Review of Supernatural

Supernatural (1933)
6/10
Hit-and-miss curiosity
20 November 2020
As mentioned by others, if you are a Carole Lombard admirer - as I am - you might decide to pass this one. Not because it's not a comedy - I for one enjoy it when she plays different roles, and consider she was as talented to play them. But her special gift was as a "natural" actor - her acting almost never appeared strained. There was no way she could bring that gift to playing a rich heiress possessed by a psychopathic, half-hysterical murderess. Now the other more legitimate motivation is to watch this as an amateur of old horror pictures - which I am as well. In that case you might somehow enjoy the eerie creepiness of this dated story, though to be frank it is a less than half-full glass. The only really outstanding part is the opening titles and then the tightly-edited fast-forward montage of Ruth Rogen's scandalous trial and conviction. After that brilliant opening, the film slows down quite a lot and has the usual other defects of early talkies. But what really burdens it is a fairly confuse script with a number of inconsistencies. Special effects are just on par. Supposedly frightening scenes of spiritism are not very successful in creating a heavy, claustrophobic atmosphere. Nor is the final scene as tense as it should feel, though amateurs of strong sensations are in for a good one - not for impressionable kids.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed