Fantômas: The Dead Man Who Killed (1913) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
The "Fantomas" Saga Goes On...
framptonhollis11 February 2016
In this third installment of the "Fantomas" film serial, things seem to take a much darker turn. While the previous two installment certainly have their darker moments, this film has a much darker overall tone for a majority of its running time.

While I must admit that I found "Juve Against Fantomas" to be more entertaining and, therefore, better, "The Dead Man Who Killed" definitely had the most interesting story out of all the "Fantomas" films that I've seen so far. A lot of people consider this to be the best film of the "Fantomas" serial, but I must yet again say that I prefer "Juve Against Fantomas" based on the sheer amount of entertainment value and memorability that that film presented me with.

I have to refrain from giving this addition to the series a 10, even though it is quite excellent, just because I found it to be a bit too slow in parts to get that high a rating. But even if it is slow at times there's still plenty of excitement and suspense throughout the film, as well as an engaging mystery.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Incredible Mystery
gavin694215 April 2013
After a body disappears from inside the prison, a series of crimes take place, all seemingly by the dead man. With Juve presumed dead, Fandor (Georges Melchior) must investigate alone. Will Fantomas finally be brought to justice?

Being a Fantomas story, we pretty much know that Fantomas is the man behind all the horrible crimes... but the real question is how is he doing it? How do you successfully frame a dead man? Surely I cannot give it away, but the twists and turns are excellent and the series really picks up here -- this is not only the centerpiece, but perhaps the climax of the entire run.

I am not sure if you should watch this without having seen the first two parts, but if you saw those, you absolutely must give part three a chance.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
As good as the old ones from the Sixties (web)
leplatypus15 July 2018
It's funny to meet this famous french franchise at this date and that's precisely my motivation to pick it up! I expected to discover the 1st versions of Fandor, Juve and for sure Fantomas. Of all those early 5 movies, i chose this one because the cover and title was similar to the big mystery french stories and that's indeed what the movie is: a nervous, parisian mystery, a genre in which french cinema excels unlike its poor drama... From all the old french movies i saw so far, this one looks the more modern with a lot of action, sets.. Paris has few moments but they are beautiful from a vintage view. The criminal mind is as devious as the later ones and with his hood, Fantomas is as frightening! Honesty this movie has aged like a very good french red wine and you can taste like a national treasure (even if we saw that France has always been this old country not that open to the new technology!)
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is it!
dbdumonteil28 December 2008
By far the best episode in Feuillade's extravaganza.It features a very strong screenplay which does not fall apart in the first reel.The longest (at a running time of about 90 min) episode,it delivers the goods.All the characters are present :besides the usual suspects (Fandor,Fantomas,Juve),the movie features Lady Beltham,Sonia Danidoff,the false warden and the dregs of society with a lot of shady characters who seem to come from Eugène Sue's "Les Mysteres de Paris" . The story is extremely well told and I really think that if one of the five segments can grab today's audience ,it is this one.It's so absorbing and so fascinating it can be watched independently of the others.

A young painter is falsely accused of murder.He is killed in his cell,but his corpse disappears and when a crime or a theft is committed,the Police find his fingerprints in the place.(Hence the title: the killing corpse)

It will not surprise anyone,Souvestre/Allain's novel was their best too,even superior to their first effort the first part of which was not transferred to the screen,which was really a pity.It did include a love affair between Fandor and Elisabeth Dollon :they had even planned to get married but finally the girl discovered Fandor's secret ( his real name was Charles Rambert and in the past...) and their break up was inevitable. In the movie Fandor is only an attentive escort and there's not a single kiss ,even on the cheek.

Juve goes underground and is absent for most of the movie.In the two last episodes his appearances would be even shorter.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the first true everlasting masterpieces in the history of cinema
Falkner197622 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
One of the first true everlasting masterpieces in the history of cinema. Of those few films prior to 1920 that are now as attractive or even more attractive than 100 years ago, now that their narrative style is so different from the current one that it has to surprise us as much or more than to its contemporaries.

Fantômas may seem less technically innovative than The Birth of a Nation, which is filmed at that very moment or some months later: here there are none of those close-ups, nor those montage displays with which Griffith and so many pioneers created a new cinematic rhythm. But it is precisely that kind of minimalism, which so contrasts with the exuberance of the plot, that is so interesting to us. At Fantômas we realize how each shot responds to an intention and a director's choice. And of course, we find it infinitely more modern than any Griffith movie.

Fantomás is Feuillade's masterpiece, far superior to the currently best-known Les vampires (also a wonderful film). There is here a much greater artistic will, the planning of the sequences is much more ingenious, the atmosphere much more sinister and mysterious, the plots more interesting and the interpretation is infinitely superior (especially René Navarre as Fantomas, but in general the entire cast , which shows a measure totally removed from the histrionics unjustly associated with silent films, but which are so annoying in Griffith's cinema), the composition of shots much more suggestive. In addition, here you do not have to suffer the stupid comic moments of the unbearable Marcel Lévesque as Mazzamette in Les Vampires, or Georges Bicot in Tih Minh; here nobody make faces at the camera, and the characters move through the frame with ease and naturalness.

One aspect of Feuillade's style that seems essential to me is how he takes advantage of his own conventions to devise his most brilliant successes, to create beautiful moments of suspense.

For example, the viewer of Feuillade is used to those long still shots that always include a lot of information and where there is rarely an element that is not useful in the narrative. What can we think, therefore, in the room of the Bourrat pension where the young Elisabeth Dollon resides, of that huge wicker trunk that covers almost the entire lower right corner of the image? A trunk that is also large enough to hide a person.

The characters enter the room, pass by that trunk, look at it, turn their backs on it, sometimes open it. The scenes in the room follow one another, and as it usually happens with Feuillade, scene after scene, the shot is the same, and there is that trunk that we know at some point will serve a purpose.

Every time Elisabeth sits down to write with her back to that trunk, we hope that one of Fantômas's sinister hooded men will come out of it. But scene after scene, Feuillade deceives us. That huge trunk is useless.

It takes a quarter of an hour (and in Fantômas, a quarter of an hour is a long time and goes a long way) for us to know the function of that trunk; and in this case it is used by both the good and the bad: first the journalist Fandor hides in him when during his nocturnal investigations Fantomâs and his henchmen break into the room; and then Fantômas uses it to get all of Elisabeth's belongings out of the pension ... and poor Fandor as well.

But the trunk still stars in another scene, in this case one of the best shots of the entire series.

It is a general view of a room. The shot, unlike that of the pension, now shows an apparently empty room, with only one door. We see how the Fantômas team places the trunk in the middle of the room and leaves. There is a short shot of the hall so that we can see that they leave the apartment. Then we go back to the room. There is a difference that draws our attention in this shot, it is not pendicular to the back wall, but is directed at a corner of the room, so that we are aware that the frame has left an important part of the room out of the shot.

In detail, we see how Fandor cuts the side of the trunk with his knife to get out.

Again in the general view of the room we see how Fandor gets out of the trunk and sits on its lid.

It is a moment of relief, we think that Fandor is safe, since the criminals have left the apartment. Fandor calmly turns his gaze around him, looking at the entire space of the room to his left, in front of him (that is, behind the camera), without finding anything that bothers him, until turning his head completely to the right changes his expression. At the same time the camera makes one of the few very privileged movements that we will find in the film. And if Feuillade does not waste the smallest space in his frames, he does not waste the smallest reframing either.

That little movement of the camera uncovers Thomery's corpse, closing one of the several subplots of the film. And for greater filigree, we can understand now, if at first viewing we noticed, that gesture of Fantômas indicating something off-camera to his henchmen, when they deposited the trunk in the room.

It is a miracle that only three shots, the repeated general view of the room, a view of the hall when Fantômas's group enters and leaves the apartment, and a detail shot of the side of the trunk when Fandor cuts it with his knife, serve to create so much mystery and so much suspense.

Another prodigious moment in the film is the assassination attempt in the Paris sewers. One of those sinister shots that is repeated at various points in the film, always related to the criminal activity of Fantômas. A plane where everything is used again, the cat ladder that leads down to the Paris sewers from the basement of the criminal Toulouche's shop, the space where the missing corpse of the painter Dollon previously lay, the remains of the blood of the mutilated body on the ground, the tunnel through which the waters flow into the Seine in the background, where we see a very illuminated and inoffensive Parisian building and from where the scene is dimly lit. The film, with wonderful tints, bathes the shadows that move in the dark and that stand out against the sky of the enormous mouth with a bluish coloration.

Although this time there are few of the wonderful scenes shot outdoors (as always privileging them only makes them more interesting), there are mysterious investigations around the rooftops of Paris in the dark (in Les vampires, Feuillade will once again use the roofs of Paris), and a magnificent reunion on the banks of the Seine.

In short, a wonderful film, the best of the series (along with the second), and the masterpiece of one of the great masters of silent cinema. After three extraordinary films, the fourth and fifth are a very clear decline in quality.

Gaumont's restoration is impressive and includes an extraordinary soundtrack.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Worst of the Fantomas series
joenook16 May 2014
Despite the rave reviews from the other fans on here, I feel compelled to speak some truth and even this out a bit from a more objective standpoint. While this is indeed the longest of the Fantomas films--or serials, really. While the first two films move at a fairly quick pace, the third plays as more of a mystery, with Fantomas rarely on the screen. This is especially a shame, as he now finally dons his Executioner hood, looking more diabolical than ever, yet he unfortunately has an estimated total of five minutes screen time with this new attire.

While the murder/mystery storyline is at first compelling and interesting, it quickly dissipates into a boring, convoluted mess. For starters, gone is Fantomas' disguise gimmick from the beginning of the first two serials. While not imperative, it served as an interesting look into the titular evildoer himself with some impressive effects, and as sort of a recap of the character himself. The most egregious aspect of the film isn't the story itself, but Feuillade's bland, static direction. Scenes go on for far two long, with the average shot length well over thirty seconds. While the camera blocking is at times well placed in its execution, each and every scene drags, testing the viewer to keep focused on characters or actions that matter, most of which are simply superfluous.

While the resolution is quite grisly in the motives and actions of Fantomas himself, the ending feels anti-climactic and rushed compared to the previous outings of suspense and mystery. While it's a necessary film to view in the series, be warned, for it's also the worst.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Best of the Fantomas Series
Michael_Elliott5 March 2011
Le Mort Qui Tue (1913)

*** (out of 4)

Also known as THE DEAD MAN WHO KILLED and THE MURDEROUS CORPSE (the DVD title), this third entry in the five-part series runs the longest at 90-minutes and so far it's the best of the three. With Inspector Juve out of the way it's up to reporter Fandor (Georges Melchior) to try and locate Fantomas (Rene Navarre) and his crime ring. Jacques Dollon is behind bars where he's murdered only to have his body disappear shortly after wards but the crime takes an additional twist when we get another murder victim who has a fingerprint from Dollon on her. Of course it's important to know the information from the first two films but at the same time I think you could show this entry to people as is and they'd find themselves entertained. The added running time really allowed the writers to go into more details about some of the characters and we get several scenes that are expanded to let the action take its time so that we can get more development with the characters and this helps add to the drama. There are a couple twists and turns that I won't ruin but they're all handled extremely well and I really loved the final ten-minutes when things really start to pick up the pacing and gets you excited to see how the next two films are going to play out. Melchior appeared in the previous two films but this was the first time he got to be the star and he does a good job with it. He certainly makes his character interesting and helps keep the film moving. Navarre is perfectly comfortable with the role of Fantomas and we get some nice support from Luitz-Morat and Renee Carl. Feuillade's direction is a tad bit better than in the previous two films and I'd say he adds a nice touch a drama in several scenes including one beautifully shot sequence in a tunnel outside the jail. Even if you weren't bowled over with the first two films, this one here works well enough on its own to make it worth viewing.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed