So much average

Must See Movie...

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

There is no way that this horror film from "Warner Bros." can be compared with the 1932 masterpiece. That other film had style, imagination, great acting and direction, plus it was genuinely eerie. This 1939 film is strictly routine fare and at best, is a tolerable programmer. The low budget is in evidence but that has always been the way for most horror films. Humphrey Bogart looks slightly ill at ease in his role of a dead man brought back to life. According to various reports, he slammed his copy of the script across the desk of Jack Warner and demanded more money for having to appear in this particular film. However, at least he is making an effort in being a bit different in his performance and he is the best known actor by far in "The Return of Doctor X." Wayne Morris and Dennis Morgan join forces in order to determine what the mysterious Doctor Xavier has been up to, regarding some of his patients at the local hospital. The actor who plays the evil doctor is rather stiff and dull. No way can he hold a candle to the creepy and effective performance of Lionel Atwill from the 1932 film. The script isn't up to much but the pace of the film keeps everything ticking along agreeably enough. The running time is just over an hour which is a relief.

You can like Humphrey Bogart as a persona and as a character but you can't go as far as to say he was a talented actor. Bogie was a persona that he never really ever left aside from ironically enough here. Ironically in 'Return of Doctor X' I see some acting chops hidden beneath the surface. Is this a great film? It's a great curiosity because there is definitely something very interesting about seeing the ironically cast Bogart as a vampirish doctor.In the film there is a scene where our newspaper hero pieces together the macabre happenings using articles with Bogie's picture next to them. I thought to myself like James Whale supposedly did when he met an unknown Boris Karloff, "there's a face with interesting opportunities". In some of the reviews of the film I've seen critiques of how awkward Bogart looks in the make-up and frankly I don't see it at all. He looks menacing and other worldly. Just aesthetically I completely buy Bogart as this monster. In the long run Bogart was not a traditionally handsome man. He had an awkward face and mouth. That Jack Warner thought to try him in a horror film under a creature make-up I actually think is kind of inspired. But aesthetics aside I actually think this monster is given a fair amount of pathos from Bogart. There is a brilliant sequence when Garrett and Rhodes first meet Bogart's character. Like Lugosi in 'Dracula' there is a total disconnect in the monster trying to pose as a human being. It is made all the more interesting in that Humphrey Bogart is your monster and yet I didn't actually see him as the Bogart persona here. That's the greatest compliment you can give an actor who struggles to find range. The scene is capped with Bogart breaking a beaker in his hand. The look on his face is phenomenal. He clearly is a step above the rest of this B-Movie cast.The rest of the film is pretty standard fair. It's a competently shot B-Movie with mediocre to competent performances(Although I will say I do really like the femme fatale here). It's never boring though and fans of this era of horror films will be entertained. I know as a horror fan I was. But what really dragged me into the picture was Bogie as this monster. I'm sure he hated the role but I'd say it is an essential one in appraising him as an actor. In a lot of ways Humphrey Bogart and Bela Lugosi were a lot a like. Both played variations of the same character over and over. Who would have thought Bogart could be an effective figure of terror?

What's worse than a bad horror movie? A dull one, and this one's both. It tries to be both scary and funny but is neither. If they had decided to go either way it could have been, well probably still pretty bad, but at least they would have failed trying. Now it's seems slow even at just over an hour. Bogie is about as scary as a Halloween pumpkin and he's hardly in the movie at all. Just shows how much regard Jack Warner had for this future screen legend.Instead we're given an annoying wisecracking reporter and a dreamboat doctor, corny dialog and a routine chase sequence that's over before it begins. The only scary thing about this movie is that they decided this was good enough to release, and that it even made a big profit! Lucky for Bogart they didn't go for Son Of Doctor X, Bride of Doctor X or Revenge of Doctor X. Watch it once to see how low Bogie had to go before his rise to stardom and then rinse away the aftertaste with, say a dose of Maltese Falcon or Big Sleep. This movie sent me into a Big Sleep. (Believe me, this is still a better joke than any in this movie.)

A typical B movie from Warners. Wayne Morris, the central figure, is a big hulking ambitious wisecracking reporter. Now there's a novel character for you. He uncovers a mystery involving a pasty-faced actress whom he finds murdered, then who appears alive, then dead again. It has something to do with some weird blood spots that Morris finds at the scene of the crime. His boss fires him for filing a false story after finding the dead body. Boy, is he puzzled.He enlists the help of his friend, Dennis Morgan, an earnest and handsome physician who works for the arrogant and somewhat sinister Dr. John Litel. But if the viewer thinks that Litel is strange, wait until he or she sees Litel's assistant. Humphrey Bogart first appears carrying a rabbit and stroking it. He introduces himself in a nasal voice that, well, could it be an attempt to do Peter Lorre? No matter. It's promptly dropped anyway and Bogey speaks slowly but normally thereafter. Sill, it's a startling introduction to the character. Bogart's face is made up all in white, like a mime's, and his eyes are deep in shadow behind those rimless glasses. The overall impression is one of a bloodless freak.That actually turns out to be the literal case. Bogart is a mad scientist who starved a baby to death just to see how long it took to die. Executed for the act, Litel brought him back to life with synthetic blood because Bogart is a hematological genius. (I hope you're following this.) Morris and Morgan rush around the city streets in a convertible, with the pretty Rosemary Lane squeezed between them. The mystery is slowly unraveled, the disarticulation encapsulating a couple of laughs.Here's a sample of a comic moment. In search of the actress's mortal remains, Morris and Morgan visit a mortuary, called "undertaker" at the time, and ask to take a look at the body. Satisfied that she was stabbed by a scalpel-like instrument and drained of blood, the pair take their leave, thanking the undertaker. Morris adds, "I'll be seeing you." And the undertaker replies, "I'm sure you will." Morris gets a quick reaction shot, then exeunt.Director Vincent Sherman did what he could with the material -- a blend of murder mystery, horror story, and low-key comedy. I guess, this being Warners, there was no way to avoid the final shoot out that concluded all their gangster movies. And, what with its namesake being what it was, they could hardly dispense with all the electronic junk in the basement laboratory of the screwball scientists.I thought it was amusing rather than anything else, and only for Humphrey Bogart's singular appearance as a movie monster. He certainly earned his stripes.