Change Your Image
pniemeyer-47222
Reviews
Halloween (2018)
A satisfying sequel
I have not seen any of the other Halloween films since the 1978 original. Maybe that's fitting, as this film ignores all of the sequels to that one as well as the Rob Zombie remakes. This film picks up 30 years after the original, with Michael Myers in a mental hospital and a PTSD-stricken Laurie Strode living in a fenced compound because she is convinced that Michael Myers will escape and kill again. Sadly, she is right.
I've seen this film twice, and what really struck me was Laurie Strode's emotional journey. I won't spoil anything except to say that this film puts her through the wringer while still questioning her belief that the world is an evil place. Since the last film, she grew up, had a daughter and lost custody of her due to her insistence that her daughter learn about firearms and other forms of self-defense rather than "normal kid" stuff. Judy Greer is quite good as that daughter, and while it is understated, this film makes a feminist statement about what happens when men don't listen to women. Though flawed, the Strode women have a commonsense approach to solving problems that results in one of the most satisfying climaxes that I have seen in a film in a good, long time.
A sequel is already in the works, also with Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie. I don't think I'll see it. This film is all the resolution that I need for her character. It leaves the question of whether Michael Myers is a very strong human or a supernatural force unanswered while still upholding the strength of family. Some of the minor characters and subplots could have been handled better, but that's a nitpick. This is one of the best horror films in recent memory.
Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1975)
Watch it once
Here it is, one of the most controversial and stomach-churning movies ever made. It's a political allegory in which several Italian fascists imprison a group of young people in a luxurious villa in the final months of World War II and subject them to the most inhumane torments you can inflict upon somebody. It's a bold and angry critique of the way that people who care about nothing except power will sacrifice all of their humanity in order to feel powerful, even when they know that this can't possibly last forever. But is it any good?
Well, kinda. Director Pier Paola Pasolini deserves credit for depicting sexual abuse and physical tortures in a way that never feels crass or exploitative. The pacing flags here and there, but all the same, it's hard to look away. However, Pasolini seems to have forgotten that however valid his political points may be, the point of film is still to tell a story. I didn't relate to any of the victims in the movie. I barely felt like i knew them at all. The performances are uniformly excellent (and the actors were certainly very brave for appearing in something like this), but the film basically just shows a bunch of cruel men torturing young people and forcing them to eat feces (the most infamous scene in the movie) and then just ends. That's it.
If you have a strong stomach, see it. I'm glad I watched this film but am still not sure I can say I enjoyed it. Maybe that's what Pasolini was going for. Who's right?
Legend (1985)
Underrated
Most people who remember this movie remember it only as the sort of thing that they enjoyed as a child but might not want to revisit. I urge them to do so. I also urge fantasy fans who haven't seen this film to check it out. The director's cut is the superior version, containing as it does more character development and some smarter editing choices, but the theatrical version is not without its merits, containing a charming Tangerine Dream score that is fine on its own terms, but arguably dates the film.
The visuals in this film are spectacular. Everything from the set design to the makeup effects vividly evoke a world quite unlike our own. The story involves a forest boy who falls in love with a princess, unicorns, and a villain who knows that good and evil are inextricably linked. Here and there, the pacing flags. Some parts of it are a bit dreary. Tom Cruise (as the forest boy) brings a youthful energy to his performance that his later work lacked, and Mia Sara (as the princess) is suitably naive, yet tough and clever at the same time. Tim Curry, as he often does, steals the show as Darkness, bringing a physicality and richness to a character that easily could have become one-note.
Watch this film if you want to experience something challenging and unexpected. I didn't much like it when I watched (most of) it as a child, yet I revisited it as an adult and liked it a lot more. To me, this says that the film is far smarter than your average fairy tale. Not all of it works, but the stuff that does far outweighs what doesn't. Give it a shot. It's one of a kind.
Love, Simon (2018)
Good, but sanitized
I'm going to be a bit of a naysayer here, in that I liked this movie, just not quite as much as some of the other users did. This is Hollywood's first mainstream gay teen rom-com, and as such, it does somewhat sanitize the experience of coming out and finding love. Even then, there's a lot to like here. Nick Robinson is great in a role that asks him to run the gamut of emotions, and the direction and soundtrack all do a great job of conveying his torment and eventual triumph.
The plot, for those who don't know: Simon is a closeted teenager with a loving family and friends who would almost certainly be fine with it if they know his big secret. Yet somehow, he can't bring himself to tell them. One day, an anonymous post on his school's blog leads to his becoming email pals with another closeted student. He finds himself developing feelings for this kid even though he doesn't know his name or what he looks like. Then Martin, an obnoxious straight boy, sees the emails and threatens to out Simon unless he helps him get with one of Simon's female friends. Simon reluctantly complies.
If you've seen John Hughes movies, you probably know most of the tropes here. Simon's internal conflict will be familiar to many viewers. He's not so much afraid of telling people that he is gay so much as he resents having to come out in the first place. Without giving anything away, I will say that the film does an effective job of universalizing that conflict in a way that straight people will be able to empathize with. Both Simon and Martin do things that people in their position would at least consider. The film doesn't let Martin off the hook, nor does it outright condemn him.
That said, I don't think the film goes far enough. Being in a closet can turn a person inside out, and even after you come out, you often find that the people who think they understand don't. Homophobia exists everywhere, even in the most progressive communities, and it runs a little deeper than this film cares to acknowledge. Even LGBT people can be homophobes, and they make a habit of preying on young people who think everyone who is like them is their friend. The book that inspired this film only mentioned this in passing. The film gives our hero an uplifting ending, but I think he has more than a couple of rude surprises in his future. And I don't think his friends quite heard him out at a crucial moment.
Of course, much of my criticism can be explained away by simply saying that that's how Hollywood do. Hollywood has always shied away from showing the unvarnished truth of anything, so I give "Love, Simon" credit for getting more right than not. I don't believe that the climactic scene at the Ferris wheel would ever happen in real life, but you can say that about a lot of movies. In some ways, this movie is groundbreaking. In other ways, it plays it safe. I hope that I have given you an accurate impression of its strengths and weaknesses. If you see it, you will definitely feel something. You might check out some of the artists on the soundtrack as well. Just remember that we have a ways to go.
Okja (2017)
Uneven, but ambitious and moving
"Snowpiercer" is one of my favorite films of the past five years or so, so when I saw that Bong Joon Ho's latest was available on Netflix, I pounced on it. This film is the most family-friendly of his that I've seen so far (probably even more so than "The Host"), and it's also his sweetest.
The plot: In an effort to combat the impending food shortage brought on by overpopulation, the sinister Mirando Corporation (let by the always-welcome Tilda Swinton) genetically engineers a race of superpigs who require few resources to raise, then ships 26 of them out to farms all over the world as part of a contest to see who can raise the healthiest one. Ten years later, little Mija (Seo-Hyeon Ahn), who has grown up with the eponymously-named superpig as a pet and perhaps even friend, learns from her grandfather that they have to send it back to America to be slaughtered. She decides to do something about it.
"Okja" mixes lowbrow humor, chase scenes, social commentary, and a few elements of outright horror. It's not entirely successful. Some side characters and subplots seem half-baked, but the film deserves immense credit for sidestepping many of the clichés and pitfalls that plague films that deal with young protagonists having adventures and teaching adults lessons in the process. Along the way, Mija meets the Animal Liberation Front, a well-meaning but naive animal rights organization who both helps and hinders her along the way. Their leader is played by Paul Dano, another actor I've enjoyed in just about everything I've ever seen him in.
This film is not entirely happy, nor is it entirely cynical. It's about as hopeful as it can be in telling the story of one girl and a couple of do-gooders who try to take down a gigantic corporation. I recommend this film to anyone who is looking for something different. It definitely isn't perfect, but it will stick with you. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned Jake Gyllenhaal as a manic zoologist/nature show host. He's pretty funny, too.
Indignation (2016)
Worth a look, but not entirely successful
I've never read any Philip Roth, but if this film is any indicator, his work may be difficult to translate to the screen. The drama in this film is very introverted. It deals with a Jewish teenager (Logan Lerman) from New Jersey who attends a liberal arts college in Ohio, becomes infatuated with a fellow student (Sarah Gadon), and finds himself beset by the various social pressures that might affect someone in his position. Some scenes work very well (an argument between Lerman and his dean, played by playwright Tracy Letts, is proof that a verbal argument can be every bit as tense as a shootout), but on the whole, the film has a staid, overly formal quality to it.
Some of that is the dialogue. I'm guessing much of it is taken intact from the novel, because it sounds too "written" when said aloud. I understand that these characters are smart, well-spoken people, but even so, there are some scenes where it feels as if we are listening to the screenwriter rather than the characters. The direction, too, has a very restrained quality, as first-time writer-director James Schamus shoots some of the dialogue in static medium shots that few contemporary directors would use. One one hand, I admire him for not falling prey to the quick-cutting style that so many modern films employ. At the same time, this film feels a little cold.
The actors, for their part, do well. Logan Lerman, who was excellent in "Noah", proves yet again that he is capable of conveying just as much through facial expressions and reaction shots as through speech. Some of the supporting actors don't fare as well. Perhaps that could be the writing.
I can't really give this film a definitive thumbs up or thumbs down. If you are a fan of Roth's or find the idea of Jewish-born sexually active atheist railing against a society that teaches him that he should repress his true feelings, then check this film out. It's sad, contemplative, and, in its own understated way, beautiful.
Moana (2016)
Formulaic, but well-executed
The basic plot of "Moana" does not contain many surprises for anyone who has seen more than a few children's films. The film not only gives us a young hero, but refers to her as "the Chosen One", making it impossible to overlook the film's few deviations from the standard Joseph Campbell formula. That probably sounds like a fairly minor critique, but I feel the need to point it out anyway.
Dwayne Johnson is a charismatic individual, so it's a shame that most of the roles he gets do not measure up to his talents. In this film, he plays an arrogant demigod whose physical presence and immaturity do not conceal his compassion and insecurity as well as he probably thinks they do. He's probably the best thing about this movie, getting one of its best songs and a whole lot of clever lines and gags.
Our hero, Moana, is a young Polynesian girl who wonders if there might be something beyond the coral reef that her father, the village chief, forbids anyone to go beyond. Will she venture beyond it someday and embark on a grand adventure that will save her people and bring her face-to-face with beings and lands she had never imagined, possibly with the accompaniment of a cute animal sidekick? I'll ask again: Have you ever seen a Disney film?
I mentioned that the songs in this film are good, and they're probably the best in any Disney film in recent memory. (This Lin-Manuel Miranda guy might be going places.) Actually, it might be the best Disney animated musical since the 90s. The animation is colorful and vivid, and the script wisely leaves out the love interest character that was obligatory in these movies for a while (although it calls attention to itself for not featuring a princess, which is unnecessary.) If you are a Disney person or need something to show the kids, you could do much, much worse. I just like The Rock.
Jodorowsky's Dune (2013)
All for the best
Jodorowsky's Dune covers the inception and eventual crumbling of one of the most ambitious film projects ever conceived. Alejandro Jodorowsky, the Chilean cult filmmaker whose films include surrealist works like El Topo and The Holy Mountain, wanted to make a miniseries- length adaptation of Frank Herbert's sci-fi novel that would elevate the consciousness of the entire human race, or something. Frankly, I'm kind of glad he never found the money. I'm not sure what film could live up to that level of ambition.
For me, what's most interesting about this documentary is how much I disagree with its thesis. This film clearly wants us to see Jodorowsky's Dune as the greatest film never made. I'm not buying it. Jodorowsky admits that he had not read the novel when he started getting his team (he called them "spiritual warriors"; the whole thing seems rather cultlike) together, and when it becomes apparent that his film would deviate from the novel in many significant ways, he claims that he was "raping Frank Herbert...with love". I don't care if that's a metaphor; raping *anyone* with love is an oxymoron. I am a fan of the novel, which might be biasing my thinking here, but I doubt anyone but the most hardcore Jodorowsky devotees would ever want to sit through this film, had it been made. So maybe the greedy studios were right to withhold backing.
None of this is to say that Jodorowsky's Dune is itself without merits. As a study in how making art is a series of compromises, and how one charismatic visionary can sweep others up in dreaming the impossible dream with him, it's enlightening. Jodorowsky is a jovial, engaging fellow, and when you consider that the team he assembled for this film included Dan O'Bannon, H.R. Giger, and Moebius, it's not difficult to accept that some of their ideas for this film later found their way into later sci-fi classics that did get made. If nothing else, you will marvel at the sheer absurdity of it all. The 70s were a good time to be a groundbreaking auteur. But not everyone gets to be Scorsese.
The Fate of the Furious (2017)
I am a convert
I used to scoff, but now I am grinning. For a while, I purposely ignored this series. Then I learned that Kurt Russell would be in the seventh one, and decided to check that out. (I'm, um, a rather big fan of his.) That film was dumb, cartoony, and still a solid action outing. This film doesn't take itself quite as seriously, and like the series itself, is essentially the movie equivalent of In-N-Out Burger. It's not brain food, but for what it is, it's pretty damn good.
Most action franchises tend to rise and fall based on the strength of their villains. Well, they've got a good one here. Charlize Theron is having the time of her life here. I wasn't quite clear on her motives (something about stealing nuclear launch codes to start World War III because...reasons), yet that hardly seemed to matter. She's got something on Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), and that's enough to get him to do things that seem completely out of character. I won't spoil anything, except to say that the film nonetheless reaffirms the series' dedication to found family and the importance of having your friends' backs.
The Rock is a very likable actor, so it's a shame that he doesn't appear in good films more often. This film brings back Jason Statham's cockney villain from the previous installment, then lets him and Dwayne Johnson have a sort of rivalry-turned-begrudging-respect- turned-bromance relationship that is impossible to watch without smiling. (Also, have you ever wanted to watch The Rock coach a girls' soccer team? Don't give me that; of course you have.) I'm starting to wonder if this series is starting to wind down, as more of its characters seem to be starting biological families in addition to the metaphorical ones that they drive fast cars and save the world with.
The climax of this movie features a submarine, missiles, a car with 5,000 horsepower, and a lot of green screen effects. The only weak point of the movie is a chase scene in New York, which just feels a bit rote compared to some of the other set pieces. (Maybe I'm just getting tired of watching so many cars crash.) And I haven't even mentioned Helen Mirren's brief appearance, which you should not take seriously, not even for a minute. If this film doesn't sound like your thing, it's not. I can criticize its plot holes and leaps in logic all day. I still had a good time.
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Sweeping but small in scope at the same time
I have one problem with "Black Hawk Down", and that is that it spreads itself a bit too thin. There are a LOT of characters in this movie, and while some of them do get fairly deep motivations and backstories, by the end of the film, I still had difficulty telling them apart. So if this review is light on specific character names, I want you to know why. Part of the difficulty of making a movie about a real-life story is figuring out just how accurate you can make it without losing the audience. For the most part, this film succeeds.
Ridley Scott is a brilliant technical director and visual stylist. He knows how to stage action that is thrilling without being glamorous (can you imagine what Michael Bay would have done to this material?), and the editing and sound on this film are absolutely spectacular. The film deals with a failed U.S. military raid on a Somalian warlord who was preventing U.N. food shipments from reaching the poor and the needy. The time frame of the film is only a few days (I think), and that lends the whole movie a you-are-there quality that is essential to this kind of storytelling.
There are a lot of recognizable faces in this film, but this is not a star-driven movie. Josh Hartnett gives just what is probably his best performance ever as an idealistic young squad leader. Ewan McGregor plays a glorified secretary who gets promoted to a proper foot soldier when the crap hits the fan. Tom Sizemore plays a no-nonsense commander who gradually watches the whole mission fail from a distance. Eric Bana shines as a seasoned soldier who, to some, seems to take almost too much pleasure in his work. Rounding out the cast are plenty of other talented people: Tom Hardy, Jason Isaacs, Ewen Bremner, Sam Shepard, William Fichtner, and more.
This is a film that shines in its little moments. One soldier fires his gun too close to another's head, deafening him. Another steals through an occupied house where a mother sits huddled with her children to get away from the fighting on the street. A donkey wanders through dangerous territory, still hitched to a wagon. This is not the deepest war movie I've ever seen, but it makes its points with a relative minimum of speechifying and jingoism. (There are a few of those moments later on, but they feel mostly earned.) It stands up to repeat viewings, too, which is kind of rare for a movie based on real events.
There are moments where I wish this film had dug a little deeper under its characters' skin, but then again, it might have sacrificed tension in doing so. And if there's one thing that this movie is, it's gripping. I was not in the least surprised to hear "The Minstrel Boy" over the end credits. That song sums up the movie fairly well.
Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
Truth is stranger than fiction
Desmond Doss is one of those people whose story seems almost too perfect to be true. It's almost unthinkable that anybody would have the nerve to march into battle not carrying a weapon, and even more unthinkable that that person would somehow manage to save dozens of lives and win the respect of his armed peers in the process. But Desmond Doss did exactly that, and if the movie about his life portrays him as a gawky, unimposing saint, maybe that's just the way he was. Andrew Garfield is very good in the lead role here, bringing to life the sort of character who very easily could have felt like a cardboard cutout. The script sometimes leans a little too hard on clichés (I thought some of the supporting characters could have been more sharply drawn), but then again, this is a movie about Desmond Doss, and he is more than compelling enough to hold our attention.
This movie is unflinchingly violent. "The Passion of the Christ" was nearly pornographic in how it portrayed Christ's suffering, and this film ladles on both the dismemberment and Christlike imagery. So it's not exactly subtle. Still, it's rare to see faith explored in a way that is both explicit and not overly preachy. Desmond Doss was a pacifist and devout Seventh Day Adventist, and like most good people of faith, he clearly sees his beliefs as a private and personal thing, even as he enlists in the military and disobeys a direct order to carry a rifle.
"Hacksaw Ridge" is a film that asks its audience just what lengths we are going to go to stand up for what we feel is right. It devotes much screen time to a legal battle, and while I will not go into the specifics here, suffice to say that it can be sorely tempting to give one's tormentors what one thinks they want in hopes of some temporary release. But that is not, forgive me, what Christ would have done. You don't have to be a Christian (or even religious at all) to enjoy this movie. You need a high tolerance for bloodshed, but that's about it. It's time Hollywood let Mel Gibson back into the fold.
Penelope (2006)
If you have a daughter, show her this movie
This could be the most underrated movie I've seen in a good, long time. I remember it getting mixed reviews and doing unimpressive box office upon its release, but it really deserves a reevaluation. For one thing, it's irresistibly sweet. The performances are stellar, especially from the leads Christina Ricci and James McAvoy. (Catherine O'Hara, Richard E. Grant, and Peter Dinklage all do solid supporting work as well.) The only problem with the film is that it never quite nails the "modern- day fairy tale tone". Some scenes try a little bit too hard to be cute, and when we finally get a look at Penelope's deformity, it's a little underwhelming.
Then again, part of the film's message is that body image issues are almost never as big of a deal as the person with the issues thinks they are. So the big twist that this film takes in its final act is both surprising and thematically consistent. It's all about learning to love yourself and not allow other people's perceptions to get to you, and this film does a better job of exploring that than "Shrek" did. (I like "Shrek", but it basically taught its female viewers that they can still get a man to love them even if they aren't conventionally attractive. This film one-ups that.)
I'm kind of amazed that this film doesn't have a bigger following. It's not perfect, but for what it is, it's damn good. And yeah, I know men can have body image issues as well, but that doesn't change the fact that women are told day-in and day-out that their worth comes in being able to find a man. This film is a kid-friendly "fuck you" to all of that.
Marjoe (1972)
Bad But Not Evil
Marjoe Gortner was a child preacher. He came from a family of evangelists, and was performing marriage ceremonies and traveling the country telling congregations to give up their money to Christ before he was old enough to shave. As a teenager, he gave up that life for a while, then returned to it as a young adult because he needed the money. This film profiles him in those latter days of his preaching career, as he recounts his troubled childhood and exposes the tricks of his trade to the documentary crew.
Marjoe cuts a fairly sympathetic character for somebody who made a living manipulating gullible people into thinking that Jesus could heal their cancer. His body language while addressing the flock is closely modeled after Mick Jagger's, and after this film was released, he became an actor and had a decent run on Hollywood's B-List. Nowadays, he produces celebrity charity events. So his story is not without hope, but there are times at which this film verges on dark comedy, as Marjoe sells people again and again on the patently un-Christian notion that they can simply buy their way into Heaven.
For the record, when a man asked Jesus what he must do to be saved, he said, "Sell all your possessions. Then come follow me." The evangelism industry is still alive and well in America, which makes this film as relevant as ever. I feel for Marjoe. I hope that some of his followers might have eventually realized that what you do outside of church matters more than what you do in church. Highly recommended.
The Ring (2002)
*snicker*
There's a fine line between creepy and silly, and this movie crosses it more times than most of its admirers would care to admit. A remake of the vastly superior Japanese film "Ringu", this film is about a videotape that causes everyone who watches it to die seven days later. This premise is ripe for all sorts of commentary on the novelty of video vs. more modern forms of entertainment, but this film is far too focused on being gloomy and disgusting. To be fair, there are some good moments: a scene with a horse on a ferry, the moody visuals, and a few performances. For everything that works, however, there is something that doesn't. Naomi Watts is great as the plucky journalist heroine, but the actor who plays her inexplicably psychic kid was apparently auditioning to be the next Haley Joel Osment. Brian Cox is great, too, but he has barely any screen time, and his death scene is so over-the-top as to be unintentionally hilarious. (Seriously, why did he need to bring all of his electronics to the bathroom in order to kill himself? Dude, just drop your TV in the bathtub and be done with it.)
I said that the Japanese version is better, and that's primarily because it understands what kind of story it's telling. Watts spends the bulk of the film trying to unravel the mystery behind it, but the twist is that none of it matters. How did the girl shown in the video get her psychic powers? Who shot it? None of this is ever explained, and it shouldn't be, because the only way to escape death is to show the video to someone else and pass the curse on to them. The Japanese version's scares were subtler, allowing the whole thing to build to a conclusion that would be funny if it weren't so terrifying. The American version features so many jump scares, body horror moments, and visual tricks that it's as if director Gore Verbinski didn't have any faith in the source material. I'll give him credit for a few moments here and there, but whereas the video in the original was nonsensical and otherworldly, the video in this one just looks like a really bad student film.
If you don't watch the original first, you will probably like this one a lot more. I just couldn't get over how unnecessary all of the changes were. It's more middle-of-the-road than actually bad, but it's worth watching more for how iconic it's become than its actual quality.
The Revenant (2015)
Technically accomplished, but left me a bit cold.
This is really more of a 6.5 out of 10, but maybe I'm just splitting hairs. The cinematography is amazing to the point of being distracting. It's as if Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, upon realizing that we have the means to shoot a scene of Leonardo Dicaprio being mauled by a bear in extended, agonizing close-up, decided that every scene should be shot in that way. Maybe I'm overthinking things, but that ended up taking me out of the action. The bear is obviously CG, and since we know that director Innaritu and cinematographer Emmaneul Lubezki are using some digital trickery to make the whole thing appear to be one seamless shot, what's the point? I almost think that scene would have been more effective had it consisted of separate shots, so that a real bear could be employed in long shots, with cuts to a close-up of an animatronic paw crushing Leo or something like that.
I should probably talk about the plot now. The story concerns a couple of fur trappers on the Western frontier in the 19th century, who are set upon by violent Natives and have to turn back. When one of them (Leonardo Dicaprio, resorting to masochistic extremes in order to win that Oscar) has a heated debate with a grizzly over which of them deserves to continue breathing, the group leaves him for dead. Tom Hardy plays another member of the trapper group, and he, rather than the bear, is the true villain of the piece. I won't give away what he does, suffice to say that if it weren't for his performance, my rating would be at least two stars lower.
This isn't a bad movie. I know I'm being snarky, but it really isn't. That said, I liked Innaritu more when his head wasn't quite so far up his own ass. "Babel" might overreach somewhat, but it has a lot more to say than this bloated film. The scenes with Leo forced to fend for himself in the wilderness verge on misery porn. There is something inherently thrilling about watching people survive on limited resources (see "Castaway" for a superior example of this).
This is the kind of film where I can admire certain parts more than I can say I like the whole. Those tracking shots are impressing, sure. There are some fantasy/dream sequences that are well-shot, but that I can't make head or tail of. The sheer physical torment that Dicaprio must have put himself through for this role is admirable, but then again, he was so much more fun in "The Departed". I just wish the film weren't so dead-set on being great that it sometimes forgets to be good.
The Body Snatcher (1945)
Haunting, almost top shelf Lewton
"The Body Snatcher" tells the story of a 19th century doctor (Henry Daneill) in Edinburgh who enlists the help of a grave robber (Boris Karloff) to provide him with the spare organs he needs to perform difficult operations. It's possibly the best performance Karloff ever gave. He evokes a character who is unquestionably evil, but clever and more worldly than the people he deals with. (A subplot involving the doctor's attempt to heal a crippled girl is a bit sentimental, but thought-provoking. Karloff asks Daniell if in healing her body, he forgot to heal all of her, which is almost spiritual.) Bela Lugosi has a supporting role as one of Daneill's assistants, and while his character could use a little more shading, his scene with Karloff is a fitting send-off for the on screen duo, who would never work together again after this.
That said, the most compelling aspect of any Val Lewton film is the atmosphere, and this movie has that in spades. There is a moment involving a street singer that is as heart-stopping as anything in Lewton's oeuvre, and the final scene in a coach is unsettling on a deep psychological level. It's still not quite as good as "Cat People", though. That one had a solid script to go with the brilliant acting and direction, but this one stumbles a bit, doing away with one of the major characters a bit too early on. The film can't help but suffer for it. Still, it's a fine film, and definitely one of the better horror movies of the 1940s. Recommended to fans of the genre.