Notti di terrore

If you're a fan of BELA LUGOSI you'll get a kick out of his sinister role here as a scientist who is bent on getting revenge because he never got his full share of the profits on his inventions.

Given the low-budget look and tacky special effects (a live bat appears in close-ups only), the modest little thriller entertains even though it doesn't quite provide the shudders intended. Still, if you're in a Halloween mood, you might want to sit through this at least once.

Interesting to note Dave O'Brien in the role of Johnny Layton. O'Brien is familiar to me because of all the Pete Smith Specialties he starred in during the '40s and which TCM has been running frequently. Others will recall him in a bunch of westerns he made at poverty row studios. At any rate, he gives the only really professional performance in the film aside from Bela who seems to relish his role as the mad scientist. Most of the acting among supporting players is on the less than credible side.

Also interesting to note that O'Brien was a very versatile man who acted, directed and wrote throughout a prolific career that began in the 1930s--with over a hundred films to his credit. He was my main reason for enjoying THE DEVIL BAT.

Bela Lugosi stars in this piece of 40s horror cinema. At times the acting is pretty hammy (the guy playing the photographer got a little annoying as did the reporter) and the budget had to have been really low. However, it is kind of fun to watch. Lugosi gives a good performance (he's pretty much the glue holding this picture together) and the story isn't that bad.

Lugosi is Dr. Caruthers who is working for a cosmetic company. For years the company (owned by two families) has been making millions from his formulas but only giving him a stipends as their chemist. Caruthers hatches a diabolical scheme to get rid of the family members using a giant mutant bat that goes crazy over a curious sent that he discovered in Tibet (it seems that every thing that was mystic in the 40s came from somewhere in the Himilayas or central Asia). He uses this scent in a shaving lotion that he has his unfortunate victims test. After the first murder, a Chicago news paper dispatches a reporter and photographer to cover the story. From there, the reporter develops a love interest with the daughter of the cosmetic magnate.

It's pretty easy to follow, and has all the predictable 1940s plot turns. There's a lot of problems that are pretty easy to forgive in the film because it was made in the 1940s and on a very limited budget. All in All, Lugosi fans are the real winners in this one. He gives a solid performance. It's too bad that his career didn't go very far after this one.

I've seen this many times since my childhood. Probably a few dozen times... Yet, every once in a while, I'll take out my best video copy of it, and play it again. When it was screened on TCM last Halloween I was pleased as punch.

-- By the way, on that Halloween, TCM screened several other Lugosi low-budget films--- all considered bad by critics, but for some unexplainable reason, All very entertaining, and (dare I say it?) ALL were GREAT FUN to watch! (some of them were: "Scared to Death", "The Mysterious Mr. Wong", and "White Zombie").

-- Yes, I enjoyed "The Devil Bat". Another commenter on this film said it was so awful that it should be counted among the "100 worst films". That same commenter said he thought Lugosi only did "bad" films for Ed Wood.

I have news for him, and everyone else: Lugosi NEVER made any bad films!

"The Devil Bat" may be low-budget nonsense (as were Ed Wood's efforts), but it is still being discovered by new generations of film buffs. It's still "In-Print" in both VHS and DVD format (and still selling), and it's still being shown on both local and cable-network TV.

That commenter may be interested to know that Bela Lugosi made NINE low-budget films for Monogram (far more than he made for Ed Wood) as well as films for PRC and other poverty-row studios.

"The Devil Bat" may be tripe, but it's GOOD tripe, and it makes for fun viewing. Kind of like "Spooks Run Wild" (which Lugosi made with The East Side Kids), and "The Gorilla" (which he made at 20th/Fox, with Patsy Kelly and Lionel Atwill). --By the way-- The Ritz Brothers, who were billed as the 'stars' of "The Gorilla," turned in totally forgettable performances.

-- Let's not leave out "Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla", or "Vampire Over London" which Lugosi made in England, with Arthur Lucan in drag as Mother Riley (also known as: "Mother Riley Meets the Vampire").

-- In fact, Arthur Lucan's entire late-1940's-to-early-1950's series of "Mother Riley" films (all of which starred Lucan in "old-lady" drag) could have taught Ed Wood a few things about low-budget film-making.

Ed Wood may have a well deserved reputation for having made "bad, but fun to watch" films, but he sure wasn't the first one to do it.

I've always liked "The Devil Bat". I rated it 6.

I always watch this Lugosi classic with affection, and I don't agree with its detractors. Here's another bit of harmless detective drama, unusual in the fact that the law teams up with reporters to solve a mystery (imagine that today). Inexpensively made to be sure, and with a sound track that turned up in later thrillers, "Devil Bat" is subtle humor mixed with the obvious. Is there any doubt as to the outcome? Dave O'Brien and Donald Kerr are delightful as the reporter-photographer team, respectively, and the casting is on the money. Except the big mystery for me is that the coroner shows up in the credits but not in the film! Go figure.

Bela Lugosi turns in a not-so-bad performance in a not-so-bad little B-movie.

Oh, yeah, it is schlocky as all heck. Mad scientist, big rubber bats attacking people wearing too much cologne, dumb comic-relief side-kick for a hero all too full of himself, the usual cops without a clue. Yes, as many clichés as can fit 70-odd minutes. But fortunately, the pacing is actually rather good - moments that look like they're about to slip into the snooze-zone somehow get saved by a fresh revelation, and we're onto the next scene.The acting is competent, the dialog is not painful, the camera and editing do what they have to do to get the job done - a workmanlike performance, but what more can be expected of a cheapie B-movie. If you enjoy B-movie thrillers, you won't be disappointed.