The Brute Man

This is the final film for Rondo Hatton, who suffered from acromegaly, and was employed in Hollywood increasingly as his disease progressed, just as Hedy Lamarr was used as her beauty increased. The plot is simple: a bright handsome young man is turned into a monster by an accident causing malfunction of his pituitary gland. His disease exacerbates his natural inclination to impulse and temper. As in the Frankenstein myth, his ugliness causes rejection by almost every one he meets. At any clear sign of revulsion, he kills. As in the Frankenstein movie, he receives unconditional acceptance only from a blind musician. At this hint of what life could have been, he softens. But the Hollywood ending cannot be. Rondo, who started in movies in 1930, was routinely used as a homely/ugly bit. The revival of horror films brought him a natural chance for stardom. Movies released in '44, '45, and '46 (the year of his death), had him appearing as The Creeper, in lead or featured parts. In the The Brute Man, he plays that part as it parallels his own life, and he is remarkably good, fully showing the good and the bad of the character. It is the faint spark of human needs that touches us, and it makes it possible to see the real ugliness of the beautiful actors cast to support him. But it is not a welcome message. The production is of course on the cheap, but with a lot of attention to detail, especially the waterfront hovel, his hideout, and the downscale apartment of the blind girl, his only other haven. Brando, in The Men, at the beginning of his career, and Rondo, in The Brute, at the end of his career, show us that being different is not for sissies, only with Brando you get the Hollywood ending.

This film is not all that bad - it's certainly better than it's rating. Why this film is rated so badly I'll never know. I'll admit there are better dramatic thrillers of the 1940s but this one deserves a better rating than it's getting.

Rondo Hatton plays Hal Moffat AKA 'The Creeper' - he's well suited for this role. The only thing I wish is that they had maybe scared or disfigured his real face more - because that is what is suppose to have happened to Hal (had his face disfigured).

Jane Adams is Helen Paige - and she's good. I really enjoyed her in this film as well as House of Dracula (1945).

This one is a good watch. It's not a "must see" film but it is a film that is enjoyable for certain audiences.

6.5/10

First, before I begin, I would like to point out that this film may very well be the first Hollywood prequel, with THE BRUTE MAN being a prequel to HOUSE OF HORRORS(1945). Most so called "expert" film critics claim 1949's ANOTHER PART OF THE FOREST (a prequel to THE LITTLE FOXES) as the first Hollywood prequel. They are wrong I tell you! As I have pointed out else where, film firsts should be noted and applauded, even if the film(s) is/are otherwise unremarkable. Now that I've gotten that out of the way...

THE BRUTE MAN is not a very good film. The film has good a opening scene with Hal (Hatton) being chased by police. These opening scenes have an effective "film noir" feel to them. However the film quickly goes down hill after this and plods around from incident to incident. The film is not helped at all by the fact that Hatton was not an actor at all. He was more of human prop. He has just to much dialog, which he often seems to stumble over (I don't know if his condition made speaking difficult.) He would have been far more effective if the script didn't require him to deliver a lot of lines, or none at all as in his horror star debut PEARL OF OF DEATH, where he was mute and was used effectively. When ever Hatton utters a line, he becomes comical, not frightening. Over all THE BRUTE MAN is basically just another sub par horror thriller.

What makes THE BRUTE MAN so worthy of scorn is the tasteless way the film mirrors Hattons real life story. In the film Hal is a handsome college athlete who becomes disfigured when exposed to gas. In real life Hatton was a handsome high school athlete who was exposed to a deadly gas while fighting in World War 1. He suffered for years in great pain from the attack and was in and out of hospitals. Hatton claimed his exposure to the gas brought about his disfiguring condition. To exploit his tragic real life story in a cheap horror film was in pretty bad taste. Now, I understand Hatton was paid well for his role, but I wonder if he ever felt uncomfortable having his tragic real life story being exploited in a cheesy horror picture like this.

Hatton died before this film was released. So did Hollywoods interest in making horror films. So did the "old" Universal, being bought out and merging with International pictures. It's almost certain if Hatton lived, he would have had his contract dumped by the studio's new owners and gone back to being what he had been before his short, dubious fame as a horror film star; a full time sports writer and occasional bit player.

One note: This film was produced by the old Universal, but by the time this film was ready for release, Universal was now Universal-International. The new studio was now a "prestige" studio, and horror films were not prestigious. So the studio had minor studio Producers Releasing Corporation (PRC) release the film. Some reviewers in 1946 were fooled into thinking that film was produced by PRC and noted that the film had better production values than previous PRC films, not knowing the film was actually a Universal production.

Guys, the next time you look in the mirror and don't like what you see, try telling yourself that at least you're not Rondo Hatton. Hatton suffered with the congenital disease acromegaly, which, as Webster's puts it, is "chronic hyperpituitarism marked by progressive enlargement of hands, feet and face." He lived to the age of 52, being felled by a heart attack shortly after making his last film, "The Brute Man," in 1946. This is an extremely well-made little B picture, featuring fine acting by all, a compact story and some real suspense. In it, Hatton plays a former college BMOC who became disfigured after a lab accident and who, years later, begins a murder spree against all his former pals and teachers that he blames for his current condition. He also befriends a pretty, blind piano teacher, who naturally doesn't recoil automatically from the big lug's unique physiognomy. These scenes, with big Rondo and the blind woman, will likely cause most viewers to recall Frankenstein and the blind hermit in "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), just as his later sacrifices on her behalf are reminiscent of Chaplin's for his blind flower girl in "City Lights" (1931). No, "The Brute Man" is not nearly in the same league as those two immortal classics, but still remains a fine entertainment nevertheless. "Frankenstein" makeup man Jack Pierce contributed his great talents to this film, too, making Hatton (I would imagine) even more of a sight than he was ordinarily. It's hard to feel much sympathy for Rondo's "Creeper" character, cold-blooded psycho that he has become, but somehow, we DO still feel some, to the actor's great credit. Oh, by the way, this DVD looks just terrific; an absolutely first-rate transfer from the fine folks at Image Entertainment.

The Brute Man (1946)

** (out of 4)

Hal Moffat (Rondo Hatton) was once an up and coming doctor but he was brutally attacked and left as a deformed monster. Now with vengeance in his heart he sets out as The Creeper to seek revenge on those who left him in his condition.

Poor Rondo Hatton. You can read up on his medical condition, which led him to look the way he did but basically Universal exploited his looks and threw him into a number of their horror films over the last two years of Hatton's life. Hatton would end up dying before this film would be released and this would stand as his final picture.

I must admit that I have a hard time watching his films simply because of knowing his true story and it's pretty sad seeing him exploited. With that said, there's no question that he was an amazing presence on the screen and it's easy to see why the studio would want him in the movies. He certainly does a fine job here playing the victim as the studio obviously went for sympathy towards his character and threw in a subplot dealing with a blind woman, which seemed to be a wink back to the BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

As far as the film goes, it's pretty much a routine horror film but at just under a hour it's certainly entertaining enough for what it is.