Den Tod überlistet

THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH (the Hammer Films remake of 1945's THE MAN IN HALF MOON STREET, based on the play by Barre' Lyndon) seems to be a forgotten fantasy-thriller. Often compared with Oscar Wilde's PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY, this film rarely seems to get the same airplay on late night TV or on any of the "Shock Theatre" programs that many of the other Hammer horror hits did, and has yet to receive a home video release. With so much of the Hammer library now out on DVD, and since Paramount handled Hammer's distribution for this (as well as having produced the 1945 original), it would be nice to see the two films released to DVD as a double feature. (Much like the HOUSE OF WAX/MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM or the Frederic March and Spencer Tracy versions of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE.)

Hammer's most famous and greatest 'mad science' franchise is, of course, the great Frankenstein series starring the almighty Peter Cushing as the ruthless and yet somehow very likable Baron Victor Frankenstein. While THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH (1959) is by no means as great as Hammer's Frankenstein films it is a very atmospheric mad-scientist-flick with an excellent cast. Directed by Hammer's Number one, Terence Fisher, THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH is an adaptation of a play that was first filmed as THE MAN IN HALF MOON STREET (1945) which I haven't seen yet.

The mad scientist in this film is played by the always-sinister Anton Diffring, who had played Baron Frankenstein in Hammer's own TALES OF FRANKENSTEIN, a 1958 pilot for a planned Frankenstein TV-show that wasn't made. Actually, Diffring's character in this movie, Dr. George Bonner isn't really that 'mad', regarding his situation: In Paris of 1890, Dr. Bonner is a man who seemingly is in his 40s. However, he is in fact 104 years old and keeps his youth with the aid of a serum. In order to survive, he needs periodic gland transplants from young and healthy victims. Needless to say he is willing to kill for his life...

THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH co-stars two Hammer icons, British Horror-beauty Hazel Court and the inimitable Christopher Lee. Both deliver great performances as usual. Personally I like Christopher Lee most when he is evil, but hero-roles such as in this film also fit him well. Anton Diffring is a specialist for sinister and macabre characters, and he is once again excellent here. 19th century Paris is a good setting for a Hammer film; even though most of the movie plays indoors here, director Fisher once again makes great use of the Hammer-typical visuals, creating a thick Gothic atmosphere. Overall, THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH offers few surprises and may not be an essential must-see, but it is tense and atmospheric Gothic Horror and should not be missed by my fellow Hammer-fans.

This is among the first Hammer Horrors I watched but, after checking it out twice on Italian TV as a kid (once as part of a late-night horror programme called "Zio Tibia Horror Picture Show" featuring a couple of amiably grotesque puppets, which is how I first caught up with the likes of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN {1935} and THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN {1942}!), the film seems to have dropped off the radar completely in my neck of the woods; finally, it was recently released on R1 DVD by Legend Films since this was the only title from the legendary British company to be distributed by Paramount. It is actually the third version of Barre' Lyndon's play "The Man In Half Moon Street", first filmed in Hollywood in 1943 (albeit only released a couple of years later!) and again for British TV in which Anton Diffring, the star here, actually originated his role (for whatever reason, the name of the protagonist changes from one version to the other!); even so, Hammer's then top leading man Peter Cushing was supposed to play the part but, thankfully, saner minds prevailed as I am not sure he would have been ideal as a ladies' man (the heroine, then, is future "Queen Of Horror" Hazel Court in her last of 2 films for Hammer). It is interesting to have Hammer still adapting stuff from TV at this point, even after they hit the jackpot with reinventing the classic Gothic literary tales!

Anyway, having just watched the earlier movie, it is quite clear which is the superior version since Jimmy Sangster's excellent script deals far more thoroughly with the themes inherent in Lyndon's source…which, as mentioned in my review of the original, draws quite a bit from Oscar Wilde's "The Picture Of Dorian Gray" – though, this being Hammer, the horror aspect (aided by Fisher's typically full-blooded handling and Diffring's intense characterization) is a lot more pronounced. That said, Diffring is ably supported by Christopher Lee (who, despite having attained star status thanks to Hammer, generously accepted a supporting and heroic role this time around: oddly enough, his doctor character here shares his name with another one he would play in the later, similarly Sangster-scripted Hammer chiller TASTE OF FEAR {1961}!) and Arnold Marle' (who also reprised his role from the TV version as Diffring's elderly associate).

Being a relatively early genre effort by the company, the color palette is very handsome, effectively rendering both the late 19th century Parisian setting and the moments of pure horror, notably the greenish hue emitted by the boiling flask which holds Diffring's life-sustaining serum. Incidentally, while the protagonist of the 1945 version was really a 90-year old, here he is made to be 104 (and it is amusing to watch Diffring try to convince Lee that he is actually a good 15 years older than the stroke-stricken Marle'); again, the protagonist has a dual career as an artist (though he is a sculptor now rather than a painter) but, inconveniently, his models all fall for him and have to be disposed of (which is one of the clues the Police – represented by Francis De Wolff – eventually follow). Here, too, the gland operation is good for a whole decade but, in this case, we are better able to accept the fact that in the interim he tries to rebuild his life, not to mention that when the effect begins to dissipate and Marle' has still not turned up to perform the life-saving operation, he is forced to kill and kill again because the gland withers after a few days!

Among the number of differences between the two movie versions one finds that, in the 1945 movie, when the protagonist's colleague is unable to operate, he has to rely on a young man he saves from suicide and who just happens to be a medical student (after having gone through a list of disgraced members of the profession), whereas here it is Lee who gets asked (who is in love with Court herself, naturally) but initially refuses (so that Diffring has to refer to an alcoholic doctor and, bafflingly, an oculist!). Here, too, he does operate eventually but he does not perform the gland transplant, which obviously proves Diffring's undoing; the latter comeuppance is quite messy (much more horrific, in fact, than the original's) – involving both the age reversal (featuring great make-up effects by Roy Ashton) and his being set on fire by a model he had kept imprisoned (and deformed, since apparently his skin becomes abrasive as the effects of the drug fade!) after she discovered his secret.

Diffring would follow this with an even more notorious genre outing, CIRCUS OF HORRORS (1960), but he never quite became a star (being too often relegated to playing Nazi officials in Hollywood WWII epics); even so, later horror titles of his include MARK OF THE DEVIL PART 2 (1973; which I will be getting to presently), THE BEAST MUST DIE (1974; for Hammer rival Amicus and with Peter Cushing!) and Jess Franco's FACELESS (1987; which also sees him involved in unethical operations spiced with a series of murders). Incidentally, following these viewings, I am also in the process of acquiring Ruggero Deodato's belated giallo PHANTOM OF DEATH (1988) starring Michael York, Edwige Fenech and Donald Pleasance in view of its apparent thematic similarity to the Barre' Lyndon play.

Although not one of Hammer's best films, it is a good movie. The Victorian setting (although it is supposed to take place in Paris) is very charming. Some people have criticized the use of heavy fog in Paris but I feel it adds to the eerie and mysterious atmosphere. Christopher Lee is very effective and is a hero - which is rare in early Hammer films. Hazel Court is absolutely beautiful as the heroine. The plot is interesting and moves quite well. Compared to some other old movies that have been released on DVD, this one is a winner. It is truly a film that belongs in a Hammer fan's collection. Too bad Peter Cushing was not in the film because it would have been even better. I hope some Hammer fans read this and make a plea to have the movie released on DVD. At least it could be one movie of a double feature.

"The Man Who Could Cheat Death" is a well-put-together Hammer film from 1959 that boasts a dream cast of horror veterans, an intelligent script and high production values. Still, I can almost predict what the film's inevitable detractors will say: that it is overly talky and builds to a climax that is something of a letdown. And while these charges do have a patina of truth to them, the picture's sterling acting from its three leads more than makes up for any deficits. In the picture we meet Georges Bonnet, a doctor in the Paris of 1890, played by German actor Anton Diffring (who had so impressed me recently in his next starring role, in the following year's "Circus of Horrors"). Though seemingly blessed with all that life can offer--including a lucrative practice and the love of society lady Janine Dubois, played by the luscious Hazel Court--in truth, Bonnet is a desperate man. Unless he can coerce surgeon Pierre Gerard (the always dependable Christopher Lee) to operate on him, and take the place of his ailing friend, Dr. Weiss, the life-preserving serum that has been keeping him alive for--HOW long?!?!--will very shortly lose its mojo. In the role of the aged Dr. Weiss, Arnold Marle almost steals the show as Bonnet's patient but increasingly appalled voice of morality and reason, and his terrific thesping is more than adequately matched by those three horror icons. Yes, the film IS talky, but never dull, and Diffring brings a chilling intensity to his role and really makes us feel the angst, isolation and desperate strait of his unique situation. And yes, though the picture ends a tad abruptly and with something of a disappointment in the makeup department, most fans of restrained, levelheaded and intelligent British horror should, I feel, be left happily grinning. In all, another winner from the great House of Hammer.