Did you people see the same film I saw?

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

There is a monstrous killer roaming the grounds of the estate of wealthy Kurt Ingston, but the most logical suspect has the perfect alibi. He is a bed ridden triple amputee who couldn't possible move about to commit the murders, or could he? The only clue is a look of horror transfixed on the faces of the victims. The residents and staff of the mansion seem to know a lot more than they are willing to tell.Only Ingstons sister Margaret is willing to tell what she knows about the mystery but Ingstons loyal housekeeper keeps her locked away claiming that she is insane. A mysterious Indian swami is a guest of Ingstons and is there to teach Ingston some mind control techniques to help him better deal with his physical disability. How much does he really know about the murders? Meanwhile the body count is rolling up.Its up to mystery writer Dick Baldwin and psychiatrist Dr Lynn Harper to discover the identity of the mysterious murderer before they become his next victims. Night Monster was released in October of 1942 and was a success for Universal Studios. Director Ford Beebe had been around since before WWI and knew how to make a solid "B" picture.He masterfully guides a solid cast to create a very engrossing story. Night Monster is suspenseful and atmospheric if not a bit disappointing in the end. It's oblivious who the killer really is. It's just a question of how he is able to carry out his deeds. The show piece of the picture, when the yogi Agor Singh demonstrates his matter projection techniques demonstrates how the murderer is able to function The failure of the screenplay to properly utilize the talents of it's two top billed stars has been discussed by other reviewers. I will just say that the miscasting of both Atwill and Lugosi keeps Night Monster from being the classic horror mystery it could have been instead of the entertaining but predictable film that it is.

Universal horror with Bela Lugosi playing a butler. He was always random to me, but I think I'm starting to like him. Mysterious murders are happening in a castle, the people get strangled, but there's a pool of blood near them. The big castlehouse is in a swamp. Best mist effect ever, pretty creepy. In the house live: paralyzed rich owner, his daughter who is treated by everyone like she's nuts but she might not be, always suspicious servants, while their guests are the tree doctors who saved and paralyzed the owner, the female psychiatrist invited by the daughter, horror story writer and later on a very charismatic and dryly humorous detective. But the most important guest is a mysterious Indian mystic played by the very handsome and charismatic actor Nils Asther, who can control matter on a cosmic particle level and materialize stuff like that. Supernatural whodunit. One maybe knows toward the end who did it, but not how. Alfred Hitchcock liked this movie a lot supposedly. The actors are all good, the atmosphere is good, never boring, shadow play is sometimes very good, always good and effective. the house interior is cool as it is. Of the actors I especially liked Ralph Morgan as the owner, Don Porter as the writer Dick Baldwin (it's funny because all Baldwins are dicks) i Nils Asther as Agor Singh. The latter is cool as he is, handsome, Porter is not really likable at first hand, but he's charming. Great film to watch at 2 am slightly drunk.

This movie really surprised me. In the 1940s, Bela Lugosi made a huge number of grade-Z horror films. They might be fun to watch, but all too often the films have tons of plot holes and they were obviously made with practically no budget. This film, however, has very good production values and is quite original--and as a result, I had a very good time watching it.Now before I go any further, it's important to note that although Lugosi got top billing and the videotape cover prominently shows his face, the film really ISN'T a Bela Lugosi film. His role, unfortunately for "Lugosi-philes" is amazingly small and ill-defined. He never seems to be the star nor does he have much to do with all the weird murders that are occurring in the film. In many ways, this is like the appearance of Lionel Atwill in the film--he's there but his part is terribly small.Despite this, the film is still excellent and most of this is due to the excellent writing. The story is quite original and although I could guess early on who was committing all the murders, the way it was handled was very clever. Probably the best part of the film, though, was the part played by Robert Homans, as the Constable. He has so many wonderful and funny lines that I thoroughly loved watching the old curmudgeon investigate the crimes.Finally, a bit of trivia. The rich old man in the film is played by Ralph Morgan. He bears a lot of physical resemblance to Frank Morgan (the Wizard from the Wizard of Oz) because they were brothers.

Having become acquainted with most of the classic Universal horror films at a very early age, it's rather surprising that it has taken me much longer to get to the lesser entries in the cycle. Thankfully, the Universal Monster Legacy and the Bela Lugosi Collections have introduced me to some elusive titles but, still, there are a few which, perhaps because of their obvious inferiority, are still sadly missing and the film under review here is just one of them… First things first: while Bela Lugosi and Lionel Atwill never quite enjoyed the (well-deserved) renown Boris Karloff got from his horror performances - and let's not forget that both of them were somewhat on the skids at the time this film was made due to private scandals - I wasn't expecting to see them appearing in such thankless roles, especially since their names were shown above the title in the credits! I guess anyone who engages Lugosi as a butler deserves all he gets (it's also amusing to me that despite living in America for almost 30 years, Lugosi never managed to drop his very thick Hungarian accent which, I suppose, is one of his charms) and Atwill is an impatient surgeon who's mercilessly picked on by one of his colleagues (for no reason I could clearly discern) and whose untimely departure from the "old dark house" of the movie brings about his death…with more than half the film yet to unfold! Lugosi, apparently, also gets his in the film's fiery climax…or does he? For being the nominal star of the film, the carelessness with which his fate is (or rather not) dealt with is disappointing to say the least.For the rest, the film introduces too many characters too quickly so that it wasn't until some time into the picture that I was able to make heads or tails of who was engaged to do what in the creepy mansion. Some of these characters were engaging, especially Nils Ashter's spiritualist, Leif Erickson's boorish chauffeur, Robert Homans' investigating constable and Don Porter's whodunnit writer but some of the others (like Fay Helm's disturbed Margaret, Doris Lloyd's scheming housekeeper and, fatally, Ralph Morgan's crippled master of the house) were boring or downright annoying. Then, the sheer regularity of the murders (which happen literally moments apart at times) gives it a repetitive quality which does the film no favors, especially since none of the houseguests ever seem to be aware of anything remotely wrong happening in the very next room! Still, for all that, the film is never less than entertaining and I can see it improving with further viewings; after all, it is crammed full of that typical Universal fog-laden ambiance which, for obvious reasons – not least the usage of the same title background and parts of the music score – reminds one of THE WOLF MAN (1941) and other Universal horror fare of the period. Besides, even if the film is not able to capitalize fully on it, its premise of mentally growing artificial limbs is an intriguing one and, again, not too dissimilar from the one explored in DOCTOR X (1932).