Grip of the Strangler

Not one of Boris Karloff's best films or performances, but very interesting, sort of a take on Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde with a miscarriage of justice element, and pretty good as a film. Even with the big problems it has, it is still one of Karloff's better later films, Grip of the Strangler's problems never reach rock-bottom quality like the Mexican films he starred in did. The script is on the simplistic side, there are some pacing problems with the film taking a little too long to get going and then feeling rushed towards the end, and the ending could have been better rounded off. It looks reasonable though, the settings are effective, the photography is crisp and the make-up for Karloff is used very well, when in his more murderous madman guise it is quite grotesque-looking. The music is also haunting and effectively used. There are some creepy moments and the atmosphere is unsettling and well-evoked. The story on the most part is interesting and entertaining, the first half is very promising especially. The performances are solid, best in support are Vera Day and Anthony Dawson. But only one performance comes off as really "great" and that is (predictably perhaps) Boris Karloff, as ever showing a gift for changing personalities expressively and sometimes subtly. All in all, Grip of the Strangler is a pretty good film, often decent and solid without reaching greatness excepting Karloff's performance, the best thing about the film by some considerable distance. 7/10 Bethany Cox

... or did he? Ever? In 19th century England Edward Styles, a one-armed man, is being hung, for the murder of several women, with a large crowd watching. Who thinks watching an execution is entertainment anyways? But I digress. Styles is professing that he is innocent up to his death. He is buried in a lonely prison yard grave.

Fast forward twenty years and novelist James Rankin (Boris Karloff) is revisiting the Styles case to prove that if he had an attorney provided he would have likely been acquitted. He is trying to get this policy - the crown paying for an attorney for indigent defendants - to become law in England and use the Styles case as an example. After some digging - and some of that literally - he determines that the case against Styles was not only weak, but that the evidence points to a doctor who did the autopsy on Styles, was at his burial, and was the doctor present when the strangler killed all of his victims. He tries to find this man but his trail goes cold.

As for the rest of it, it has such a unique premise that I will say no more. Karloff is the best thing about this film, and the rest of the actors just seem like props around which he performs. It has great atmosphere, and I can really only say one bad thing about it. That one bad thing is that the scene at the bawdy music hall where The Strangler killed one of his victims is long and tedious. There actually is an entire musical singing number by one of the actresses and it just bored me. It would have been better if Karloff had just asked his questions, and maybe given you a feel for the place, and then have the movie just leave that place never to return.

Set in Victorian times, Boris Karloff plays a determined writer who becomes obsessed with a twenty-year-old case surrounding "The Haymarket Strangler" and intends to prove that the young man who was hanged for the murders two decades earlier was in fact innocent. All evidence seems to point to a certain Dr. Tenant who used a surgeon's knife to not only choke the life out of his victims, but to slash their flesh as well. But the details of Tenant's life and whereabouts since the crimes remains a mystery, one which Karloff comes to learn hits closer to home for him than he suspected.

It's amazing to realize that Boris Karloff was nearly 70 when he appeared in this film as it is impressive to see him perform so vigorously in a very physically demanding role. He is required to undergo very strenuous activity as he contorts his body and facial features to simulate a Jekyll/Hyde madman on the loose -- upper teeth gnawing spasmodically at his lower lip, one eye half-closed, a twisted arm wielding a scalpel. At more refined times, Karloff is very dedicated in his role as the well-meaning but disoriented author on a road to madness.

There is no question that there are some powerful moments in this feature, and it is highly required viewing for any fan of Karloff. Unfortunately, the film bears a weight of becoming tedious on occasion, so first-time viewers would want to make allowances for this in between the thrills. **1/2 out of ****

"The Haunted Strangler" is an unusual beast for a horror movie. It makes the surprising decision to feature no surprise. There is never any question of who the killer is because the movie tells you early on. It doesn't even end with a twist.

There are examples of this being done well with horror movies and thrillers, usually when the aim is to disturb, rather than scare the audience. Consider films like "American Psycho", where you already know the guy on screen is a killer. The suspense comes from wondering who they'll off next. "The Haunted Strangler" doesn't seem to be trying for that, though. The main feeling it evinces is sadness, I guess, at the tormented killer, when really you should just be scared of him. He's hideous and fearsome, but not interesting enough for the movie to show its hand so soon.

The plot concerns an infamous killer called the Haymarket Strangler who is hanged in Victorian London. Twenty years later, Boris Karloff plays an ageing writer and social reformer who is determined to prove that the man executed for the Haymarket crimes was innocent. Karloff unravels the mystery of the case and the killings begin again.

Who could the killer be?

If you think I'm hedging perilously close to a spoiler with this review, the people who made the movie would have disagreed. The revelation of who the killer is could have been used to great shock and suspense, but instead, it's thrown away carelessly early on. With it, sadly, goes all trace of suspense.

Some people have asked why Boris Karloff never played a serious version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" . Well, here it is, even though it is in the form of some "Dr. Tennant / Hyde-like strangler" duality. Once again, Boris Karloff plays the "monster" and like Mr. Hyde in the previous films, he plays a man who degenerates to a rampaging animal which lives to kill. Also like Mr. Hyde, the transformations to the lower form seem to be based on some sort of sexual repression that bursts out in the form of savage attacks on women. In addition, like the "beast" in the "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" films, whether one is watching Fredric March, Spencer Tracy, or John Barrymore, the transformation from man to the lower animal state gets uglier with each change. Another thing, the graveyard scenes in the movie are really creepy - kind of a throwback to films such as "Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein", "Return of the Vampire", and "The Body Snatcher". Even though the plot has some strange twists, this is one of the best post-Universal thrillers starring Boris Karloff - one of the last in which he plays both the monster ("Mr. Hyde") and the mad doctor (Tennant). (Karloff did the same thing in "Frankenstein 1970" in which he played both creator and created.) Great hair-raiser.

Watch it in the dark.

Dan Basinger