Supernatural

Unlike a lot of reviewers here, I was quite impressed by this film. Sure it's not scary - I didn't expect it to be - but it effectively builds an unsettling atmosphere without resorting to the usual mood enhancers such as haunted houses, gloomy mansions, isolated islands, etc. Prosaic things such as a spark generated from a railway wheel, the taking of a key, have an edge to them. There are also some very nice touches along the way, eg, the dog bringing the slippers to Carole Lombard's brother.

It is also interesting to see Carole Lombard this early in her career - from my point of view she acquits herself quite well in the part. And H. B Warner is also well suited to his role of Dr Houston. Randolph Scott however is wooden, and the role of Bavian could have done with a more charismatic player than Alan Dinehart. The real scene stealer in this movie however is Beryl Mercer - much better in this than anything else I have seen her in.

I also find this film interesting plot-wise, as I have on occasion come across texts which refer to "The Uninvited" as the first significant Hollywood film to deal with spirit possession when clearly this is not the case. I suppose it depends on what you mean by significant.

Anyway, it is certainly interesting to see what the makers of "White Zombie" came up with when they had the backing of a major studio.

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 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.

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.

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.