The Brute Man

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.

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

After reading many of the other reviews for this film , I just thought I would try to say a couple of positive things about it. For one if you,re a Universal Horror film completist like myself , it's a "must have" I realize the production values are somewhat low for Universal standards , thats why they released it as a "PRC" film , but hey! they were glad to get it. Secondly , It's actually a "prequal" to the film House Of Horrors , which is really a lot better film overall , and moves at the brisker pace you'd expect a Universal Horror flick to travel at. Third , It's got Rondo. Truly an unusual character to build a film around. He is now now a minor cult icon , and the inspiration of the Rondo Awards , that honor many different aspects of Horror & Sci-fi , by allowing us to vote online..All & All , I gave this one a 5 out of 10 mainly based on my great love of the classic Universal Horror films. Take a second look some evening , watch it with House Of Horrors. It's not all that bad.

Rondo Hatton was a former reporter who began acting in films in 1930 when he was covering a film being made in Florida. During the 30s and 40s he was mainly seen in small roles, often as hulks, due to his large body size and the fact the he had contracted acromegaly after being gassed during the first world war. In 1944 he was cast as The Hoxton Creeper in a Sherlock Holmes film, The Pearl of Death, and achieved brief stardom-or at least cult stardom-until his early death from a heart attack at age 52 in 1946 (he had suffered a milder heart attack the previous year as a direct result of his condition).

In this, one of his last films, not only does Hatton get the starring role, he has a great deal of dialogue and proves that he could be a good actor when given the chance. It is unusual for audiences to feel as much sympathy for a killer-especially one who has killed several times-but we do for Hatton. His scenes with Jane Adams, playing Helen, the blind piano teacher, are especially moving. Helen sees the inner man without being able to see the physical one, and although as I said he's a killer he gives the impression of a very human, tragic figure. Helen wants to touch his face, but he won't let her; this gives one a strong impression of a mirroring of the life of the actor himself. Just like the character he plays, Rondo Hatton was an athlete when younger, and excelled at football.

All of the cast play their parts well. Donald MacBride, frequently cast as the dumb cop, plays a very canny and intelligent one here, and he's ably supported by Peter Whitney-looking handsome and slim!-as Police Lieutenant Gates. The photography is well-done-especially considering the budget (or lack thereof) and there are some nice angles and lighting, especially when Hatton is prowling around the city.

Note: This film was actually made at Universal, who sold the rights to it to PRC shortly after it was completed (and Rondo Hatton died).

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.