Supernatural

I totally forgot that I had this movie in my library. And I also am very happy to have found it, because for the thirties, that's a pretty good surprise from the director of WHITE ZOMBIE and REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES. I think it was daring for this period to invent such a plot, and the result is not so bad. The short length is also a good point. Now, I admit that this movie is talkative, as many of others made during this era, early talkies. Maybe a decade later, it would have been a bit better.... Anyway, I like this Victor Halperin's film, one of his most interesting, though not his best. But to see Randolph Scott and Carole Lombard, we can make an effort.

By the thinnest of plot connections in Supernatural is millionaire heiress Carole Lombard connected to Vivienne Osbourne a serial murderess who is awaiting her execution in prison. Alan Dinehart, Osbourne's sometime boyfriend is the one who turned her in to the authorities because he was afraid. With good reason as it turns out.

Dinehart is a fake medium, but H.B. Warner is the real deal, a psychologist studying life after death. He wants Osbourne's body after she dies for experimentation and she agrees to it.

Turns out he's a family friend of Carole Lombard who is mourning the recent death of her brother, leaving her sole heir to a vast fortune. And Dinehart has designs on it through her.

Warner has the best performance in this film. His scientist is part Dr. Frankenstein and part Dr. Van Helsing, the best parts of both. Closely following is Dinehart who is definitely one scurvy rat.

Lombard did far better work in her career in those screwball comedies than she does her as a frightened heiress who gets possessed by the spirit of a killer. Supposedly a female serial killer has not been identified, but apparently Supernatural anticipates one will eventually be found.

Randolph Scott plays Lombard's boyfriend. He was doing B westerns for Paramount at the time, based on Zane Grey stories mostly. He looks like he'd rather be back in the saddle than in the tuxedo he wears mostly in this film. Of course his part is colorless and he's given little to do, but look concerned.

Not the best work for fans of either Carole Lombard or Randolph Scott.

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'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.

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.