Devil Doll

The great Vorelli is a well known hypnotist and ventures a bit into ventriloquism as well, he's that popular most of the time he's performing a sell out show. What amazes the people most about his show, is that of his dummy, Hugo. There's just something too life-like about Hugo! During one of his shows, a sceptical reporter Mark English convinces his good friend Marianne to volunteer to go under his spell. When Vorelli first spotted Marianne he took a shine to her straight away, so he sets out to make her fall in love and marry him through hypnotism to get to her million dollar inheritance. So, Mark who's worried about Marianne tries to dig up the history of Vorelli and discovers some startling facts about Hugo.

I picked up this particular film knowing zilch about it, but the plot's outline sounded like it could be good fun and maybe even a hidden little gem. The DVD I purchased had two different versions, the theatrical release and Continental version. I got around to watching the continental release which is supposedly more raunchy than the original release. These added moments seemed to be a lot of topless nudity, I guess. Now I'm definitely interested in seeing how much of a difference between the two, just in case any details amongst the plot is missing from the continental version. So, from what I watched, I was reasonably surprised by the strong production that it held, but the story was a bit uninspired and performances were competent enough. But really I thought this was going to be a lot worse after visiting it's page on IMDb and reading a lot negative views about it and especially since MST3K had fun at it expense. C'mon, silly it is, but I couldn't bear to bag it, because I didn't find it that extremely bad at all… slowly paced, yeah… pointless sequences, definitely… too much talk, yeah… hardly intense, too right. But somehow I was wrapped in its curiously bizarre awe.

Additionally the production was solid, indeed. There was great use of the rattling score that added to proceedings, but the fluent cinematography really stood out with the zooms that truly brought out the plot's mysterious tone and some uncanny techniques were used also, like freeze frame. Hugo, the dummy looked pretty good and some scenes definitely inspired "Child's Play" to some point, like shots involving the dummy's feet when moving. Sometimes Hugo might have moved to smoothly, but for its time, it rather soundly done with the person in costume. Performances were… you could say limp, but somehow that was the nature of the film. It was grim, but the monotone acting suited it. Bryant Haliday was tremendously good as the crooked Vorelli, especially in appearance. William Sylvester added charm to his character Mark English and Yvonne Romain was radiant as Marianne. Working with that was a well drawn-up script, which I thought maybe it was a tad too thick, but nonetheless had fine touches and sharp wit. No real atmosphere was staged, colourless is the best way of putting it, excuse the unintended pun since film is shot in black and white.

Like many dummy film's it owes a lot to the classier "Dead of Night", which that particular ventriloquist story has never been beaten, nor matched. Although, why it differs from the likes of "Dead of Night" and also "Magic" is that the dummy, Hugo is the victim of its manipulative master, which was the opposite way around in those other films. Just don't go in with expectations this going to be a effective first-rate thriller, as surely you'll be disappointed. But also don't expect gallons of dummy action and violence, because it does feel like they just threw the dummy story into the stew. Really it's all about The Great, but menacing Vorelli doing his tricks and a reporter learning about his maniac past. Sometimes it spends too long concentrating on some hypnotise sequences to space out the story, which after awhile became either tedious, or hugely ridiculous. Like that dance number and odd striptease scene! But anyhow, the show must go on!

Plot wise, it goes for more of a mystery vibe (which it kinda benefits from) and the narrative very much reminded me of the brilliant "Curse of the Demon". But at times it felt like it didn't know what direction it wanted to go. Like I typed early, it centres more on the master than the doll, which Hugo does come across as a gimmick… especially that the title of the feature could be classed a little misleading. But through Vorelli we learn more about Hugo. You just want to know more about this freaky looking dummy. Who sure is ugly! Don't forget this is a slow burner that builds on its underlying cruel mood. Obviously since I found the film mostly silly, there's no real sustained tension, maybe two or three chills, but it was completely hard to be unnerved when there's small pockets of air in plot. That climax added to that, plenty gusto went into it but at the same time it was a real riot. It just finishes with a how can that be ending? You could say it was a bit too convenient, but still I was satisfied with it as it does knock you off guard.

To cut to the jib, it's a adequate, odd little British horror flick, which on a whole is more a curiosity piece than entertaining.

P.s Also the DVD transfer of film (Continental version) is top-notch, the image looks crisp and the audio rather clean.

What an act the Great Vorelli has, in the 1964 British horror thriller "Devil Doll"! Not only can he hypnotize audience volunteers to perform any kind of outlandish stunt, but he can also make his ventriloquist's dummy, Hugo, talk and act most uncannily lifelike. But how to explain Hugo's ability to locomote all by himself? That's what reporter Mark English (excellently portrayed by American actor William Sylvester) tries to find out, in this very effective little sleeper. While I would never dream of revealing Hugo's back story, I will say that he is a much creepier presence than the modern-day Chucky, if perhaps not as homicidal; the filmmakers of "Devil Doll" get maximum bang out of Hugo's merest eye movements and head turnings. It really is remarkable how much emotion can be inferred in the little puppet's homely mug; his is hardly a wooden performance! In addition to this living doll's eerie presence, the film boasts stunning B&W photography, uniformly fine acting (especially by Bryant Haliday as Vorelli, who comes off far more sinister here than the evil hypnotist played by Jose Ferrer in 1949's "Whirlpool"), intriguing FX (negative images, freeze frames) and a literate script. Despite the central doll character, this is very much an adult film that is not suitable for the kiddies. The crisp-looking DVD from Image that I just watched also includes the so-called "Continental" version of the film, which contains a striptease sequence and several bits of nudity not present in the American release. As does producer Richard Gordon, I prefer the American version, simply because the "racier" print excises an entire scene between Vorelli and his assistant Magda that helps us better understand Vorelli's character. Either version, though, is a surprisingly winning entertainment.

Devil Doll (1964)

*** (out of 4)

Effective and perfectly made British horror film has Bryant Haliday play The Great Vorelli, a hypnotist/ventriloquist who can do things that no other can. Why is that? Because his dummy actually has the soul of his former assistant in it and Vorelli plans on making another dummy and putting the soul of a woman (Yvonne Romain) he's hammered with in it. This film has an incredibly low rating on IMDb, which I'm sure is going to keep many people away but I'd guess a lot of those low votes come from people just giving it low votes because MST3K did an episode with this. A lot of other books and magazines praise this film and I'm going to do so as well. I normally tend to find British horror films a tad bit boring and while this one here begins to lose steam as it rolls along, it still manages to be quite effective. What's most impressive is the cinematography and editing, all of which is done on a very low budget. Some have said the film has a made for TV look but I'd disagree with this. Yes, it's mostly close ups used but I think this works out to be very effective because it puts us so close to Vorelli and the dummy that you can't help but feel as if you're under a trance as well. I really loved how the film was edited and this could be used as evidence that editing is the most important thing in a film. Just watch the first stage show where the dummy first begins to walk. It's rather obvious that a midget is doing the dummy but the way this sequence is put together makes it rather chilling when you see him start to walk. The ending, while a bit over the top, also features some great editing as well. I found Haliday to be quite pleasant in his role as was Hammer queen Romain. I wasn't too impressed with William Sylvester but he too was still better than you'd normally get in such a low budget film. I watched the European version of the film, which features a tad bit more nudity and features a few strange sequences like a striptease. This isn't the most original movie ever made but it's the perfect example of something done right with very little money.

Keeping in mind that Devil Doll takes place in England right about the time of the Beatles invasion, Devil Doll is a pleasant curiosity. Sure, it's a little slow and quaintly dated, but take yourself back and you'll have fun. Amusing touch is the dance sequence featuring a frantic Twist display. William Sylvester is a familiar face: 2001 A Space Odyssey and Gorgo, to name only two of many. It's nice that it's available and to be able to see Devil Doll as a step back in time.

I really liked this movie for several reasons. I thought that the special effects were very good for the time, 1964, the hypnotist was excellent. He played the part perfectly. It was a great story line. I think that the movie was under rated. The writer should have gotten special notice. Last but not least, when I first saw this movie I was 13 and my male hormones went nuts over the assistant who showed off her butt. The movie had a great atmosphere that I wish modern day movie directors would take notice of. There was no slash, no gore and no bad language. Instead of showing all the blood and guts of todays horror movies, they should take notice of movies like this.