Devil Doll (1964) Poster

(1964)

User Reviews

Review this title
71 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Possessed devil doll makes a nice little drive-in feature
macabro35727 September 2004
I actually liked this b/w low budgeter that made the rounds at the drive-ins back in the early-60s. It deserves better than the MST3K treatment since the acting isn't bad at all.

The Great Vorelli (Bryant Haliday) knows the art of transferring souls into inanimate objects, in the case a ventriloquist's dummy Vorelli uses in his stage act. He runs into rich, beautiful Marianne Horn (Yvonne Romain) and seeks to hypnotize her into marrying her and gain her inheritance. William Sylvester plays the reporter (and boyfriend) of Romain who's investigating Vorelli.

The ending fight scene between the dummy and Vorelli is unintentionally hilarious so I can see why MST3K picked it for an episode, but the rest of the film isn't played for laughs. Nice little twist when Sylvester walks in at the end of the fight.

The widescreen anamorphic Image DVD has both the Euro print with topless scenes, as well as the censored U.S. version. The poster named "35541m" has a pretty good rundown over the differences between the two written below. However, I should add that the Euro print is sharper and in slightly better shape than the U.S. print.

6 out of 10
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Devil Doll (1963) **1/2
JoeKarlosi21 February 2013
Effective British thriller about a cruel ventriloquist called The Great Vorelli (Bryant Haliday) who keeps the soul of his former partner imprisoned within the confines of his wooden dummy, Hugo. His latest intended female victim is one of the most stunning women to ever grace this planet, the gorgeous Yvonne Romain. There have been a number of such movies made about ventriloquist dummies that come to life and kill, but DEVIL DOLL is one of the more unsettling ones I've seen. The only drawback is, the film is shot with far too many tight closeups, making the film feel claustrophobic and TV-like. There is a US version and a "Continental" version available. The US version is preferable because it contains a scene that is crucial to the story, while the Continental version omits this sequence in favor of showing some unrelated topless nudity. **1/2 out of ****
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A step back in time
popgun95 January 2003
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.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alternate Continental version
35541m30 September 2002
The Image DVD of this film includes both the original release and an alternate Continental version. There are the following differences in the film.

(a) the initial opening credits are slightly different. The original print has a separate starring credit for Bryant Haliday "as the Great Vorelli" but the continental print credits William Sylvester above Bryant Halliday (sic). There are also some differences in the production company credits with an "Anglo-Amalgamated" credit missing from the Continental print.

(b) 41m14s to 44m40s

The scene between Haliday and Sandra Dorne in Haliday's dressing room (a fairly important scene in establishing Dorne's character and providing a motive for her later murder) which ends with them going into a side room for some (off-screen) sex is missing from the Continental print. Instead, an entirely new scene has been substituted (16s longer in total) which shows Haliday's stage act once more. In this new scene (which does not appear in the original version and was especially filmed for the Continental print) he invites a woman on stage and hypnotizes her into performing a striptease which continues at length until the woman is topless.

(c) 48m15s

A shot of Dorne turning in her sleep is filmed in an alternate cut in the Continental print to show more of her exposed breast.

(d) 48m54s

In the follow-up shot of Hugo approaching to stab Dorne the Continental print has an alternate take in which you see her exposed breast.

(e) 49m47s to 51m07s

Sylvester has a phone conversation with an American colleague in Berlin. This man is accompanied by a young woman who fiddles with her hair and sits on his bed. In the theatrical print she is wearing a bikini and a see-through negligee. The Continental print is an alternate take in which she (the same actress) is topless.

In my view the original cut is definitely superior because the deletion of the dressing room scene from the Continental print (and its replacement by the gratuitous striptease) makes Dorne's subsequent murder abrupt and seemingly arbitrary - the character had also been hanging around the periphery of the action waiting for an appropriate exposition scene to explain her that, in this version, never comes.
45 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No Devilled Ham for the Devil Doll
Oosterhartbabe29 November 2005
gray, drab bit of English fare about an evil ventriloquist(are there any other kind?) and his dummy Hugo, who's toting around the disembodied soul of a German guy.

The storyline wasn't bad, but unfortunately it was burdened with long sequences of no action interspersed with some interesting bits. Also, there were some truly repulsive moments, like when the ventriloquist Verelli gets it on with his aging, cigarette smoking assistant who lets her butt hang out all the time. Which of them is more repulsive is a question left to the ages. Also, the scene where Verelli hypnotizes a pretty young English girl into going to bed with him(the only way he could ever get her to touch him, obviously)is totally shudder worthy, and the German guy Hugo(when he was still alive)walking around in tights so tight you can tell what religion he is was a scene to make you close your eyes in horror.

The basic story, which is only about thirty minutes long(the other hour and a half is dedicated to long scenes of people talking and smoking), is that Verelli used ancient Tibetan techniques to separate his German assistant's soul from his body. He then killed the body, and stuffed the soul in his puppet. Why he did this is anyone's guess, since him fighting with the dummy doesn't really liven up the act. Well, it's been ten years or so, and he's doing his show in England. He hypnotizes a young heiress, meaning to marry her, steal her money, and kill her. He'll then put her soul into a doll as well, apparently because he thought that Hugo needed a wife or something. His only opponent is an ineffectual American journalist, a man so stupid that he thinks the heiress(who he's engaged to) would really fall for a man with a creepy stare, a crepe beard, and an ugly pock marked face, not to mention an oily, sinister manner.

This chump realizes that the doll spoke to him, telling him to go to Germany and find out what happened in the past. He does so, speaking to Verelli's other ex-assistant, a truly depressed looking German woman. Then he flies back to England to confront Verelli and break his hold over the heiress. But he's too late as usual, as Hugo takes care of the whole thing by himself. Outacted by a puppet..that is very, very sad. And the puppet saves the day, as well, while you're fiddling around with your cigarettes. Who's got the wooden head here? You decide..
11 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Why is the doll locked up every night?
lastliberal29 May 2008
Janus Films (now part of The Criterion Collection) can be credited with helping to introduce American audiences to the films of Ingmar Bergman, François Truffaut, Michelangelo Antonioni, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa and many other well-regarded directors. What has that to do with this? Is it a classic? No, the lead actor in this film, The Great Vorelli, Bryant Haliday was a co-founder of Janus Films in 1956.

He stars in a really creepy film. There is an air of sophistication about it, and I am sure that Haliday had something to do with that. Vorelli uses his mesmerizing powers to get Marianne (Yvonne Romain) and it works like a date-rape drug. He is not after sex, but money, but, off-camera...

Asthe intrepid reports (William Sylvester) rushes to dig up the dirt before Marianne is killed, we wait with bated breath.

No nudity, no blood, just classic horror.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Woo! Devil doll!
BandSAboutMovies25 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Lindsey Shotneff may have been born in Canada, but he made the majority of his films in the UK. Most famously, he co-wrote and directed the James Bond ripoff License To Kill in 1965, which was released in the U.S. as The Second Best Secret Agent in the Whole Wide World.

In 1977, when there was a publicity battle between who owned James Bond - Albert R. Broccoli (The Spy Who Loved Me) vs. Kevin McClory (the projected James Bond of the Secret Service) - Shonteff made No. 1 of the Secret Service (AKA 008 of the Secret Service), Licensed to Love and Kill and Number One Gun.

He also made the horror film Night After Night After Night about a killer transvestite judge, the groupie film Permissive (it has the Collinson twins from Twins of Evil in it), The Yes Girls and The Big Zapper as well as its sequel, The Swordsman.

This movie got an X rating when it first came out, if you can believe that. Its original director was going to be Sidney J. Furie, who went on to make Iron Eagle and The Entity.

The Great Vorelli and his dummy Hugo perform before packed audiences in London, despite the strange tension between the two of them. Yes, more tension than is usually present in a dummy and performer relationship. Vorelli is played by Bryant Halliday, who did acting as pretty much a hobby, as his true job was running the 55th Street Playhouse in New York and using it as the primary location for exhibiting films distributed by the company he co-owned, Janus. Those films included works by Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa and Michelangelo Antonioni.

American reporter Mark English (William Sylvester, Dr. Floyd in 2001 A Space Odyssey) wants to know more, so he gets his girl Marianne (Yvonne Romain, The Curse of the Werewolf) to go to another show with him. Of course, Vorelli hypnotizes her and makes her dance the Twist. He's a Svengali who wants to hypnotize her and make her his. And oh yes - Hugo is pretty much alive.

This movie is based on a tale that Frederick E. Smith wrote for London Mystery Magazine in 1951, earning ten pounds for its sale and giving up any rights. Then again, it's also ripped off from the segment in Dead of Night, that has a killer doll named, you guessed it, Hugo.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Soul-shifting ... For dummies!
Coventry19 January 2008
Hey, what's with the ridiculously low and miserable rating of not even 3 out of 10? I ventured into this film without checking its title page on IMDb, which is something I rarely ever do, but now I'm glad, otherwise I probably would have passed an missed out on a fairly engaging, original and chilling little 60's gem. Perhaps the low rating is linked to the fact that this is another film that undeservedly received the feared and notorious MST3K-treatment, which tends to hugely influence viewers opinions, but it really isn't such a bad film albeit admittedly a bit derivative and suffering from a lack of budgetary means. But at least the film is atmospheric. Like clowns, ventriloquist dummies have some sort of uncanny aura surrounding them and the more you look at them, the scarier they become. Director Lindsay Shonteff ("The Million Eyes of Sumuru") clearly realized this as well, because he stuffed his film with extended still shots of dummy. It's strangely unsettling because you're staring at something lifeless, yet you somehow feel like he's staring back at you. The script of "Devil Doll" also centers on another eerie surreal phenomenon apart from ventriloquism, namely hypnotism. The Great Vorelli has a successful act where he hypnotizes people on stage and then ends with his dummy Hugo, a dummy that can not only talk and pull menacing grimaces, but also walk all by himself! The skeptical journalist Mark English is intrigued with the act, and whilst he's trying to unravel the mystery of Hugo's ability to walk, Vorelli has set his mind on conquering the heart and soul of Mark's enchanting fiancée Marianne, whether she wants to or not. The revelation of the mysterious dummy's secret is ingenious and I don't think I've seen this type of twist in any other movie ever before. The acting performances are good, notably Bryant Haliday's sinister role of the Great Vorelli is memorable, there's a constant atmosphere of tension and Hugo is one scary Pinocchio! If you come across this film, please do ignore the bashing reviews and low scores and give it a chance. It may be not nearly as good as other wicked-dummy movies, like "The Great Gabbo" and the downright brilliant short segment in the horror anthology "Dead of Night", but it's unquestionably a worthwhile 60's horror effort.
45 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Fine Little Horror Film
Chance2000esl18 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This a fine little British horror film, with an engaging story, good to great acting, suspenseful music and wonderfully composed photography; it is only slowed down by a few too long sequences (Marianne on stage doing the Twist; English's frequent repetitive conversations with Doctors Keisling and Heller).

At first you think, "Oh no, not another ventriloquist and his dummy story!" Even if living doll films haven't been ruined for you by 'Chuckie' movies, this one has a unique spin, though the main theme is really how the ventriloquist, the Great Vorelli (played with great sinister tones by Bryant Halliday), uses hypnotism to try to control (and marry) the rich and beautiful Marianne Horn (played by Yvonne Romain), originally in love with American newspaperman Mark English (well played by Dr. Heywood Floyd of '2001' (1968) himself, William Sylvester).

Unlike the classic dummy story in 'Dead of Night' (1945), here Vorelli, after years of study of the arcane in Tibet and the Orient, has succeeded in transferring the soul of one of his stage assistants into the wooden frame of his dummy Hugo. English finally uncovers Vorelli's past in Germany where he had effected the transfer. After Vorellli puts Marianne into a hypnotic coma prior to transferring her to a new female dummy, Hugo leaps into the act when English suddenly bursts in upon Vorelli.

The film is notable more for its well composed close up photography, suspenseful tympani playing that heightens the tension, and great acting by Halliday, who barely did any acting after this; he was one of the founders of Janus films, and then moved to France. Yvonne Romain can be seen in 'Circus of Horrors' (1960) and as the jailer's daughter in 'Curse of the Werewolf' (1961). And then there's William Sylvester, also in 'Gorgo' (1961) who does a fine job.

Go with the film despite the cheap looking opening titles. I'll give it a 5.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
How could this film have a rating of 2.9? It's an excellent horror film.
planktonrules26 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
DEVIL DOLL is a British horror film from 1964 and should not be confused with the exceptional film, THE DEVIL DOLL which starred Lionel Barrymore in 1936. Both films are worth seeing but their plots have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

When I went to rate this film, I was shocked that it had a score of only 2.9--indicating it is a "stinker" of a film. However, having just watched the film I can assure you that despite a relatively low budget, it was exciting throughout and is one of the better horror films of the 1960s. Sure, the doll (a ventriloquist's dummy to be exact) did look a bit cheesy, but amazing special effects in horror films are only a recent invention--moviegoers could easily be expected to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the film like I did.

The film is about an evil hypnotist/ventriloquist named 'The Great Vorelli' and menacingly played by Bryant Haliday. Not only does he have an amazing act where his dummy appears to be able to walk and talk on its own, but he's also a great stage hypnotist. However, people do not realize that his doll is actually possessed AND his hypnotic powers are far stronger--such that he's able to control people. When he meets a rich and sexy lady, he's able to get her to fall in love with him and agree to marry him. Her fiancé is naturally NOT pleased with this and suspects Vorelli's powers are far more diabolical in nature. He's right about this but no one suspects he actually plans on killing the beautiful woman after he marries her, so I assume Vorelli is either crazy or gay.

The film excels at creating a creepy and menacing atmosphere throughout and fortunately, the film also manages to end very well--with this evil jerk getting a taste of his own medicine. All in all, a very good film and I still have no idea why it's scored so low.

PS--Unfortunately, you cannot use hypnosis to do any of the evil things Vorelli does in the film. It's a pity, really, as I am trained in hypnosis and would love to use it for evil (or at least to make my boss come to work naked). If only it were possible....
20 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Why the need for a fake beard?
bensonmum231 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Devil Doll is one of those movies that, while it will never be confused with a masterpiece of horror, is effective in its on little way. Though the story is often predictable, it's creepy enough to provide a few chills along the way – not scary, just creepy. Ventriloquist dummies like Hugo have always given me the heebie-jeebies and when you give them a soul, a mind of their own, and the ability to move (not to mention a knife), it's the stuff of nightmares as far as I'm concerned. Finally, in the case of Devil Doll, the ending really works as the villainous Great Vorelli gets what he deserves. Though nowhere near as effective as the ending of Freaks, it's very reminiscent of that film's finale. On the downside, Devil Doll would have probably worked better at 60 minutes instead of 81. Not that there's an abundance of obvious padding, but there's hardly enough material to fill the extra 20 minutes. The acting is nothing to write home about. While Bryant Haliday is effectively villainous, William Sylvester is a complete bore as the film's hero. One thing that I really don't understand is the need for Vorelli to wear the fake beard. I mean no one was chasing him so why the need for a disguise? It's not really a criticism, just an odd observation. Lastly, it would have helped Devil Doll had the script given Yvonne Romain a little more to do. Her talents are wasted walking around in a trance for most of the movie.

Devil Doll is another of those films that I've seen both with and without the Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary. And while I enjoy the movie on its own, it makes for a really good MST3K episode. Some very funny riffs and some solid host segments. I'll rate the movie a 5/10 but give it a 4/5 on my MST3k rating scale.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Top-Notch, Economy Class Thriller,
Pem-331 August 1998
"Devil Doll" may not be the crown jewels, but it is a small gem, and a very enjoyable horror tale. Except for a few slow-moving scenes in newspaper offices, it is well acted, directed and photographed, with great use of lighting and close-ups to build tension and enhance the mystery. We never actually see any violence, but Hugo, the little dummy, is truly frightening. You will even find yourself sympathizing with his plight, as we do with Frankenstein's and other monster "bests." Billed an "underrated, exquisitely-tailored sleeper" in Maltin's movie guide (4 out of 5 stars), this effort shows what can be done on a small budget by good craftsmen and professional performers; it is a better movie than 99 percent of the full-color and full-gore horrors being produced today. Don't confuse it with the 1936 Tod Browning classic, " 'The' Devil Doll," which is a completely different story.
29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Surprisingly Winning Entertainment
ferbs5423 December 2007
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.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
There are much better movies of this genre available
eichelbergersports18 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Movie is an Associated Film Dist. Corp. release of a Galaworld Ldfilm-Gordon Films production, directed by Lindsey Shonteff, and tells the story of a ventriloquist who is outwitted by his dummy. This plot has been done better many times before including the "Twilight Zone's" version, "The Dummy," The Great Gabbo (1929)," and "Michael Redgrave's segment in the chilling, "Dead Of Night" from 1949.

You know it's going to be bad, though, because picture takes place in England, and the headliner is the pale, gaunt, pock-mocked loser from "The Projected Man," Bryant Haliday, the poor man's Anthony Cardoza. Also on the menu is the pudgy, laconic William Sylvester, who has appeared "Riding With Death" and "Gorgo," as well as "2001: A Space Odyssey."

Haliday plays "The Great Vorelli," a ventriloquist with a tacky beard and a dummy named Hugo that can perform amazing routines, such as walk towards the audience and eat ham. The act basically consists of Vorelli berating the dummy and arguing with it like a second-grader (saying things like "The sawdust in your stomach will explode," and "You're ugly.").

Vorelli then ingratiates himself into a rich family with an above-average-looking daughter (for Britain), Marianne (Yvonne Romain). He hypnotizes her to fall in love with him, which makes her "boyfriend," reporter Sylvester, pout like a little baby.

Here's my gripe with that. It seems in a lot of these films, the hero is someone who doesn't deserve it. Like the reporter is "Teenagers From Outer Space," among others. They get the girl with no effort, while the villain, or alien, in some cases, in much more interesting.

Here, Vorelli is homely, deeply disturbed and psychotic, but he's light years more intriguing than the dullard Sylvester - which makes me wonder what a normal-looking woman would see in him in the first place. And as much pawing and groping as Vorelli does to his assistant, the brief make out scene between Sylvester and Romain is nauseating beyond description.

Anyway, Sylvester, with the help of several pug-ugly Brits, discovers that Hugo is embodied with the spirit of a murder victim from Berlin. However, Sylvester's obsession with Hugo borders on the perverted and makes you want to slap him around, especially during the scene where he sneaks in a room to fondle it.

A lame fight at the end (not unlike the one that concludes "Santa Claus Conquers The Martians"), however, causes Hugo to become "alive" and take Vorelli's place, while the audience is left feeling sad and empty, not unlike Vorelli's sex life or Hugo's cranium.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
DEVIL DOLL (1964) - Image DVD Review
Bunuel197614 June 2004
A beautifully-crafted low budget shocker which has unfortunately been overlooked in view of the classic 'Ventriloquist's Dummy' episode from the horror compendium film, DEAD OF NIGHT (1945; episode directed by Alberto Cavalcanti). Actually, it bears very few similarities to it: the dummy may be called Hugo as in the earlier film (though DEVIL DOLL was in fact based on a short story written by Frederick E. Smith), but here we have the ventriloquist who is doing the mind-controlling and the dummy who is subservient to him, whereas in the 1945 film it was the other way around.

Some dated elements like the dance number early in the film (couldn't they have thought of something more sinister as a way of making the heroine, Yvonne Romain, fall under the hypnotist's spell?) are not enough to spoil DEVIL DOLL's very effective suspense sequences, especially whenever The Great Vorelli and Hugo get to share the screen. Performances are generally adequate (including William Sylvester as the requisite American 'star') but Bryant Halliday obviously dominates the film as the villainous Vorelli. Reminiscent of John Barrymore in SVENGALI (1931), his sheer magnetic presence makes one wish he had made more films of the caliber of DEVIL DOLL. (On a side note, we DVD Maniacs should also feel obligated towards him for his capacity as co-founder of Janus Films, 'home owner' of The Criterion Collection!)

Some critics find the film a bit flat, almost like a made-for-TV film: it does have a tendency towards showing the actors in close-up but this, as explained in the commentary, was more due to budgetary limitations than to a conscious choice of film-making style adopted by the director; furthermore, the plot's very dependence on various states of emotion on the characters' part makes the intimacy of it all entirely appropriate!

Which brings us to the ending: though unconvincing in detail (Vorelli's transference of souls gradually took place over a period of months but here it happens in a flash!), the impact of it is undeniable and makes for a hugely satisfying climax to a wonderful little film, a genuine sleeper and now regaining some well-deserved momentum with Image Entertainment's excellent DVD release.
41 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
One of the better MST3Ked Films
Medacakathareal25 June 2008
Unlike most failed attempts at horror this film actually does succeed in being creepy (if you're as creeped out as I am at a living ventriloquist dummy)... Its not nearly as terrible as most of the films done on the hilarious show Mystery Science Theater 3000 in that it's actually 'scary' and is one of the earliest examples of the animate doll/dummy/toy concept in film. It has an eeriness about it that can get to you a little. The acting isn't awful, the dialog isn't always awful, and the film is creepy thus my giving it an almost passing grade of 5 out of 10...

The movie may not be completely terrible, but its not good either as the MST3K version points out... And what's with his assistant's constant lack of pants, it might make sense if she were a stereotypically attractive magicians assistant but they apparently couldn't afford on of those...

If you get really bored, watch it, if you can't find a copy there's always the MST3K version...
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Boring and very dated; stay far away
LoneWolfAndCub4 December 2007
Went to a video store, read the back and thought to myself that this would be a very interesting and possible scary British horror movie. Unfortunately I was completely wrong. This boring, stupid little horror movie has many things wrong with it. The acting is incredible bad and hokey, no one gives a decent performance. The story is very silly and has many odd little flaws some of which I'm confused that the director actually allowed to happen. The music was incredibly bad and the ending was unintentional comic genius.

The only good thing in this abysmal movie is the creepy doll. But a creepy doll does not make a good movie.

1/5
5 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The devil is in the details
bkoganbing28 February 2021
American expatriate actor Bryant Halliday plays an amazing vaudeville performer in Devil Doll. A ventriloquist he's got himself a most realistic dummy which can on command get up and move about the stage quite on its own. It's gotten him an invitation to a charity event where he plans to kidnap pretty heiress Yvonne Romain and make her his own.

Halliday is a mesmerizer as well as a ventriloquist. A many talented mad scientist indeed He's got Romain under his thumb and there's a real ood reason the dummy has a will of its own.

Another mad scientist with a libido out of control film. It's eminently resistible.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pretty Good
danl5728 November 2006
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.
19 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
There's more than just one wooden performance in this dull thrilless melodrama.
mark.waltz12 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This is a perversion filled British horror film that has so many stretches of nothing going on, I'm surprised that I didn't fall asleep. As an evil ventriloquist, Bryant Halliday recites each line as if he was reading it from the script for the very first time. He uses his truly hideous looking dummy to manipulate audience members, especially the attractive and vulnerable women, into doing his bidding. His motivation? To get his hands on the estate of a wealthy innocent girl (Yvonne Romain) who has come to see the show, manipulating her boyfriend (William Sylvester) into nearly being killed, and plotting to marry her, escape to Italy then kill her and inherit her money. But the dummy seems to have a mind all of its own, and does its best to take control.

This hit the nadir of bad taste when Halliday manipulates a young audience member to strip down to her skivvies and bare her chest. The audience is forced to endure close-ups of her gyrating hips as she somehow goes from shy musician to vampy stripper, obviously having some knowledge of how a strip tease works in spite of her prim-and-proper demeanor. The pacing is flat and it really does not come alive until the last few minutes, having a conclusion that while ingenius can't overcome the truly rancid first 75 minutes.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bravo! So, when's the encore?
lost-in-limbo29 November 2005
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.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Oddly quaint "thriller" mixes effective moments and boring ones
lemon_magic26 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I don't think I will ever regard "Devil Doll" as a classic or even a "good" film, but I have to admit that there is, in spots, some decent film making going on here.

The obvious comparisons for this movie would be to "Magic", "Child's Play" or even (for the real film buffs among us) "Dead of Night". Indeed this movie works many of those same visual aspects and themes. "Devil Doll" does have a good twist, though in that the dummy, who initially seems to be a sinister, evil figure, turns out instead to be a victim of the the ventriloquist (the "Great Vorelli"), rather than the usual way around. And Hugo (the dummy) manages to turn the tables on Vorelli at the very last moment (in an unintentionally hilarious fight scene that will make you snort milk out your nose).

"Devil Doll" also reminds me of "She Creature", another black and white horror manqué about a hypnotist/magician using his Svengali like powers to make a beautiful woman his slave. Same grainy black and white noir photography, same dreary staging and pacing, and the same morally repulsive villain locked in a struggle with a rather bland 'hero' for the soul of a beautiful woman.

I know all this sounds good, but alas, the execution is somewhat lacking. In spite of a very energetic opening orchestral introduction and enigmatic credit sequence, and some interesting acting choices and creepy individual scenes and close-ups, "Devil Doll" soon bogs down into an endless succession of scenes of people talking, smoking, talking, smoking some more, talking some more, mixed in with disturbing moments of Vorelli taunting the dummy, both on-stage and off.

Bryant Haliday and William Sylvester (as Vorelli and the chain smoking reporter hero "English", respectively) give this material their best shots. Unfortunately, Vorelli is an amoral creep, and English is bland and uninteresting. Every other character in the story is either a victim (the man whose spirit is stuffed into "Hugo" and his family, the girlfriend) or a dupe (all the audience members, Vorelli's stage assistant). So there isn't a whole lot here to root for. If Sylvester's character had been written to be more effective and interesting, maybe the movie might have had more energy to it.

Or maybe not. While some of the individual shots and closeups of Hugo, VOrelli, and English are quite effective, and while Haliday does a great magician/slime-ball, there is an aura of seediness and dreariness over all the proceedings that is compounded by smeared lighting and photography , and muffled, garbled sound design.(This might have been the fault of a bad print, I can't tell.) Seediness and dreariness might have been the feelings the filmmakers were trying to create - as I said, Vorelli is a human hairball, and the movie is essentially about him and his attempts to enslave a woman via hypnosis - but 90+ minutes of this atmosphere and pacing doesn't go down well to my modern American palette.

Still, if you keep your eyes open and your attention tuned, you will find some nice acting and some moody moments buried among the smothering farina of the screenplay. I wouldn't spend any money to buy this, but I would watch it on late night cable if nothing more interesting was on.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Did I see the same movie as the people rating it here?
VinnieRattolle28 December 2007
I've never been particularly enamored by IMDb's ratings system (most of my favorite films rank a 5 or 6), but currently rated at 2.8, this one has me completely baffled. I have to wonder if the low ranking comes from people who've seen the "Mystery Science Theatre" version and decided the film was utter crap. Perhaps if you have idiots mocking the film, that could sway your perception of it (haven't seen that version and I don't intend to).

Though it's not the first film to use the concept of a sinister living doll, it's one of the earliest and one of the best. The cinematography is absolutely exquisite, the story was fresh at the time, the acting is very good (despite the occasionally corny dialog), it's pretty well-paced and certainly involving. Perhaps most importantly, the titular doll is genuinely creepy. "Devil Doll" seems like it could have been an overlong episode of "The Twilight Zone" (which also had a few living doll stories) -- and by my logic, that's a huge compliment.

I'm glad that I'm not swayed by popular opinion. And it just reinforces my theory that many of the people ranking films on this site are adolescents and buffoons.
26 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Surprisingly fun killer doll effort
kannibalcorpsegrinder17 September 2012
After witnessing a ventriloquist's show with a seemingly-magical puppet, a reporter and his girlfriend get close to the performer but learn the deadly secret of his controlling the puppet and his deadly obsession with her.

A pretty inciting British killer doll film, though this is actually a bit more flawed than expected. Since the majority of the film revolves around the mystery of who the doll is and why he's able to be reanimated makes the film seem to drag to a crawl in the middle segments once the initial investigation is launched. As well, the whole reasoning for his obsession is incredibly weak and makes no sense as to really make an impression. There's still some good stuff here, including a genuinely creepy dummy that gets in some truly chilling moments, a creepy mystery that gets resolved and even some fun action in the finale that offers some great excitement overall. It's not that bad, but it does have some problems overall.

Today's Rating/PG-13: Brief Nudity and Mild Violence.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"Devil Doll"- Not to be confused with "Magic" or that one "Tales From the Crypt" episode with Don Rickles and Bobcat Goldthwait
zmaturin16 December 2002
"The Projected Man" star Bryant Haliday plays The Great Vorelli, a ventriloquist who loathes his horrible, stupid, smelly, ugly dummy Hugo. Their act consists of Vorelli denying Hugo luncheon meats and Hugo threatening Vorelli with a knife. Vorelli (or "Bud" to his friends) is also a budding hypnotist who can make people sweat a lot or dance like idiots with his amazing powers. Everyone is charmed by him, from old dowagers to... well, old dowagers. Everyone but American Mark English (William Sylvester of "Gorgo"/"Riding With Death" fame), an ace reporter who must, must, MUST learn the secret of Hugo!

This is a very depressing movie. Vorelli is an immensley unappealing character, yet we spend the bulk of the movie watching him. He's bewitched American Mark English's girlfriend and we get to watch her laying in bed sweating and moaning a lot, if that's your kind of thing. Every character in this seems on the verge of suicide.

Not a very good movie.
4 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed