Supernatural

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have mixed expectations before I sat to watch. On the one hand, while not all her films are equal, I really like Carole Lombard. On the other hand, I was less than impressed with filmmaker Victor Halperin's biggest claim to fame and previous picture, 'White Zombie,' and I found his 1935 quasi-sequel 'Revolt of the zombies' to be even worse. The first moments of 'Supernatural' also give me pause: I recognize the stylization as common to older features, yet the opening quotes from Confucius, Mohamed, and the bible that generically speak about "the supernatural" come off as ham-handed embellishments. Ultimately I'm inclined to think this 1933 movie is modestly well made and modestly enjoyable, though flaws dampen the entertainment.

In a runtime of scarcely over one hour the plot seems to uselessly meander and drag for much of the first third (if not beyond), then rush in the last 5-10 minutes such that story beats feel forced, inorganic, and less than believable. It does pick up, though if the writing were tightened this may well have clocked in at less than sixty minutes. To that point: the themes of gullibility, fraud, trickery, and murder wrapped up in notions of supernatural doings should set of the alarm bells of anyone who exercises critical thinking. Even with the best suspension of disbelief, though, still other aspects of the storytelling raise a skeptical eyebrow - "Dr." Houston's "experiment's; Bavian's whole deal seems thin from this viewer's perspective; the resolution of the climax is altogether unconvincing. In the broad strokes the story is promising; the details are too often sketchy.

The writing is the most important part, and I find it a little wanting. I'm also again unenthused about Halperin's direction; though capable in comparison to the other movies of his that I've watched, his contribution still seems to me to be a smidgen bland in every regard. What I do like and appreciate are the production design and art direction, the hair and makeup work, and the costume design; the acting here is fairly decent. Arthur Martinelli's cinematography is fine, as is the editing. Only - nor do these aspects abjectly inspire, and how much do they really matter if the screenplay doesn't make the grade?

You could do better, you could do worse. No matter if you're watching as a fan of horror flicks, old movies, someone in the cast, or just a cinephile generally, there are contemporary titles much more deserving, but this also isn't altogether bad. The concept is great, and I just wish more care were taken in developing it for the screen. Don't go out of your way for 'Supernatural,' but if you happen to come across it, it's a passable way to spend one hour.

Negative reviews of this film should be seen in context. Most Carole Lombard fans are looking for light comedies and romances, certainly not horror pictures. Horror fans, however, must be delighted to find Lombard starring in this movie from the Halperins, who produced the successful Lugosi vehicle "White Zombie" in 1932.

Only a few times in the 1930s' golden age of horror did these films get the star power and production they deserved. Among major studios Paramount led the way with this type of film, even predating Universal with John Barrymore's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" in 1920 when the only horror films were coming out of Germany. In the '30s Paramount, encouraged by Universal's success, cast Charles Laughton in "The Island of Lost Souls" and Frederic March in a remake of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." In "Supernatural" Lombard is fine in the lead role of a woman possessed by the evil spirit of a murderess. And while this film is not a classic, it is an effective horror film by a major studio. The fact that it rates 6.0 stars is amazing when you consider what types of films Lombard's fans are used to seeing her in.

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.

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.

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