Devil Doll (1964)
5/10
Oddly quaint "thriller" mixes effective moments and boring ones
26 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I don't think I will ever regard "Devil Doll" as a classic or even a "good" film, but I have to admit that there is, in spots, some decent film making going on here.

The obvious comparisons for this movie would be to "Magic", "Child's Play" or even (for the real film buffs among us) "Dead of Night". Indeed this movie works many of those same visual aspects and themes. "Devil Doll" does have a good twist, though in that the dummy, who initially seems to be a sinister, evil figure, turns out instead to be a victim of the the ventriloquist (the "Great Vorelli"), rather than the usual way around. And Hugo (the dummy) manages to turn the tables on Vorelli at the very last moment (in an unintentionally hilarious fight scene that will make you snort milk out your nose).

"Devil Doll" also reminds me of "She Creature", another black and white horror manqué about a hypnotist/magician using his Svengali like powers to make a beautiful woman his slave. Same grainy black and white noir photography, same dreary staging and pacing, and the same morally repulsive villain locked in a struggle with a rather bland 'hero' for the soul of a beautiful woman.

I know all this sounds good, but alas, the execution is somewhat lacking. In spite of a very energetic opening orchestral introduction and enigmatic credit sequence, and some interesting acting choices and creepy individual scenes and close-ups, "Devil Doll" soon bogs down into an endless succession of scenes of people talking, smoking, talking, smoking some more, talking some more, mixed in with disturbing moments of Vorelli taunting the dummy, both on-stage and off.

Bryant Haliday and William Sylvester (as Vorelli and the chain smoking reporter hero "English", respectively) give this material their best shots. Unfortunately, Vorelli is an amoral creep, and English is bland and uninteresting. Every other character in the story is either a victim (the man whose spirit is stuffed into "Hugo" and his family, the girlfriend) or a dupe (all the audience members, Vorelli's stage assistant). So there isn't a whole lot here to root for. If Sylvester's character had been written to be more effective and interesting, maybe the movie might have had more energy to it.

Or maybe not. While some of the individual shots and closeups of Hugo, VOrelli, and English are quite effective, and while Haliday does a great magician/slime-ball, there is an aura of seediness and dreariness over all the proceedings that is compounded by smeared lighting and photography , and muffled, garbled sound design.(This might have been the fault of a bad print, I can't tell.) Seediness and dreariness might have been the feelings the filmmakers were trying to create - as I said, Vorelli is a human hairball, and the movie is essentially about him and his attempts to enslave a woman via hypnosis - but 90+ minutes of this atmosphere and pacing doesn't go down well to my modern American palette.

Still, if you keep your eyes open and your attention tuned, you will find some nice acting and some moody moments buried among the smothering farina of the screenplay. I wouldn't spend any money to buy this, but I would watch it on late night cable if nothing more interesting was on.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed