Such a frustrating disappointment

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

A very entertaining and spooky murder mystery. Peter Lorre is at his best as moony-eyed, nutjob astrologer secretary to the cadaverous Victor Francen's Ingram. The mansion, with all its medieval flourishes, exudes character. A fine supporting cast; although I found Andrea King's Julie a bit wooden. Playing opposite so many guys, she adds little, except perhaps in her last scene with Lorre. As many have pointed out, after a long lead-up, the pace picks up steam after Ingram's death. His severed hand becomes a character, as a sort of ghost/delusion.We are left with a fairly logical explanation of the apparent supernatural stuff: Lorre, not quite all there initially, goes over the verge of sanity. Cleverly, his delusion of the hand's 'revenge' is an outgrowth of his own plot to scare off and eliminate those who would toss him and his books aside. Robert Alda's Conrad is an interesting character too. He's sympathetic, yet hardly above-board. He has even less claim on Ingram's estate than Lorre/Hilary, but also much to lose. Of course marrying Julie represents his trump card. His outsider quality gives us a window, so to speak, to the goings-on at the mansion. Like the Commassario, he functions as both a witness and a participant.I'd like to have seen more exposition of Lorre's relationship to Francen. It might've been more interesting if Francen/Ingram shared Lorre's fascination with the New-Agey stuff. That could've enhanced the supernatural explanation of subsequent events. At a more basic level, it's hard to see why the hand goes after Lorre, whether it's appearing of its own volition or not. When he was alive Ingram tried to kill Hilary; if anything, it should then be Hilary who goes after him. Hilary does try to 'kill' the hand, but only after it has gone on a 'murder' rampage. Maybe there's too many supporting characters to allow for fleshing out the principals with more scenes.I usually don't like campy stuff tacked onto a dark atmosphere, but it works here. The Commassario seems to go out of his way to drop a hint, with his final enigmatic laugh at the audience, that there's yet more to the story. His dropped glove surely is just a tease, but how is it that Ingram's ring is on his finger now?Even with a few false steps, The Beast With Five Fingers is an engaging experience.

"The Beast With Five Fingers" is a 1946 Gothic horror film set in a large villa near an Italian village. Soon after pianist Francis Ingram's death, a series of mysterious events haunt his friends and relatives as they fight for control over the estate. Ingram's piano suddenly plays music in the middle of the night. A mysterious light glows in Ingram's mausoleum. Ingram's attorney is choked to death. Evidence points to Ingram's disembodied hand as the culprit.The standout performance in the film is by Peter Lorre, who plays a man driven to insanity. Lorre's character Hilary Cummins is the center of a big reveal roughly halfway through the movie that's wonderfully creepy and bizarre. "The Beast With Five Fingers" has the most energy and life whenever Lorre is at the center. The film lags, however, whenever it turns to the subplots of the the other characters. Lorre shines amidst all that flat, wooden acting.My biggest issue with "The Beast With Five Fingers" occurs when the film abruptly ends and takes a jokey, humorous tone that undermines the suspense of the rest of the movie. One of the characters suddenly turns to the camera, addresses the audience and laughs at how unbelievable the events of the film are. I don't understand the point here – the quick explanation in the final reveal feels unearned and the unexpected break with the fourth wall feels bizarre. Despite these issues, "The Beast With Five Fingers is worth seeing for Lorre's performance and its creepy, Gothic atmosphere.

As one of my friends remarked while we were watching "Beast","I can't tell if I'm watching a good movie...or a bad one." That pretty much sums up this movie for me. Beautifully shot, nice moody sets and lighting, and strong performances from a cast playing mostly unlikeable characters following a drunkard's walk of a plot.Lorre, as usual, is simultaneously fascinating, pathetic, sinister and pitiful. Alda plays a "hero" who is something of a rogue and conman, comes off as "good" only when compared to the greedy heirs who show up after the rich guy dies...and yet the younger heir, though greedy and slimy, is somehow still likable and sympathetic. The nurse/heiress is a standard Barbie doll, cast against her will into the role of "gold-digger" who then decides to embrace it,and also hides important information from the police. And Naish plays a "commisario" with a light touch (almost comic relief,especially at the end) which doesn't quite mesh with the rest of the film. It's a polished, nuanced performance that makes me want to punch him in the face more than once.So the cast and characters make for an odd mix, and the plot starts out as a mystery, moves over into suspense for a bit, and then tries to jump the tracks into horror, only to pull back and tell the audience, "Nah, just kidding" in the last 10 minutes. Siodmak,a fine writer,just couldn't quite make his material cohere in this particular instance.But the film is worth seeing, if only for Lorre's performance and the special effects for the "hand",which work very well in the context of the film.

The real stars of the film are the art director (Fleischer) and the set director (Tilford). That cavernous house is one spooky nightmare with its swooping staircase and elaborate décor. Gloom hangs over the mansion like a big suffocating blanket. I'm thinking the lighting bill couldn't have been more then a dollar-fifty. No wonder Hilary (Lorre) goes mad, imagining all sorts of strange things as he caresses his sinister old books.To my mind, the movie's biggest horror is when Hilary threatens to knife the beauteous Julie (King). Was there ever a Hollywood actress with more aristocratic cheekbones than Andrea King. I suspect she was a little too icy-looking for real stardom. Nonetheless, catch her strong presence in Ride the Pink Horse (1947).It's a florid production, heavy on atmosphere along with Hilary's growing madness, but especially on the thunderous Max Steiner score that was apparently recorded at the bottom of a deep well. The creeping hand effect is well done, along with the striking long shot of it pounding the ivories like a concert from heck.But why give the whole gimmick a real world solution when the supernatural alternative is so much more fun. And what genius was responsible for the wink-and-nod last frame, with the Commisario (Naish) showing us it's really only a movie. Did some studio producer think we really needed convincing. Too bad since breaking character harms the carefully crafted atmosphere. My advice is to enjoy the good part before switching off the last ten minutes.