terrifying when they are played by Bela Lugosi.

In full honesty, my father-in-law is an insurance agent. So I find it infinitely amusing that this movie’s villain is an evil insurance agent.

Bela Lugosi as Doctor Orloff in The Dark Eyes of London.

Of course, it is not as simple as that. In The Dark Eyes of London (released as The Human Monster in the U.S.), Bela Lugosi plans Doctor Orloff, a man who provides loans to desperate people in exchange for being the sole beneficiary on their life insurance (which he also provides; hence the insurance agent connection). The poor souls readily agree, and it doesn’t take long until Doctor Orloff leads them to their demise.

Much of the story follows those who are trying to find the killer. This includes Scotland Yard, a hardnose Chicago cop in town to study the way the Brits handle investigations, and the beautiful daughter of  the latest victim.

To them, Doctor Orloff appears a good samaritan. He provides loans to the needy and he supports a home for the blind. But when the police go to the home and start questioning some of the residents, they discover things are not as they seem.

This movie flows like a police procedural or mystery novel. But the use of Bela Lugosi kicks it up a notch and puts it into the realm of horror. He does an exceptional job imbuing his character with an eerie quality, and when he is on the screen, you cannot take your eyes off him.

I would recommend this movie to fans of Bela Lugosi or those who like a good murder mystery.

I found the movie on youtube:

My take: This remake of The Hands of Orlac is different enough to keep things interesting and Peter Lorre is phenomenally diabolical.

I’m only 21 movies into Studies in Terror, and there are 130 movies listed in the book. I’m already seeing remakes.

Perter Lorre as Gogol in Mad Love attacking Mrs. Orlac.

It astounds me that remakes have been around for so long. Every time they remake a popular horror film, every one groans and laments that no one can come up with good, new stories any longer. Apparently, they liked to rehash old stories even in the 1930s.

Fortunately, Mad Love is different enough than The Hands of Orlac that it held my interest. It’s the same basic story: famous pianist Stephen Orlac is in a train crash. His hands are crushed and the doctor wants to amputate. But after the pleas of the pianist’s wife, the doctor relents and transplants hands onto Orlac. But those hands happen to be the hands of a murderer.

After the surgery, Orlac senses that his hands are not his own. They seem to have a desire to kill.

This is the same plot as the Hands of Orlac. But Mad Love kicks it up a notch by focusing not on Orlac but on the doctor, Gogol. This mad doctor has fallen in love with Orlac’s wife after having watched her perform in the theater for months. With Orlac’s injury, he sees an opportunity to get the woman he desires.

Gogol was played by the infamous Peter Lorre, whose voice and demeanor will forever remind me of the Maltese Falcon and his short screen time in Casablanca. Unlike those films, however, he takes center stage in Mad Love, and he uses his screen time well. As a result of his acting alone, I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes classic thrillers or horror.

I ordered the DVD via Amazon. Here is the trailer so you can see how terrific Peter Lorre is, though the beginning of the trailer is a bit ham-fisted:

My take: A classic monster movie that provided an intriguing back story to the myth of  the werewolf.

I feel like I know a lot about werewolves at this point. When you’ve watched horror movies all of your life, they crop up time and again. From Teen Wolf and Twilight to Underworld and An American Werewolf in London, I feel as though I have seen the gamut.

Poster for Werewolf of London

I was pleasantly surprised to find that Werewolf of London had a new take and history on the vampire myth. The film starts in Tibet (which looks distinctly like California desert set to look like Tibet), where a botanist is hunting for a famed flower that only blooms under the light of the moon. The locals warn him and his companion that the flower is located in a valley teeming with demons.

He does not listen to their warning, thinking it is mere superstition. When he spots the flower and goes to dig up a specimen, he is violently attacked and bitten.

Back in London, he learns that he was bitten by a werewolf. He  will suffer the curse of transformation under the full moon unless he uses a blossom from the plant he acquired in Tibet, which is the only known antidote to the affliction.

The plot was interesting, the acting was compelling, and the makeup was very well done. As a result, I found this to be an entertaining monster movie from Universal Studios. I would recommend it to anyone who likes a classic monster movie.

To watch the movie, I had the DVD sent to me by Netflix. You can also order it online.

Here is a trailer so you can get a sense of the movie:

My take: I was very happy to fall upon a unique story for a change. It was also fun to see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi in the same film duking it out.

The Black Cat (1934 version) was the first movie to put Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff together. As a result, it was big box office smash for Universal. I can understand why.

Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi in The Black Cat

This is the 18th movie in Studies in Terror, and I am really starting to get a hang of the big names in early horror. I’ve also started developing a bit of an obsession with the actors from that period, even going so far as to buy a couple of books with huge sections about Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff.

As a result, I was excited to see this movie. But unlike the last film I watched (The Ghoul), it did not disappoint.

The story starts with two newlyweds on their honeymoon. They have the unfortunate luck of sharing a ride with Dr. Vitus Werdegast, played by Bela Lugosi. When their ride crashes, they end up at the home of Werdegast’s “friend,” Hjalmar Poelzig, played by Boris Karloff. Friend is in quotation marks because he is really no friend at all.

There is death, satanism, hints of necrophilia and host of other nefarious things happening in Poelzig’s house. And Poelzig wants to keep the fair young bride for one of his satanic rituals.

After having seen so many basic horror stories, it was refreshing to see something new and unique. The summary above does not do the plot justice. It is a complex story, though still entertaining to watch. Most of all, it is great to see two masters of the horror genre go head-to-dead in this film.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes classic horror movies, movies with Bela Lugosi, and movies with Boris Karloff.

I found a gritty version on the Internet Archive, though I think this one may still be under copyright and not the public domain.  Here is a trailer someone made that I found on youtube: