Many older movies, and by my count it seems those from the 30s and 40s especially, carry a directness and often a simpler form of entertainment that at times can understandably limit the appeal for some viewers. For whatever occasional instances of subtlety or nuance we see in one element or another, I feel like this is mostly true of 1945's 'Strange illusion,' as the flow of events from one moment to the next feels weirdly brusque. Why, just consider the scene about 25 minutes in, in which our hero very pointedly selects and reads aloud some information that will obviously bear fruit later in the narrative - a bit of exposition that is followed in short order with confirmation of our assumption. Beyond that, this picture goes a step further with the foundation of a plot point, protagonist Paul's dreams, that requires utmost active suspension of disbelief, and that is frankly hokey and ham-handed as it presents. I do think this is reasonably well made, with a duly compelling story - but it's hard not to think that this is a title that in some ways demands some measure of open-mindedness to get the most out of it.
I rather think that many aspects of the feature are just suitable, serving their purpose in advancing the story or building the whole, without doing much to make an impression. Whatever their depths or secrets, it's questionable how much believable personality characters possess, and except at its most dramatic, dialogue is scarcely any different. The overall narrative is a little predictable and distinctly straightforward, not caring to leave much to the imagination as it progresses, so any sense of thrills or mystery is dampened. Subjective faults aside it's fairly solid, with much to enjoy - only, again, there's not particularly anything to leap out as remarkable. I might argue the scene writing is strongest of all, with fine attention to how each component comes together to create the smaller beats that weave together into the tapestry of the production, and excessive neatness in the course of events is offset by some minor wit and repartee that characterizes some interactions. And on that note director Edgar G. Ulmer surely deserves some credit in tying all the parts together, while the assembled cast inject more heart and sincerity into their roles than I think was written into them in the first place. (Although, sometimes there's so much exuberance in the portrayals that it comes across as overacting.)
'Strange illusion' is a little odd. There's definite intelligence in the story and screenplay, yet it's as though the vibrant color that should be reflected in the most dynamic and engrossing of thrillers is dulled and muted, a shade of what it should be. The movie is entertaining, but doesn't really inspire any major reaction. Everything is here to make a complete, absorbing film - yet it mostly flows along while failing to truly grab us. I don't think that this is bad, and in fact I do like it; I just wish anything about it were more striking so as to spark meaningful enthusiasm. Despite myself, I don't know that there's a lot more to say. Maybe someone else will watch this and find it far more riveting, but as far as I'm concerned - if you come across 'Strange illusion' it's a decent way to pass 85 minutes. You don't need to go out of your way, however, and if you're seeking a feature that's substantially gripping, maybe look elsewhere and save this for a lazy day.
I rather think that many aspects of the feature are just suitable, serving their purpose in advancing the story or building the whole, without doing much to make an impression. Whatever their depths or secrets, it's questionable how much believable personality characters possess, and except at its most dramatic, dialogue is scarcely any different. The overall narrative is a little predictable and distinctly straightforward, not caring to leave much to the imagination as it progresses, so any sense of thrills or mystery is dampened. Subjective faults aside it's fairly solid, with much to enjoy - only, again, there's not particularly anything to leap out as remarkable. I might argue the scene writing is strongest of all, with fine attention to how each component comes together to create the smaller beats that weave together into the tapestry of the production, and excessive neatness in the course of events is offset by some minor wit and repartee that characterizes some interactions. And on that note director Edgar G. Ulmer surely deserves some credit in tying all the parts together, while the assembled cast inject more heart and sincerity into their roles than I think was written into them in the first place. (Although, sometimes there's so much exuberance in the portrayals that it comes across as overacting.)
'Strange illusion' is a little odd. There's definite intelligence in the story and screenplay, yet it's as though the vibrant color that should be reflected in the most dynamic and engrossing of thrillers is dulled and muted, a shade of what it should be. The movie is entertaining, but doesn't really inspire any major reaction. Everything is here to make a complete, absorbing film - yet it mostly flows along while failing to truly grab us. I don't think that this is bad, and in fact I do like it; I just wish anything about it were more striking so as to spark meaningful enthusiasm. Despite myself, I don't know that there's a lot more to say. Maybe someone else will watch this and find it far more riveting, but as far as I'm concerned - if you come across 'Strange illusion' it's a decent way to pass 85 minutes. You don't need to go out of your way, however, and if you're seeking a feature that's substantially gripping, maybe look elsewhere and save this for a lazy day.