Review: The Mad Monster

The Mad Monster, 77 minutes, Producers Releasing Corporation, B&W. Directed by Sam Newfield. Starring George Zucco as Dr. Lorenzo Cameron, Johnny Downs as Tom Gregory, Anne Nagel as Lenora Cameron, Glenn Strange as Petro/the monster, and Sarah Padden as the grandmother. Schlock-meter rating: Five stars out of 10.

The first time I watched this vintage PRC cheapie, I gave it a couple of stars and compared it to later dogs like Beast of Yucca Flats and The Creeping Terror. However, during my second viewing I warmed a little to the film. It is, as one reviewer has said, so bad it fascinates. I agree. The plot: Mad scientist Lorenzo Cameron (Zucco), rebuffed by his peers, injects wolf blood into a simpleminded handyman (Strange) turning him into a well-dressed dog/wolf man. Ostensibly, the crazy doc plans to create warriors to defeat the Nazis and other enemies with his injections, but he eventually uses the monster to kill his enemies. The plot, which is recycled pulp, includes a backwoods country swamp setting, a beautiful daughter, her reporter boyfriend, and the cops.

The bottom of the barrel budget hampers Mad Monster, but there are scenes of high camp that are bizarre: The opening sequence involves the mad Zucco injecting Petro in the laboratory with blood from a snarling creature in a cage. During the scene, the doctor hallucinates a debate with his scientist colleagues (who appear as misty personages). I guess low-budget director Newfield was trying to show Zucco is mad, but it seems like he's on an LSD trip. Also, some filter is used to make the country swamp seem dank and foggy, but it just looks like the air is filled with cheesecloth.

The film lags often and should have been trimmed to an hour. There are several scenes where actors, who have nothing to do, sit and wait for the camera to stop rolling. Despite the budget and bad script, Zucco, a veteran of low-grade horrors, does a capable job. PRC starlet Nagel is pretty, and has a voice that is a dead ringer for Judy Garland. Unfortunately her reporter/boyfriend Gregory has a squeaky voice. Strange, who later would play the Frankenstein monster in a few films, is terrible. As the dim-witted Petro, he's a fourth-rate imitation of Lon Chaney Jr's Lenny in Of Mice and Men. In fact, he seems to have a far better personality as the monster. In a small role, Padden is creepy as a cackling backwoods grandma. The film ends, as was often the style 60 years ago, with the young lovers embracing in front of a burning house. It's worth a rental if you like C and B movies from the 30s and 40s.

-- Doug Gibson

Review: Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman

Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman, 1943, Universal, directed by Roy William Neill, starring Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr., Patric Knowles, Ilona Massey, Maria Ouspenskaya, Lionel Atwill, Dwight Frye. Schlock-Meter rating: 8 stars out of 10.

Frankensten Meets the Wolfman is a fun movie that classic horror film lovers will enjoy. It's not quite at the level of the 1930s Frankenstein tales, and it's a little short -- or perhaps it just ends too abruptly for this reviewer. Nevertheless, it has three stars of the genre (Lugosi, Chaney Jr., Frye), a gorgeous female lead (Massey) and the reliably sinister Atwill and Ouspenskaya.

The plot involves the wolfman (Chaney Jr.) desperately trying to find a way to die so he can stop killing when the moon turns full. He's on the run, with gypsy Ouspensakaya helping him, when he encounters Dr. Frankenstein's granddaughter (Massey). From her he seeks the secret to ending an immortal life. Eventually, they stumble upon the frozen Frankenstein monster (Lugosi)within a decaying castle. A doctor who wants to take the cursed Chaney Jr. back to an asylum falls under the Frankenstein obsession and revives the monster to full strength. The full moon rise, and, you guessed it: We have a climatic monster battle royale.

The film is hampered by Lugosi's weak performance as the Frankenstein monster. He shambles around in a pathetic manner with his arms akimbo, looking every bit the 60 years of age he was during filming. In fairness, however, the original script called for Lugosi to be blind and included a speaking role for him. That was scrapped by Universal, and as a result Lugosi looks a little silly to unaware audiences. Still, he portrays very little menace as the monster, even despite the sabatoge by Universal.

Chaney Jr., as the cursed Larry Talbot, is very good. The first half of the film, as he makes his way to the Frankenstein castle, is very chilling and atmospheric. Knowles as the obsessed doctor fails to inspire, but the attractive Massey adds to the film. Old horror hands Atwill, Frye and Ouspenskaya add atmosphere. As mentioned, the final fight scene between Lugosi and Chaney Jr. is too brief, but it's good while it lasts. It's a pity both needed stunt men to finish the scene.

-- Doug Gibson

Review: The original Dracula

Dracula, 1931, 75 minutes, Universal, black and white. Directed by Tod Browning. Starring Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula, Helen Chandler as Mina Seward, Dwight Frye as Renfield, David Manners as Jonathan Harker and Edward Van Sloan as Dr. Van Helsing. Schlock-Meter rating: 9 and 1/2 stars out of 10.

As a film, Dracula too often appears like a stage play. Most of the actors aren't particularly strong, and the climax of the film (Dracula's death) foolishly takes place off screen. Nevertheless, thanks to Bela Lugosi -- and to a lesser extent Dwight Frye -- the film remains a classic, a true cult film that brings viewers back for repeat visits to Transylvania, foggy London and Carfax Abbey, the lair of the Count. The plot: Dracula prepares for a move to London. He drives Renfield (a Londoner in Transylvania to help him move), mad, and then arrives in London. He soon ingratiates himself with the Seward family, and lusts for the blood of two ladies. He is foiled when a family friend (Van Sloan) suspects he is a vampire, and pretty Mina Seward (Chandler) is saved when Dracula is destroyed.

Lugosi's performance is magnificent. He is truly the Count, with his urbane charm, his sly humor (I never drink ... wine.), his greedy eyes sighting blood, his melodramatic answers to questions, and his artful fencing with vampire hunter Van Helsing. However, few critics capture another personality of Lugosi's Dracula: His desire to die. In a poignant scene at an opera, Dracula expounds in melodramatic fashion the peace of death. One realizes in that scene the Count wants to die, that he's as much a prisoner of fate as his victims. He simply lacks the will power to end his long existence.

Frye's Renfield is marvelous. He succeeds in convincing viewers that the secret of the Count -- discovered first hand -- is so horrible that it would drive anyone insane. His mad chuckles when discovered on a deserted ship are chilling. Frye also conveys terror and adoration when pleading with Dracula late in the film. Manners and Chandler are barely adequate as two lovers threatened by Lugosi's Dracula, but Van Sloan is pretty strong as Van Helsing. He manages a sense of humor despite the seriousness of his task, and reminds me of Donald Pleasance's slightly crazy psychiatrist who pursued monster Michael Meyers in Halloween.

Lugosi's eyes, used to seduce victims, are hypnotic. He knew this character -- he'd played Dracula on Broadway. Director Browning conveys atmosphere early in the film with scenes of a coach in the wilds of Transylvania and a ship tossed at sea. Unfortunately, the last two-thirds of the film is often too static and talky. But every scene with Lugosi is a pleasure, and he turns an ordinary film into a classic of the genre.

-- Doug Gibson

Review: Dracula (Spanish version)

Dracula (Spanish-language version), 1931, 104 minutes, Universal, black and white. In Spanish with subtitles. Directed by George Medford and Enrique Tovar Avalos. Starring Carlos Villarias as Conde Dracula, Lupita Tovar as Eva Seward, Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield, Barry Norton as Juan Harker, Carmen Guerrero as Lucia, Jose Soriano Vioscia as Dr. Seward and Eduardo Arozamena as Professor Van Helsing. Schlock-Meter rating: 8 and 1/2 stars out of 10.

Universal's Spanish-language version of Bram Stoker's tale was shot at the same time the Bela Lugosi classic was filmed. The same sets, props and backdrops were utilized. As the story goes, the Spanish-language version was shot late at night, after other Dracula director Tod Browning's cast and crew shot during the day. This version was out of circulation in the United States for decades before being rediscovered. The film is wonderful, and only the talent of Bela Lugosi prevents it from rating as high as the "conventional" Dracula. In fact, in many ways, this longer, more gothic, version is an improvement on director Browning's too often stagey version.

The Spanish-version Dracula is a very sensual movie. However, unlike Lugosi -- who is the sexual creature in Browning's film -- it's the women in the Spanish-language Dracula who radiate sexuality. Unlike the buttoned-up, Victorian-like Helen Chandler's Mina Seward in Browning's version, Lupita Tovar's Eva Seward (the same character) is a sexual creature whose erotic awakening is brought on by Conde Dracula (Villarias). She's shy and virginal at first, but, late in the film, in a low-cut nightgown which shows a surprising amount of cleavage for a 1931 film, she rises from her bed under Dracula's spell, eager to meet the night. Carmen Guerrero, as Dracula victim Lucia, is also sexier than her counterpart in Browning's version.

Also, the Spanish-speaking version of Dracula is much longer than Browning's version. Sometimes this hurts -- occasionally the film will lag as scenes go on to long -- but mostly it's an improvement. Characters like the mad Renfield, Eva Seward and Professor Van Helsing are more developed, and viewers will care more about their fate. Also, there are wonderfully spooky scenes that are missing in Browning's version. They include: Dracula walking through a spider's web without disturbing it; Renfield's horror at watching Dracula commanding a door to open; the terror of sailors battling a storm who see Dracula on their ship; shots of rats and bugs as Dracula's had reaches out of his coffin; and Renfield repeatedly assuring Dracula that no one knows of his trip to his castle in Transylvania. There is a wonderful scene -- not in the Browning film -- where Renfield, politely relating the history of his life to Van Helsing, calmly stops to catch a fly. Also, Renfield's death at the hands of Dracula is captured in a more brutal shot than in Browning's film. Finally, Tovar's Eva Seward is much more aware of her fate and the possessive spell Dracula has over her. In a memorable scene, she begs Professor Van Helsing to kill her after Dracula is finished with her.

The weakest link is Barry Norton's Juan Harker. He's as mediocre as David Manners in the Lugosi film. Villarias as Conde Dracula does a good job, but he pales in comparison to Lugosi. But in fairness, who can compete with Lugosi? Lugosi is sinister and charming. Villarias is forbidding and creepy. Also, Villarias will occasionally mug too much for the camera, a problem that Renfield's Rubio (who also does a good job overall) has as well. Rubio's madness is a bit more forced that Dwight Frye's Renfield. Instead of Frye's calculating, horror-filled mad chuckles, Rubio periodically breaks into hysterical screaming, which is annoying. Arozamena's Van Helsing is good, but also fails to rise to the level of Edward Van Sloan's Van Helsing in the Browning film. His delivery is a little too forced, and his character lacks the subtle wit that Van Helsing utilized while verbally sparring with Dracula. Vioscia is adequate as Dr. Seward.

However, if you're a Dracula fan, you'll love this film. It's a must for any cult film collector and today can be easily found (Amazon sells it online). As mentioned, the story is richer (viewers of this film now know what Browning cut from his Dracula) and Villarias, while no Lugosi, is still better than 90 percent of the rest of the Draculas of filmdom. Also, the "I never drink ..... wine" line is as great in Spanish as it is in English. Co-director Medford was a veteran of many silent films.

-- Doug Gibson

Review: The Mummy's Ghost

The Mummy's Ghost, 1944, Universal, 61 minutes, B&W. Directed by Reginald Le Borg. Starring Lon Chaney Jr. as Kharis, John Carradine as Yousef Bey, Ramsay Ames as Amina Mansori, Robert Lowery as Tom Hervey, Frank Reicher as Prof. Matthew Norman, Barton MacLane as Inspector Walgreen, and George Zucco as Andoheb, High Priest of Arkan. Schlock-Meter rating: Eight stars out of 10.

The Mummy's Ghost is pulp horror at its finest. I confess to loving this lean, mean never-a-wasted-minute B programmer from Universal. There's no excess fat to trim from this film. It's like watching a good comic strip -- every scene is key to the horror tale. The film never takes itself too seriously, but at the same time does not descend to camp level. It's a damn good hour's entertainment. Film students who want to see how a good B film could provide fun to 1940s movie-goers should make The Mummy's Ghost required viewing. It would have been great to view this in a theater with say, House of Frankenstein.

Here's the plot: Egyptian cult disciple Carradine is commanded by a high priest (Zucco, in a wonderful small part)to revive mummy Kharis and find the long lost princess Ananka, Kharis' love who was taken from his tomb. This leads them to a small university community (Mapleton) where a professor of Egyptology revives Kharis with boiled leaves of tanna. The professor is murdered for his troubles, and soon Kharis and Carradine narrow their search to a pretty coed (Ames) with Egyptian blood, who it is suspected, is the reincarnated Ananka. Her boyfriend (Hervey) tries to protect her from both the mummy Kharis and suspicious townfolk who suspect she's part of the latest round of mummy murders. The ending is dark, which is surprising for a horror film of that era, but still very effective.

The Mummy's Ghost is one of a several-part Universal 1940s offering that featured the mummy Kharis and his search for revenge and his lost love. Ghost was the second-to-last of the series. Chaney was Kharis in all but the first film, The Mummy's Hand (in which Tom Tyler was an effective Kharis). Surprisingly, Chaney is the weakest link in this otherwise tight, effective thriller. He shambles around awkwardly and inspires few shivers. Carradine and especially Zucco are very good as cult disciples. All in all, a great little film and definitely worth owning as an example of entertaining by-the-numbers B-movie filmmaking.

-- Doug Gibson

Review: Cat People (1942)

Cat People, 1942, 73 minutes, B/W, RKO Radio Pictures, Directed by Jacques Tourneur, produced by Val Lewton, Starring Simone Simon as Irena Dubrovna, Kent Smith as Oliver Reed, Tom Conway as Dr. Louis Judd and Jane Randolph as Alice Moore. Schlock-Meter rating: 8 and 1/2 stars out of 10.

Val Lewton's Cat People is a horror film that only works if a viewer uses his or her imagination. Those who are too lazy to think while watching a film will go away unimpressed with Cat People. Others, who use their intellect, will be pleased. The scare scenes are deliberately underplayed, and mood, tension and film noir is used to create a creepy sensation of dread and terror in this tale of a young beauty who turns deadly beast when her passion, or anger, is aroused.

Here's the plot: A bachelor architect named Oliver (Smith) becomes infatuated with a shy Serbian-born beauty named Irena (Simon). They first meet at a zoo, where she's sketching a panther. They fall in love and are married. There's just one hitch. His young bride refuses to make love with him, or even kiss him. Also, animals seems to hate her. At first, Oliver bears this with the patience of a saint. However, the lack of intimacy leads him to a romance with Alice (Randolph) a co-worker and longtime friend. In an effort to help Irena overcome her fear of intimacy, a semi-creepy psychiatrist (Conway) is hired to help treat her.

Simon as Irena is a talented actress who manages to convey helplessness with her fate with a sinister malice when aroused by anger. In what is definitely the most chilling scene, Irena -- angry at seeing Alice and Oliver together, follows Alice to an indoor pool. In the dark natatorium, Alice hears the growls of a panther. She dives into the pool, and eventually shrieks in terror as snarls and ripping sounds are heard. When others come to help and the lights are turned on, there is only the petite Irena, with a look of satisfied menace on her face. Also, when the psychiatrist Dr. Judd tries to seduce Irena, it leads to fatal results.

Cat People is not a perfect film. The extramarital romance between Oliver and Alice seems rushed and forced. If these two have worked together for years, why didn't the sparks fly earlier? Also, Oliver doesn't seem to try very hard to enjoy conjugal pleasures with his pretty bride, despite her protests. Not enough background is provided to Irena's previous life in a Serbian village which supposedly led to her present state of woman/animal.

Still, this is a must see for cult film fans. It's strength is what it leaves to the imagination, rather than what it provides on the screen. It's far superior to a 1980s re-make-in-name-only that bathed viewers in sex and gore. A sequel, Curse of the Cat People, was released in 1948.

-- Doug Gibson

Review: Son of Dracula

Son of Dracula, 1943, Universal, B/W, 80 minutes. Directed by Robert Siodmark. Starring Lon Chaney Jr., Louise Albritton, Robert Paige, Evelyn Ankers, Frank Craven. Schlock-Meter rating: 8 stars out of 10.

Son of Dracula is an enjoyable old-time horror flick with a suitably creepy if miscast Lon Chaney Jr. as Count Alucard (spell it backwards) visiting the American South in hopes of forming an unholy alliance with Kay, a woman (Albritton) obsessed with the occult. There are some above-average special effects. The Count is finally foiled by his confederate (Albritton) as she helps her confused one-time fiance Frank (Paige) destroy the Count's daytime resting spot, thereby destroying him. However, at the end, Frank -- unable to bear what Kay has become ot share her wish to be "undead" -- burns her in her coffin. Several stock characters (family doctor, visiting Hungarian professor, old Hungarian gypsy woman, dopey sheriff) also match wits with the Count.

As mentioned, this film is a winner and worthy of a rental. It's fast-paced, has a unique plot and always keeps the viewer's interest. But here are some quibbles. First, Chaney is a weak Count. He provides no charm of sinister finesse like a Lugosi, for instance. Instead, he comes across as an intimidating brute. In fairness to Chaney, however, the script is very unkind to his character.

This is the first Dracula who fails to hold control over the woman he has added to the ranks of the undead. In fact Albritton's character is the bigger villain in the film. She uses Count Alucard to gain immortality, marries him and then plots quickly to kill him and replace his space in the coffin with Paige. I often wondered why Bela Lugosi was passed up for this role. After seeing Count Alucard's role, I'm not surprised. Lugosi can play many roles, but a cuckolded Count is not one of them. Seriously, Lugosi's star had already faded a lot at Universal and he was lucky to get the Frankenstein role that same year in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman.

Although the film seems like an A production for its time, you can also see the beginnings of the Universal monsters' slide into B moviedom in Son of Dracula. There are characters (a judge) and Kay's sister Claire (Ankers) who are introduced and then remain undeveloped and fade away. There are stock black servants which are dated and racist today. Also, although it seems there is a town somewhere in the set, it never seems to be seen.

On the plus side, Paige is very good as the bewildered fiance and Albritton makes a charming villianess. It's a great Universal early horror and well worth 80 minutes of any cult movie fan's time.

-- Doug Gibson

Review: The Corpse Vanishes

The Corpse Vanishes, 64 minutes, Monogram, 1942, B&W. Directed by Wallace Fox, Starring Bela Lugosi as Dr. Lorenz, Luana Walters as Patricia Hunter, Tristam Coffin as Dr. Foster, Elizabeth Russell as Countess Lorenz, Minerva Urecal as Fagah, Angelo Rossitto as Toby and Kenneth Harian as Keenan. Schlock-meter rating: Seven and one-half stars out of 10.

I love this film, while recognizing that the production values are virtually nil and the script leaves 1,000 plot holes and makes all the heroes seem like ninnies for not solving the crime early in the film. I have a soft heart for Bela Lugosi cheapie productions in the 1940s and this Monogram C movie is a hoot. The plot is sufficiently bizarre: Brides are dropping dead at the altar and their corpses are later whisked away before the real morticians alive. The only clue is that flowers are delivered to the victims minutes before they die. Neither the press or the police have a clue (although you'd think they could at least prevent the stealing of the corpse!) The public is up in arms, although there are still many weddings.

Enter nosy cub reporter Patricia Hunter (Walters). Prodded by her sexist editor, she tracks the flowers to the mysterious Dr. Lorenz (Lugosi) who resides with his crazy wife (Russell, in a wild performance) haggish sister, and her two sons, one a midget and the other a large simpleton. It turns out (of course) that Lorenz is the mad scientist, causing a death-like state to the wannabe brides, taking them to his laboratory (dig the fake brick walls!), withdrawing youth serum from the young ladies, and injecting it into his elderly wife to keep her youthful. (Another wonderful plot hole never explained is why Lorenz' wife is roughly 30 years older than him!). Hunter, aided by a lovesick doctor (Coffin), eventually foils Lorenz' evil plot, and of course, the pair are married (safely) at the end. The print I viewed did not reveal the fate of the sleeping brides --- perhaps Monogram lacked the budget to add a final scene?

The Corpse Vanishes is full of atmosphere. Lugosi, Urecal, Rossitto (who plays the midget) were all veterans of 1940s cheapies. Lugosi gives his usual great performance, and is aided by Russell, who acts truly crazy as his aged wife. Urecal provides a creepy atmosphere as well. This film is definitely worth a rental, and for those who are interested in Hollywood's history of B and C films, is worth a purchase.

-- Doug Gibson

Review: Glen Or Glenda

1952, 67 minutes, B&W, Screen Classics Productions. Directed by Edward D. Wood Jr.. Starring Bela Lugosi, Daniel Davis (Ed Wood), Lyle Talbot, Dolores Fuller, Timothy Farrell, Tommy Haines, Charles Crofts, Conrad Brooks, Captain DeZita. Schlock-Meter rating: 9 stars out of 10.

I first saw Glen Or Glenda? when a copy of the video arrived as part of the press kit for the mid-90s film "Ed Wood." The copy was murky, very dark and difficult to understand. It also ended abruptly without any final credits. As a result, I wasn't too impressed. However, I learned later there were better versions available with more of the film so I invested $10 and purchased Rhino Home Video's print. I saw a much different film that is a must for Ed Wood fans and an excellent addition to any cult movie library.

Like any other Ed Wood film, it's a ridiculous story, incomprehensible at times and very poorly acted. However, like any Ed Wood film, it is unique and the actors surprisingly inspired. The plot: A transvestite commits suicide while in drag. A cop talks with a psychiatrist, who tells the cop that society must seek to understand transvestites and those who seek to change their sex. The psychiatrist tells the cop two stories: One is of a secret tranvestite (Davis/Wood) who wants desperately to wear his fiance's (Fuller) angora sweater. The other tale recounted is of a WW 2 war hero (Haines) who wants a sex change operation. All of this is sort of overseen by a spirit (Lugosi) who sits in a chair covered with fishing net and ominously spouts nonsense like "snips and tails and puppy dog tails," "pull the string," and "the story must be told."

The acting is just awful. Wood's girlfriend Fuller doesn't rise to the level of an eighth grader playing Juliet. The scene of her expressing her mental torment when Wood asks to wear her sweater is pure camp. Throughout the film the uninhibited Wood strolls through Hollywood dressed in drag looking in store windows. The dialogue is atrocious: "Give this man satin undies ... and he can be a credit to his community and his government." Like many micro-budget productions, much of the film utilizes voice-over narration.

Still, it's a great cult fim and merits its nine stars on the schlock-meter. Wood's creative chaos is in full force and it makes for deliriously entertaining scenes. Stock footage just swirls throughout this fun film. There are shots of buffalo stampedes, steel mills pushing out hot metal, military battles, kids playing ball and more. Wood's frenetic energy keeps the pace fast. Indeed, the only time the film slows down is a few moments of cheescake semi-bondage scenes of women in underwear (not directed by Wood) that producer George Weiss added for the "raincoat" crowd.
Cult movie fans will love the montage scenes where Glen dreams of telling his fiance of his secret. He's attacked by all his friends including the devil, delightfully performed by DeZita.

Glen or Glenda? as silly as it is, was actually a fairly courageous topic for Wood to tackle in 1952. It's pomposity and lack-of-tact direction made it a cult film rather quickly. Indeed, it was haunting midnight movie houses in New York by the 1970s.

-- Doug Gibson

Review: Dracula's Daughter

Dracula's Daughter, 1936, Black and White, Universal, 71 minutes. Directed by Lambert Hillyer. Starring Gloria Holden as Countess Marya Zaleska, Otto Kruger as Dr. Jeffrey Garth, Marguerite Churchill as Janet Blake, Edward Van Sloan as Professor Van Helsing, Gilbert Emery as Sir Basil Humphrey and Irving Pichel as Sandor. Schlock-meter rating: Nine stars out of 10.

Dracula's Daughter was not a box office success when released in 1936. It seems that a lady villain who sucked blood failed to grasp audiences. That was the 1930s' loss. Dracula's Daughter is a magnificent sequel. It can even be argued that it is superior to the original Dracula. Gloria Holden, as the doomed daughter of the Count, radiates feral sensuality. She bemoans her fate, yet eagery succumbs to its temptations. Her mannerisms, her facial gestures, all her personality are filled with the needy arrogance of a vampire. Still, like her father, she longs to be free of the undead curse. Holden's countess is a lonely woman. Her eyes do a wonderful job of expressing that lust for companionship.

Here's the plot: Dracula's death has been discovered. Van Helsing is under suspicion by London's finest. Countess Zaleska (Holden) arrives to take the Count's remains, claiming to be his daughter. With her is a creepy servant named Sandor (Pichel). Zaleska rejoices, believing that Dracula's death has freed her from vampirism. She is wrong, of course, and continues to seek blood from the living. In one scene, she bleeds a young prostitute named Lili. Many critics claim there's strong overtones of lesbianism in that scene. While the scene is slightly erotic, I doubt that was in the minds of the filmmakers.

Zaleska soon seeks help from Dr. Jeffrey Garth, a semi-irritable psychiatrist. This belief that vampirism could be cured through medicine and psychology was a theme of several 1940s Universal horror films. The countess receives little help from psychiatry, but gets the hots for the doctor. He rebuffs her advances, so she takes off for Transylvania with his fiance (Churchill). The doctor, Van Helsing and policeman Sir Basil Humphrey (Emery) take off in pursuit.

I haven't said much about Pichel's role as Sandor, Zaleska's evil servant. He is brilliant, with his white pasty face, eerie accent, and silent grin that seems to know more than he's supposed to. He knows the countess is doomed to continue her undead existence and subtly taunts her throughout the film. Old horror film fans will love this movie, and it's worth owning.

-- Doug Gibson