Night Monster (1942)
7/10
A better than average "Universal" chiller.
17 February 2019
"Night Monster" wasn't destined to be recognised for the effective horror piece that it is, when released in 1942. It was issued as the lower half of a double feature and didn't make much of an impact at the box office. One thing that hampered the film, was the lack of an established leading man in the genre. Bela Lugosi received top billing but became reduced to "supporting actor" status, cast in the thankless role of the butler of the household involved in the story. Lionel Atwill - an underrated leading man in his own right - also ended up being wasted in a role with limited screen time. Regardless, there is plenty to enjoy with "Night Monster." Unlike other horror films from "Universal," there is a genuine sense of mystery and intrigue. The villain isn't revealed until the end and there are a few red herrings included into the bargain. The explanation that's provided with regards to the killer's movements, isn't down to the usual bogus reasons - like an escaped lunatic from the local asylum who indulges in disguises. The writers of the screenplay provide a more weird and eerie conclusion and this works to the films advantage. We are witness to the usual recycling of sets that were used for other films by the studio at the time: the Basil Rathbone "Sherlock Holmes" films amongst others. In my opinion, none of that matters. I simply enjoyed the film before me and the running time whizzes by. "Night Monster" deserves to be better known than it is but the timing was perhaps rather unfortunate. The 1940s saw a steady decline in Hollywood for horror films, as the demand wasn't as great as it had been during the first half of the 1930s.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed