Supernatural

Supernatural is a slow moving pic about séance versus science as Carole Lombard is exposed to the dark side via a shady mystic and an overzealous doctor. A dull plot and even duller characters. As a Lombard fan, I like to see how she fared early in her career. Her acting in this film is just so-so and it brings to light how much she improved in the last nine years of her life. The big plus is Randolph Scott, not for his acting but for his physique. He's definitely easy on the eyes in a movie that otherwise put me to sleep.

Having independently made one of the most unusual horror films up to that time in WHITE ZOMBIE (1932), the Halperin Brothers were given the opportunity to duplicate its success – on a bigger budget, relatively speaking – by a major studio, Paramount. Alas, the result wasn't as good and, in fact, SUPERNATURAL emerged as a lesser addition to the studio's brief output in the genre during its Pre-Code heyday! Despite a nice opening montage sequence depicting the exploits of the murderess (Vivienne Osborne), it takes a while to get going: Carole Lombard only appears 15 minutes into the movie, and the possession plot only really comes into play during the last 15 (interestingly, the 'transference of souls at the moment of death' gimmick was also featured in EXORCIST III [1990] – though it's unlikely this element was derived from the film in question). That said, I enjoyed SUPERNATURAL a good deal and there are some undeniably stylish sequences throughout.

Still, one might say that luscious Lombard's virtually the whole show here, though she isn't totally comfortable in her role. Randolph Scott and H.B. Warner lend solid if unexceptional support – but the villainous character of the spiritualist (Allan Dinehart) isn't particularly well-developed, while Beryl Mercer offers the obligatory comic relief as the latter's tipsy landlady (who isn't above spying on and eventually blackmail her boarders!).

For all that, the latter stages of the film – involving the séance (highlighted by the 'apparitions' of Lombard's dead twin brother and various other tricks perpetrated by Dinehart to milk his gullible clients) and Lombard's possession (particularly the nice close-ups of her lit eyes) – are reasonably effective. All in all, while I wasn't excessively let down by it, I can only see SUPERNATURAL (I wouldn't mind having it on an official DVD from Universal, either, perhaps as part of a horror collection?) improving with further viewings, and I would certainly like to catch up with the Halperin Brothers' subsequent horror outings – REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (1936) and TORTURE SHIP (1939) – even if their reputation is nowhere near as assured as this one's is, let alone WHITE ZOMBIE

I find this film immensely enjoyable. Sure it's ridiculous, but wouldn't any film with this title be a little silly? The cinematography is outstanding (particularly in the remarkable opening montage) and the cast is fine. The hero is Randolph Scott. Recommended.

I've seen this film 3 times over the past 16 years and I have to say that it still has its moments. Real pros were in charge of seeing to it that the movie evokes the right mood. No, it's not made in the same vein as "The Blair Witch Project" or any of a number of modern scarefests. Older movies often have a distinct style which is different than that used by directors, cinematographers and set designers today. This should not detract from the appreciation of old scary movies. Black and white cinematography can only enhance them. See the scene with the dead murderess in the scientist's laboratory for an example of what I mean. Brr.

In "Supernatural," Carole Lombard stars as an heiress being extorted by a charlatan psychic claiming he is in communication with her deceased twin brother. While his plot is phony, her subsequent possession by an executed heiress is not--and the heiress has a vendetta against this fraudulent psychic.

"Supernatural" apparently had a troubled production, largely because Lombard felt the material was unsuitable for her comedy chops; though you wouldn't know it, as the result is a solid supernatural horror-melodrama that is anchored in an understated (and unexpected) raw performance from Lombard. The film's plot is rather routine, and some elements are a bit ridiculous (and ostensibly were even in 1933), but the real success of the film is that it manages to draw the audience in with its quietness. There are several scenes that linger on Lombard's character alone in the frame, and her nonverbal acting is highly communicative and serves as further evidence of what her talents were. While Lombard herself felt horror was a mismatch for her, I'd politely disagree.

The film ramps up when her character schedules a followup seance with the fraud psychic and actually becomes possessed. It's all good fun, and peppered with some marginally spooky moments. The black-and-white photography is atmospheric and effective, and at times it reminded me (stylistically) of the Val Lewton horror films that would come the following decade. The "possessed by a serial killer" plot would rear its head in subsequent decades in such films as "Witchboard" (1986), and the similarities there are visible.

All in all, "Supernatural" is a rather underrated film in the horror canon, especially as far as pre-code films are concerned. It seems to have been relegated as a footnote in both the genre and in studies of Lombard's career, which is a shame because it is actually a well-made, formidably-acted, and generally impressive horror film. Its ability to turn small, quiet moments into grand gestures is something to behold, and Lombard's understated acting helps hold the drama and thrills together nicely. 8/10.