User reviews

In this interesting variation on the "Svengali" theme, JOHN BARRYMORE plays a crippled puppeteer with a club foot, who lives vicariously his dream of becoming a great dancer when he assumes responsibility for a runaway boy (FRANKIE DARRO) escaping the clutches of his cruel father (BORIS KARLOFF), well disguised with a thick Russian accent and wig that practically makes his features invisible.

Michael Curtiz has directed with enormous help from Anton Grot's well designed sets and a generous use of background music at a time when it was rare for most films to feature so much music on the soundtrack. Of course, dealing with theatrical productions, this was totally necessary. In many ways, the film is way ahead of its time. Not only are the sets on a grand scale, but the B&W photography is richly detailed and Barrymore gives one of his most intense performances as the Svengali-like puppet master who finds he can't control his discovery once love enters the picture.

Doll-faced MARIAN MARSH makes a lovely sort of "Trilby" character but DONALD COOK looks a bit uncomfortable in the role of Fedor, the dancer. The story is a little cumbersome in getting started, but once the plot starts spinning into high gear the suspense mounts and Curtiz stages all of the scenes involving theatrical productions in a manner that puts the film into the A-film category.

Worth seeing for Barrymore's fascinating performance, Russian accent and all, and remarkable in that "the talkies" were only four years old when the film was made and the technical advances are obvious.

This film feels a little like a Tod Browning production, with John Barrymore in the role of a dark, twisted man that we could imagine Lon Chaney playing for Browning, but it's actually directed by Michael Curtiz. Barrymore leads a ballet troupe and jealously guards his young protégé (Donald Cook), who he's raised from a boy since essentially stealing him from his abusive peasant father (Boris Karloff, briefly). He wants to use him to live out his own frustrated dreams of being a great dancer. He has no problem supplying the young man with lovers from the troupe, but doesn't want him to form any attachments, for fear it will impact his artistic abilities, and also of course because he's afraid of losing control. Enter Marian Marsh, a sweet young dancer who he falls in love with, thus setting up the central conflict in the film.

When he's not busy trying to control the young man, Barrymore is up to no good elsewhere. He supplies drugs to his conductor (Luis Alberni), who is desperately addicted. He makes it clear to young ballerinas (Mae Madison and later Carmel Myers) that if they want to get ahead, they need to "see him" in his private office. He also berates his secretary (Charles Butterworth, who provides some comic relief with his bumbling), responding to one of his ideas by saying "It's incredible. It's unbelievable... that there should be any human being living who is such a stupid ass." Barrymore is excellent throughout the film and turns in a performance that dominates, though Cook and Marsh are reasonably good as well. The brief segments of ballet scenes, often in practice, show realistic and solid dancing.

The film starts strong, but loses a little bit of its steam in the second half, and not completely living up to its potential. The direction from Curtiz is great, with creative shot angles and editing, but the plot is a little simple. It's hard to believe I'd say that a film with open drug use, predatory sexual behavior, and an axe murder wouldn't be dark enough, and yet, somehow I wanted more. Maybe I've been watching too many pre-code movies lately.

In another of John Barrymore's bizarre characterizations the great actor portrays a club-footed itinerant puppeteer who rescues an abused boy from vile existence,recognizes the lad's incredible of agility and footwork and begins to train the youngster to be a "new" Nijinsky.Years go by,the boy reaches manhood,and Barrymore the impresario of a successful ballet company.But when the ballet dancer begins to have ideas of his own,falls in love with pretty Marian Marsh,Barrymore,consumed with madness and jealousy attempts to manipulate their lives leading to shocking results. This extraordinary film oscillates between intriguing drama and moments of near horror with Barrymore in masterly control of his human puppets. Boris Karloff is the boy's monstrous father and Luis Alberni stands out as the drug-addicted ballet director.Magnificent direction by Michael Curtiz

John Barrymore stars as Vladimar Tsarakov, a crippled dance enthusiast who runs a traveling marionette show with his partner Karimsky (Charles Butterworth). After a show in Central Europe, they notice a young boy (Frankie Darro) being chased by his abusive father, with the boy displaying strength and grace of movement. Tsarakov smuggles the child away, and raises him to adulthood. Named Fedor (Donald Cook), the young man has become perhaps the greatest name in ballet, but his life is completely dominated by Tsarakov, who does everything in his power to make sure the young man stays focused, even if it means chasing away his new beloved Nana (Marian Marsh). Also featuring Boris Karloff.

Barrymore gets to go wild-eyed and over-the-top, while Cook makes for a leaden leading man. Butterworth's comic relief is amusing but seems out of place. Karloff has a small, unbilled role as the young Fedor's abusive father. I liked how Tsarakov maintains control over manic director Alberni by plying him with cocaine.

The Mad Genius is far from the best of John Barrymore's sound films. But it certainly provides a character for him to go full blast in terms of style and yet not seem overacted. Barrymore's plays a cripple who wanted to be a great ballet dancer, but only is confined to doing puppet shows with his sidekick Charles Butterworth.

One day he and Butterworth rescue young Frankie Darro from a cruel father Boris Karloff. Barrymore sees in young Darro the promise and form of the dancer he wanted to be. This was before the Code so the homoerotic ideas in the scene are exploited to the max.

Fast forward a dozen years and Darro is now Donald Cook at the top of his game as a ballet dancer, a veritable Nijinsky. He's also got eyes for pretty Marian Marsh, but so has Barrymore.

Barrymore's years of training in the puppet theater have stood him in good stead as he's now a real puppet master, scheming and manipulating people to his will. His scene with Luis Alberni who is manager of the company to get him to do something he doesn't want to do is unforgettable. I won't reveal what he has over him, but this also was a subject later banned by the Code.

Not the best of Barrymore's work, but it should provide a real introduction to his acting. And he's given great support by the ensemble Warner Brothers and director Michael Curtiz gave him.

Here is another movie that I never heard of until I was looking through Letterboxd for all of the horror movies released in the year of 1931. This one intrigued me when I saw that it starred John Barrymore as well as Marian Marsh, as they starred together in another horror film from this year of Svengali. So aside from that information, I came into this one blind with just having read the synopsis right before starting it. That synopsis is a crippled man finds a boy and vows to make him a great dancer.

The prologue here is Central Europe and 15 years in the past. Vladimar Ivan Tasarakov (Barrymore) is a puppeteer and he works with Karimsky (Charles Butterworth). He's quite mean to him as well. Watching them is a boy by the name of Fedor (Frankie Darro) as they practice. Their puppet show is part of a traveling group. They're interrupted when Fedor's father shows up, scolding and whipping him. His father is played by an uncredited role of Boris Karloff. Fedor gets away and Ivan is impressed with how graceful he is. He ends up hiding the boy and when they leave, he comes with them.

We then shift to the present in Berlin. Ivan's mother was a famous Russian ballet dancer, but he was born crippled, making him unable to dance. This upset her and she ended up leaving him while he was a child. This is quite scarring. Ivan saw the potential in Fedor (Donald Cook) and trained him to be the best. He is now one of the greatest dancers in Europe. Fedor is interested in Nana Carlova (Marsh). Ivan is fine with them being together as long as Fedor doesn't fall in love. He needs his release, but falling for her will ruin his career according to Ivan. He even rebuffs the advances of Count Robert Renaud (André Luguet) who is interesting in Nana, wanting to ensure that Fedor is always happy.

When Ivan learns that his prized pupil has fallen for Nana, he wants her to leave the production and marry Count Renaud though. He believes love will make people do bad things, at least to what he wants. This upsets Fedor who threatens to quit dancing if she is sent away. He has to make a decision, leave the only thing he knows how to do for the love of his life where he will be black-balled by his father figure or play pawn to this mastermind in Ivan.

That is where I'm going to leave my recap as that is really the main story of this movie. There are some deep seeded things with characters under this and that is where I'm going to start. The character of Ivan is interesting. He always wanted to be a dancer and part of this is the fact that his mother was bothered by his affliction. He's been harboring that and sees his chance to live through Fedor. Ivan's mother abandoning him is bad and kidnapping Fedor is as well. Aside from that, wanting to give Fedor a good life is a good thing. It is when he is manipulating those around him to continue to be successful is where this becomes an issue.

Seeing the title of this movie, I figured this would be a mad scientist film. I was pleasantly surprised that we are dealing with someone being very intelligent, but in a different sort of way. Ivan manipulates everyone he encounters to an extent. Nana he tries to send away multiple times. He is mean to Karimsky and bosses him around. Fedor is a character he doesn't necessarily do anything toward directly, but tries to remove obstacles without his knowledge. Sergei Bankieff (Luis Alberini) is the stage manager for his productions and he actually uses drugs to control him. I'm assuming it is opium from the paper it is kept in. He also lies to Sonya Preskoya (Carmel Myers) and Olga Chekova (Mae Madison), who are both dancers that want to be famous. There is also a bit with Count Renaud as well. It is interesting how his conduct leads to his downfall in the end.

Since there isn't much to the story and more to the interactions, I'll go to the acting next. Barrymore is really good as Ivan. I like how he plays the character and I believe he could be this mastermind. Marsh is cute and I feel bad for what she has to decide to do for the betterment of Fedor's life. Butterworth adds some levity. I feel bad for him though. Cook is solid as Fedor who has people being used around him to influence his decisions. I'd say from there that Alberini, Myers, Luguet and the rest round this out for what was needed.

Then really the last thing to bring up here would be the cinematography, effects and the musical selections. I would say that the cinematography is fine. We are getting some interesting looks at the ballet as they are rehearsing. I'm glad they didn't focus on this too much though. It would have felt like filler if they did. This really isn't a movie that has much in the way of effects and the soundtrack also fits for what was needed. It just doesn't necessarily stand out to me.

In conclusion here, this is going to be a bit shorter of a review, but that is mostly due to a simple story. That isn't to say it is bad though. This movie is really focused on the acting which I think is good across the board. It is interesting to see this concept of a mad genius like Ivan who is living through his protégé and seeing what he does to keep this golden goose working for him. I'd say that the technique here of filmmaking is fine. This is quite light in the horror elements, but it makes sense for the era. I would say though that this is movie is over average for me. It is lacking though to go any higher than that personally.

Firstly, this is nothing like SVENGALI. Apart from the same cast and art director, this is completely different. Secondly it's really rather dull.

Besides a cracking episode of ANGEL (Waiting in the Wings), the most similar story to this is the section in the 1940 version of WATERLOO BRIDGE where Vivienne Leigh is a struggling ballerina bullied by Mdm. Olga. Here John Barrymore does a pretty decent job of playing the role Mara Ouspenskaya did as the tyrannical principal of a ballet troupe. The problem is that in WATERLOO BRIDGE that was a ten minute section of the film - in this, that's all the film is. There's just not enough story to fill out an hour and a half.

Crippled John Barrymore vicariously lives out his own dream of being a great dancer through a young man he discovers. He is so manically driven that he won't let anything, including this dancer falling in love, deviate him from his plan for him to be the world's greatest ballet dancer. If this young dancer or the girl he loves were in any way interesting characters this might itself be an interesting film but it transpires that they are Hollywood's dullest couple. You simply couldn't care less about them so just want this tedium to end (possibly to then go and search out that old episode of ANGEL?)

It's no surprise that this picture performed so badly at the box office. It was rushed into production following the moderate success of SVENGALI a few months earlier and you can tell it's a rush job. Warners just wanted to cash in by making something which looked, as least in terms of visuals, the same. Whereas SVENGALI had an annoyingly stupid story with lazy direction, this was directed a little better but didn't even have a story.

I've always liked the John Barrymore/Marian Marsh film "Svengali" and have always wanted to see Warner Brothers' re-teaming of the two in "The Mad Genius". Thankfully, Ted Turner seems to own it and shows a very nice print of it on TCM. I've got it recorded and I like to watch it now and again. Although it's not a favorite of mine like "Svengali" is, "The Mad Genius" is still a film that I enjoy. Tsarakov (Barrymore) rescues a small boy from his abusive father (Boris Karloff). As the years pass the boy, Fedor (Donald Cook), grows up to become a seasoned ballet dancer and Tsarakov is the ballets impresario. Tsarakov pampers every move in Fedor's life; getting him leads in ballets and encouraging him to have a steady supply of young women lovers. However, Fedor loves Nana (Marian Marsh) and Tsarakov, seeing this as the ruination of Fedor's career, forces Nana to take up with Count Renaud (André Luget), a good-natured, understanding man. Will Fedor and Nana reunite? What will happen to Tsarkov? Watch "The Mad Genius" and you'll find out. You may marvel at the films casual pre-code approach to sex. Very good film, but not as charming as the classic "Svengali".

Stars John Barrymore and Charles Butterworth as a team of performing puppeteers. They see a man whipping a child, and come to his rescue. and yes, that's the monster-master Boris Karloff, as the boy's terrible father we see right at the opening. Some elaborately staged scenes, with large casts of uncredited roles, as they choreograph dance numbers on stage. Butterworth had a dry, sarcastic, under-stated humor, and had a career in Broadway before entering film. Has an interesting bio here on imdb... died quite young in a car crash. While wikipedia.org states it was an accident, imdb claims it may be been intentional. The story shows a russian cast putting together a show in berlin. Trials, tribulations, ups, downs, love triangles. Lots of talk... proving that this started out as a play. It's okay. Directed by Michael Curtiz, who had started out in the silent films, as had Barrymore and Karloff. Curtiz' best known work was probably the oscar winning Casablanca in 1944 !

John Barrymore was easily the most suitable actor for film, in comparison with his older brother and sister. He knew when it was right to town down the theatrical approach and when to be a bit larger-than-life. "The Mad Genius" was Barrymore's final film for "Warner Bros." He was paid the rather handsome sum of about $70,000 a film and gave some fine performances. "The Mad Genius" is a remake of a previous film for the studio, "Svengali." The former movie is far better than this inferior remake. The above film suffers from a very poor plot, leaden pacing and disappointing dialogue. Only the performance of John Barrymore and the direction from Michael Curtiz save this film. Boris Karloff is completely wasted in a brief appearance at the beginning of the film. "The Mad Genius" has no imagination or much in the way of sustaining the viewer's interest.

This film is an ideal companion piece to Barrymore's other mad manipulator "Svengali". It is just as eerie but unfortunately all but unavailable on the video market. I saw it one time on the late show and it stayed with me all my life. It is really an exaggeration of the relationship between impresario Diaghilev and his protégé Nijinski but it also inspired (is there a better word?) the Powell-Pressburger ballet epic "The Red Shoes". Funny how one story gets around...

Taped this picture on the late-late-late movie channel on the NY TV stations and have never seen it again. John Barrymore(Tsarakov) plays a crippled, half-mad puppeteer, who yearns to dance. Upon saving the young boy Fedor(Frankie Darro) from his foster father's (Boris Karloff) abuse, he recognizes the youth's ability and hopes to make him a famous dancer. Karloff's role was very minor, and he did not reappear after the opening sequence. There was a mention of Frankenstein in the script where it refers about a Golem fashioned from mud and given a human soul and is asked by Tsarakov " Frankenstein's man? John Barrymore dominates the entire screen, but they still need Karloff to bring the 193l audiences into the movie houses.

This film features John Barrymore as a monomaniacal angel of destruction. When he sees a young boy exhibiting great grace and dexterity, chased and beaten by a horrible father (Boris Karloff) he rescues him. As a two bit puppeteer he decides to set the boy on stage as a dancer (and it works). But Barrymore has no guile or gentleness. He doesn't believe an artist can be successful with distraction. The boy, now a man, falls for a pretty ballerina and his surrogate father destroys the relationship. But the acting is bad and the kid doesn't seem to have much dramatic talent, although the film promotes him as great. They should have cast an actual dancer. It's kind of silly at times but certainly interesting.

1931's "The Mad Genius" was a follow up to John Barrymore's box office success "Svengali," again paired with porcelain beauty Marian Marsh, no longer the crazed mesmerist whose obsession with the woman he loves leads him to the fatal deception that Trilby loves him in return (only by hypnosis does she obey his bidding). This time, The Great Profile is again evident as embittered puppeteer Ivan Tsarakov, working in tandem with partner Karimsky (Charles Butterworth), remembering the ballerina mother who disowned her son at an early age due to his club foot yet still yearns for the career of a dancer, finding just the right lad in Fedor, whose abusive father (Boris Karloff) hasn't the ghost of a chance to catch his elusive quarry. Spiriting the youngster away to essentially live as his own offspring, Tsarakov waxes poetic about The Golem, Homunculi, and even (ironically, with Karloff having made his exit) Frankenstein, fully intent to make Fedor the greatest dancer who ever lived, provided he avoid the annoying pitfalls of falling in love. The now adult Fedor (Donald Cook) happens to have done just that with leading lady Nana Carlova (Marian Marsh), despite every attempt by Tsarakov to find other playmates to seduce his foster son. Genuine pre-Code shocks are generated by Luis Alberni's feverish role as dance instructor Sergei Bankieff, a hopeless addict forced to terminate Nana's employment rather than risk cold turkey for his affliction, only for Fedor to learn the truth and depart with her for love in Paris. Tsarakov does not give up so easily, maintaining an iron clad contract to prevent Fedor from earning steady employment, then convincing a tearful Nana to leave for Berlin with the smitten Count Renaud (Andre Luguet) to ensure Fedor's return to the fold. John Barrymore again relishes every little nuance for humor to make his reprehensible character palatable and highly entertaining, well matched with Butterworth's low key enquiries about being repeatedly fired when not trying to foist off a self penned opera that no one cares to hear. Donald Cook hasn't the charisma for his role, all wrong for a dancer and looking very silly in his final costume, but Marian Marsh proves herself a fine actress who makes every line believable; when Tsarakov phones the amorous Count with news that she intends to join him on his return to Berlin, her tears are truly heartbreaking. How intriguing that Boris Karloff and Frankenstein should be joined only a few moments apart, in and out rather quickly after 2 minutes on screen during the opening reel, cast for his eagerness by director Michael Curtiz despite not looking the least bit Russian as indicated by his last name. Barrymore's soliloquy about Fedor offering him the opportunity to create 'a being' also predates the James Whale classic, which would not begin shooting for at least two months after this picture's completion. Marian Marsh had previously worked with a deceptive Boris in the Warners classic "Five Star Final," and would be his leading lady by 1935's Columbia entry "The Black Room." Unbilled Mae Madison plays one of the chorus girls required to entice Fedor, she too had already worked with Karloff in "Smart Money," he as a pimp eager to get into the big game with Edward G. Robinson, she one of his girls who wangles $100 out of an agitated Robinson to use against him.

The Mad Genius (TMG) and Svengali are the cinematic equivalents of human fraternal twins---they bear some resemblance to each other but are also obviously different. These two early John Barrymore vehicles are the last films he made for Warner Brothers as well as the only movies he shot in 1931.

The two films are remarkable for their many similarities. Both are derivative versions of the novel Trilby by George du Maurier; both starred Barrymore and Marian Marsh; both utilized a screenplay written in whole or in part by J. Grubb Alexander; both were photographed by Barney McGill; both utilized extraordinary sets designed by Anton Grot; and both employed the talents of supporting actors Luis Alberni and Carmel Myers. In both films, Barrymore adopted heavy makeup and a strong accent to physically capture an obsessive, controlling older man who seeks to manipulate young and compliant people. There may be no two other films in Hollywood history that bore so many resemblances to one another while each was purporting to be an original production. This is astonishing!

Both films were handicapped by the decision to cast inexperienced teenager Marian Marsh in the critical leading female role. She tried her very best to keep up with Barrymore, but this was obviously a losing proposition. Barrymore originally sought his then wife Dolores Costello to assume the Trilby role in Svengali. However, her pregnancy put an end to that plan.

These two films gave Barrymore some of the best reviews of his cinematic career. Nonetheless, these movies both turned out to be unpopular vehicles for WB---an unfortunate turn of events for his nascent period as an emerging major Hollywood star.

As for TMG, it was helped by the strong direction of Michael Curtiz and its set and costume designs. However, its script was unworthy of the great effort Barrymore put into his performance. Perhaps the story was just not strong enough to sustain two similar productions in such a short span of time. And what could WB have reasonably expected from this effort? The stock definition of insanity (do the same thing again and expect a different outcome) would certainly have predicted that the second film was likely to be no more of a commercial success than the first one.

TMG is an interesting film in many ways, and deserves serious reconsideration by a modern audience. If you want to see a possible antecedent to the Anton Walbrook character in The Red Shoes or the James Mason portrayal in The Seventh Veil---look no further than what John Barrymore did in TMG!

John Barrymore had some wonderful performances over his film career. But, he also had some really terrible performances as well--ones which were far from subtle and terribly overacted. One of these embarrassingly bad performances was his famous "Svengali" and another was the follow-up film, "The Mad Genius". In fact, both performances seem just about identical--with Barrymore playing essentially the same sort of guy--a creepy manipulator who is troll- like and with a thick, thick accent. The plot of "Svengali" involves a creepy guy using his hypnotic-like powers to bend a woman to his will and make her a star. Here, it's a guy instead...but otherwise it's the same 'ol same 'ol.

The bottom line is the film lacks subtlety and originality. While it might have played well back in the day, today it just seems very dated and dumb. Barrymore was capable of so much better than this and the film is extremely difficult to finish.

Not much here to recommend beyond the set pieces. Allow me to pick over the other bits I found interesting, even if not enjoyable. The couple we're supposed to care about are overshadowed by Barrymore and Butterworth, the actual love story in this film. B&B see a boy running from his father and notice that he has a unique way of hurdling a gate (is that slow motion?). They decide on the spot to become kidnappers and develop him into a dancer, well Barrymore decides and Butterworth complies.

There's a flash forward to allow the boy to grow up. There is a moment of confusion when the human dancers in current time resemble the puppet dancers from the opening scene. An expensive visual trick that was likely missed by many.

The 2 young lovers are apparently meeting in an aviary. The incessant chirping makes their dialogue hard to follow. I bet the birds' lines were more interesting than anything these two had to say.

Butterworth tries to explain his idea for a ballet. When we finally hear him explain the plot, it is stranger and much more interesting than the story through which we're suffering. In his story a man removes a pearl gray derby and 30 or 40 pigeons fly out. One character delivers the line, "You go to your church and I'll go to mine." Barrymore listens intently and then calls his friend a "stupid *ss." They are the perfect S/M match.

Barrymore sees Fidor's lover as a distraction. He encourages her to leave her young dancer and become a sugar baby for the Count, a slimy mustachioed character who says "A-Gain" instead of "again." Don't you hate that?

There's a final scene where we see Butterworth without Barrymore and the sadness is palpable. Who will treat him like garbage now?

There is some pre-code racy dialogue. A comparison of alcohol and sex as addictive behaviors. Some weird projected shadow scenes. And we never get to see Fidor, the great dancer, dance a lick.

Butterworth has always reminded me vaguely of Stan Laurel. Here he seems to go even further into his Stan Laurel persona. Not sure what to make of it. I imagine he was older than Laurel. Maybe this is just a standard character type from that time.