There are two levels of horror here. One is the notion of being born under a curse, or at least dying under one. The other is the recognition that people in real life subscribe to the sort of pseudoscience that this film dallies with. The fact of the latter rather compounds the power of the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to enjoy such a feature, just as is true for exorcism flicks, or ghost-hunting whats-its. 'Death is a number' quite emphasizes the flimflam by denoting the arbitrary esoteric values assigned to various numbers under numerology, and further weaving in additional woo like astrology. Suffice to say it's an uphill battle to enjoy this on the basis of the premise alone, but still we try to set aside reality for works of fiction, and we try to do so here just as well.
There is also the matter of the approach to the presentation, framed as a character relating and narrating the tale of an ill-fated friend. That conversation fills a substantial amount of what is already an abbreviated runtime, naturally leaving less for the course of events being described, and there is sometimes a second layer of framing as top-level character Alan relates and narrates a conversation in which a supporting character also relates and narrates their own experiences. Figure in the very light tone commonly seen in genre fare of the 40s and 50s, dampening any discrete goings-on or would-be atmosphere, and the uphill battle to enjoy the picture is made all the steeper. This applies just as much to the fact that the narration covers broad ideas at least as much as specific events, and probably more.
We are, at least, treated to excellent filming locations, and nice art direction. 'Death is a number' is capably made from a technical standpoint. And by all means, the general concept is primed for horror storytelling: a saga of curses, injury and death, paranoia, madness, and a fundamental dark side to the structure of reality. Regrettably, I don't think there's all that much that the cast, crew, or filmmaker Robert Henryson can do with a narrative that's so vague and amorphous as what Charles K. Shaw penned. The screenplay is effectively the cinematic equivalent of friends sitting around a campfire, telling scary stories, and the nefariousness that one person volunteers is nothing more than asking their audience to "Think about ghosts." What are we viewers supposed to do with this movie?
This 1951 flick was rather evidently made cheaply, more out of hope to make a quick buck than to tell an earnest story. It could have been much more worthy and memorable had it been made in a more conventional manner, portraying events more than just speaking of them, and dropping the constant narration outright or at least exchanging it for, say, the ramblings of a primary character driven to desperation by his experiences. As it is, the storytelling feels weak, scattered, and halfhearted, and seemingly believes itself more clever than it is yet nevertheless relies on that imagined cleverness to carry the day. What vibrancy the narrative could have had in its ideal form is reduced to "Oh, that was kind of a neat idea." 'Death is a number,' as it presents, is a film robbed of every last trace of its potential.
There were good ideas here, truly, but film-making and storytelling of this fashion might well be the most useless and impotent of all possible approaches to film-making and storytelling. We're given the thought of a thought, but it's barely enough to hold one's attention on a basic level, let alone drive engagement or major investment. The horror here is purely thematic, and not something that is meaningfully actualized for the audience. There are worse ways to spend one's time, yet I can't help be frustrated at how strangely and completely the concept was squandered. Seventy years later, 'Death is a number' is a title best set aside as a curiosity for the ardent cinephile, and not something that anyone else particularly needs to see. The premise is enticing, but the end result simply is not.
