L'horrible cas du docteur X

This is one of my favorite Roger Corman flicks. Brisk pace and many surprises. Don Rickles as a ruthless carny exploiteer is one of them. Milland wears more and more ridiculous sunglasses as the movie progresses.

Seriously, this is one of Don Rickles' best performances -- it shows that he could have gone in a totally different direction than he followed for most of his career (as an "insult comedian") if he had wanted to. I imagine that his appearance in the film had something to do with his contract with AIP, but I still think it's a bit of VERY inspired casting (regardless of the financial reasons that may have been behind it).

Milland is also excellent in the type of role that suits him to a T... he gets to be kind of a Dr. Frankenstein here, convinced he's doing good for humanity but making himself into a monster in the process.

A memorable story with a meaning.

I just (finally) saw this film a few days ago, after years of hearing about it. The screening was the final show of a three-day SF/horror film festival. After three days of films, most people were feeling a bit loopy and ready for some light entertainment. As X opened, quite a few members of the audience started treating it as an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, shouting out their own (generally lame) joke comments in response to the film. I was annoyed, because I'd been looking forward to this film all weekend (although, in their defense, certain lines have become unintentionally loaded in the comparatively sexually liberated 21st century).

What I found fascinating was that, by 15 minutes into the movie, all the commentary stopped. Once the film moved beyond the talky opening scenes and stilted dialog, once the story really got going, everyone was drawn into it. They actually paid attention to the movie instead of each other.

As SF cinema goes, this is definitely one of the more entertaining, thoughtful, and intelligent examples (and intelligent SF film is a dying genre). This one goes well beyond the standard mad scientist formula.

A very thoughtful, engrossing, flawed film from superhuman director/producer Roger Corman. Yep, it has some problems, most primarily dealing with a limited budget. But what it lacks in dollars it has in heart and its ability to make you think about what we are missing out seeing with our vision. I am not sure that much, or even any, scientific creedence can be given to the idea behind the experiments of Dr. Xavier James and his search to see beyond what normal vision allows. Ray Milland gives a fine performance as the obsessed man out to continue his experiments even if they involve using himself as the human guinea pig. Some of the scenes and dialogue are a bit hokey by today's standards but most fit the film very nicely. The scene with Milland at a party is a real hoot and great comedic relief. I also loved the end to the film but thought it could have been plucked out a little longer. The effects are very sparse and the only ones I really thought were any good were the ones used to highlight Milland's eyes through the film. The film boasts a fine cast of stalwart sci-fi/Corman people such as Morris Ankrum, Dick Miller, Jonathan Haze, and Barboura Morris, as well as a young(and obviously talented) Don Rickles. Definitely try to see your way to seeing this film.

Here is Corman at almost his best. Ray Milland was as good an actor as Vincent Price, and this story isn't trapped in the Poe mode of rotting flesh and dilapidated mansions. It's more in the manner of Corman's The Trip, which was made a few years later. Dr. Xavier discovers something that he can use to see through solid objects, but its effect is cumulative, and by the end of the movie he's seeing all the way to the core of reality.

Of course, he has to go on the run, and must abandon his medical career. We see him in a carnival, reading peoples' thoughts, and later teaming up with his x girlfriend and going to Vegas and seeing through the cards and winning big, and finally, escaping from the police, and as he drives through the Nevada desert, we see that he can't see a thing. Abandoning his Lincoln Continental, he stumbles into a tent revival meeting. The preacher, played by Royal Dano(?)is telling his followers to throw Satan out. Filmed by Floyd Crosby, with beautiful special effects, this is a real piece of 60's film-making by one of the masters.

... in that a doctor makes a great discovery -in this case a formula that allows people to "see through" objects, starts out trying to do good, becomes his own guinea pig, becomes obsessed, becomes bitter because others do not see the importance of his discovery, and in the end just makes a bunch of stupid decisions. Oh, and the formula is cumulative and yet the doctor keeps taking it!

This film would be completely unmemorable without Ray Milland as the title character - Dr. Xavier. Like with his other horror films, independent producer/director Roger Corman smartly uses a lead from the golden age of Hollywood - in this case Milland - and builds a simple story that still strikes at the essence of fear in human beings.

There are a quite a few goofy and outright dumb things going on.When Xavier goes on the run because of a tragic accident, he ... decides to work as a "seer" in a carnival?? Isn't that one of the first places the police might come looking for him? In his quest for money to look for a "cure" for his situation, he decides to go to Vegas. And win a bunch of money in just one casino. And get a loud and obnoxious attitude about it. Maybe the most tragic thing about Xavier's situation is that he is inflicted with the company of Don Rickles during the mid part of the film.

The one fun and light hearted moment of the film is when Xavier is invited to a swinging 60s party and because of his unique condition sees naked people everywhere. Roger Corman will need to wait a few more years into the 60s before he can feature actual naked people. But I digress.

The special effects are laughable in the 21st century, but Milland's distinguished and empathetic presence makes this work. And it goes after the question - If you can see through EVERYTHING, what exactly DO you see?