Condemned to Live (1935) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
29 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Watch Out for the Wizard's Brother!
BaronBl00d11 September 2000
Ralph Morgan plays a kind-hearted doctor, known throughout his community for his wisdom and charity, that has a terrible secret he does not even know. It seems when he was born he was marked by a vampire bat....and now in his middle age the terrible strain of over-work has caused his affliction to surface. He passes out whenever total darkness envelops him and turns into a hideous monster that rips the throats of the townsfolk. This is a pretty good, ole creaky film from Invincible Films(?). It is a low-budget thriller to be sure, but has a lot of heart behind it and is quite a satisfying story. Ralph Morgan, brother of the Wizard of Oz'z Frank Morgan gives an interesting performance. He is adequate as a man torn apart with this terrible malady as he calls it. The rest of the cast is pretty good too with Mischa Auer standing out as a hunchback and Pedro de Cordoba excelling as a friendly doctor. What I really liked about the film was its rather blatant symbolism about the light and the darkness and how each brings out a different persona..
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fairly enjoyable movie
ChuckStraub21 March 2004
"Condemned to Live" is one of those movies that make you feel sorry for the monster. An unfortunate creature caught up in circumstances beyond it's control. The creature seemed to me to be a cross between a vampire and a werewolf although which one it actually is, is really unimportant to the movies plot. There is a nice assortment of characters and a romantic theme that goes along with the horror story. I thought that it was a pretty enjoyable movie. You do have to consider that it is a 1935 movie made by Invincible Pictures Corp. Old and probably a low budget film. You do have to like older movies to enjoy this one. I thought that it should have a rating of 5+ or a low 6 and decided on voting for the 6. It is worth seeing.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good story holds up despite aged film style
HEFILM14 June 2006
I'd never heard of this film but it's worth a look for those who can put up with 1930's style film-making and especially for genre fans.

The story has elements of Jeckyll and Hyde and it has psychological overtones of the main monster character that help it. These elements help keep it fresh despite the hunchback and dated directorial non-touches and lack of much on screen violence. But the aftermath of the killings and good acting of Ralph Morgan help. The final scene is suspenseful as well and of course the whole thing is over pretty quickly, but still manages, thanks for Karn DeWolf's script to pack in quite a bit of character complication.

Nice production values but the director, Frank Strayer, shows little flair. Then again he keeps things moving and the acting is good. Alpha Video copy I watched was "okay" looking a better source print is unlikely to turn up, but the movie deserves some restoration and recognition.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the wizard's brother
clore-29 December 2001
Ralph Morgan, the star of this film, is the brother of Frank Morgan, who played the Wizard of Oz. I just don't want anyone to be misled by the other reviewer's comment. Not that it has anything to do with this film, which is a most interesting film from a Poverty Row outfit. Partially shot on Universal sets from "Bride Of Frankenstein," the film has a most curious appeal. As with most sympathetic "monsters" the Morgan character is doomed - his mother was bitten by a vampire, and his engagement to a much younger woman has evoked his vampiric tendencies, which are more akin to lycantropy than vampirism. The equation is lustful desires bring out the beast, and in this rather subtle (it was made in 1936) implication, the script takes a few ideas from Bran Stoker and Guy Endore. Mischa Auer is also commendable in his role as a hunchback, loyal to Morgan, and who has been keeping Morgan from discovering the truth about himself.
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Vampire Cradle Robbing
wes-connors11 August 2008
"A small European village is the site of a series of horrible murders, thought to be the result of some vicious animal attacks. When the local doctor begins to look into the deaths, he discovers the victims were really attacked by some type of vampire-like creature. The doctor is also startled to find the he may be responsible for the deaths, due to a condition he acquired when his mother was attacked by a creature while pregnant with him," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

No need to wonder about the vampire's identity; it's given away during the first attack. Although the film goes to dullsville with the idea, it is intriguing to think about a plot involving the offspring of a pregnant female vampire victim. Instead of interesting, "Condemned to Live" bores. As does a "love triangle" involving older doctor Ralph Morgan (as Paul Kristan), fresh-faced fiancée Maxine Doyle (as Marguerite), and more age appropriate young Russell Gleason (as David). Ms. Doyle seems unrehearsed.

*** Condemned to Live (1935) Frank Strayer ~ Ralph Morgan, Pedro de Cordoba, Russell Gleason
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Horrible writing and acting sink this one...
planktonrules18 December 2017
Laid it on REAL thick about how good the prof was--repeated again and again very stilted Marguerite to marry older saint

I love old horror films, so the fact I disliked "Condemned to Live" so much really says a lot about the movie. After all, I should have loved it with its plot about a fiend draining the blood from innocents. But the writing and direction were so sluggish, it felt more like I was watching a community theater production instead of a movie.

The story begins with a prologue about some folks stuck on a hellish island with nasty natives and vampire bats. Soon the film skips ahead and folks are back home. There you learn that Professor Kristan (Ralph Morgan) is a saintly man, as folks repeat this about 800 times...just to make sure the audience knows. But it turns out the saintly Professor is struggling with inner demons....as well as overly melodramatic acting!

The lines are delivered poorly and the dialog itself is clumsy and unnatural. These, combined with sluggish direction, make watching this film a real chore. Dull beyond belief and a film that simply should have been much, much better.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Atmospheric little film that won't win any awards but is perfect as part of a horror fest on a dark and stormy night
dbborroughs14 August 2006
Vampiresque tale of a madman loose in a small village in the middle of the 19th century.Someone is tearing the throats out of villagers after dark. Who could it be and how does it relate to the events years earlier when a shipwrecked pregnant woman was bitten on the neck by a vampire bat? Well made melodrama with horrific overtones take many horror conventions and breathes just a bit of new life in them, Give this movie a good many points for daring to be different in its supernatural tinged tale. Add to it a great cast headed by Frank Morgan and Misha Auer (as a hunchback) and you get a fine little lost film. Sure it won't win any awards but as a movie to watch on a dark and stormy night with the lights on low its gangbusters Worth seeing, especially if you program a night of moldy oldie horror films.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Stagey but Pretty Good
Hitchcoc31 January 2007
The plot of this is very similar to another movie (I believe "The Vampire Bat). Still, it holds its own pretty well. The main character, Paul, was cursed from birth to become a horrible creature with bat-like tendencies. He rips the throats out of people and drinks their blood. He has no recollection of his actions. A young woman who admires him is engaged to marry him, even though he is twice her age (at least). His best friend is aware of what is happening and tries to intervene. He also has a hunchback assistant who tries to keep things from escalating. Eventually the murders are going to be investigated. The black and white film has a nice quality to it. The principle character is a kind man who has helped people for years, especially the downtrodden. He makes a very tragic figure. There is a bit of the Wolfman, imitating Lawrence Talbot. Of course, things must come to a proper conclusion. It's a little slow at times, but the gentle goodness of the characters, contrasted with the evil forced on them, makes it work.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
This movie needed a heart and a brain.
dfranzen7013 May 2019
This cheapie, shot on bargain-basement film stock, is Just Another Vampire Movie. There's a bespectacled doctor who doesn't know his mom was bitten by a vampire bat when she was pregnant with him, which I suppose is a new way to become a vampire. Anyway, when it's dark out, he tends to lose his senses and change into a vampire, kill someone via the ol' throat bite, and then wake up with no memory. His faithful, hunchbacked servant Zan knows his secret but protects said doctor, who loves a fair maiden but won't marry her because she doesn't love him back and then there's another doctor who kinda gets what's going on and another man who loves the fair maiden as well and is definitely better suited to marrying her and, finally, an angry mob. Like, angry all the time. Anyway, it's a tough movie to watch (it's very dark, literally), and it's not very good and quite derivative.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Genuinely spooky "B" film; One of the best of the Poverty Row's.
mark.waltz12 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
With a sense of style and storytelling not usually associated with the programmers like this, here is a Gothic horror tale that is a surprising delight. It all surrounds a kindly doctor (Ralph Morgan) who finds himself suffering from blackouts as a brutal vampire-like killer strikes in his small community. Morgan is in love with pretty Maxine Doyle, who admires him tremendously but is not in love with him in spite of being engaged to him.

As the list of victims increases, Morgan becomes more confused by his headaches, and his hunchback assistant (a touching Mischa Auer) keeps close tabs on him. Sets of some of Universal's best Gothic thrillers are utilized for this, adding some music from "White Zombie" into the mix. Haunting photography, above average performances (for this type of film) and strident pacing make this a must for classic horror fans.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
CONDEMNED TO LIVE (Frank R. Strayer, 1935) **
Bunuel197614 October 2011
To begin with, I acquired this only a couple of hours before I watched it; I was in no particular hurry to check it out but, knowing I had the somewhat similar DEVIL BAT'S DAUGHTER (1946) on the schedule anyway, I opted to go with this one beforehand since, of course, it came first. Not having been exactly impressed by the director's other, more popular genre work (namely THE MONSTER WALKS {1932} and THE VAMPIRE BAT {1933} which, again, this resembles quite a bit), I hardly expected the film under review to change matters; while presenting a novel (if silly) spin on the vampire theme, the approach is so stodgy as to defeat its purpose!

Here, in fact, we have a man (Ralph Morgan, who would return to the genre with a couple of somewhat better efforts i.e. NIGHT MONSTER {1942} and the recently-viewed THE MONSTER MAKER {1944}) who transforms – a' la Jekyll & Hyde and complete with inhuman slurping sounds – into a bloodsucker (actually preceding in this regard the 1957 THE VAMPIRE by more than two decades!) because his mother was bitten by a vampire bat during pregnancy. The irony is that, being an eminent doctor, the community looks up to him after every new attack (he is himself unaware of his nightly depredations which occur during periodic blackout spells – hilariously and repeatedly described as "swooning" to the point that the film has been disparagingly described by some as CONDEMNED TO LIVE aka I SWOONED!) As usual, he is about to marry a much-younger girl that is loved by another man, who is most vociferous about the fact that the fiend is human as opposed to supernatural.

Incidentally, what triggers Morgan off is complete darkness(!?), so that he has the townsfolk keep a candle burning at all times of the night…but, when he begins to feel the blackout coming during a visit to his girl, she unwisely turns out the lights one by one (which sends him off in a fury every time!). Eventually, a family friend of Morgan's comes along and he realizes that the doc is unsettled by his condition and, suspecting the truth, asks him to release the girl until he is cured. In the meantime, the attacks continue – with Morgan's devoted hunchback (future comic Mischa Auer who was also in THE MONSTER WALKS) always lurking behind to save his master from being apprehended as well as finding out about his true nature, even if this means that Auer is himself fingered as the vampire on more than one occasion!

Just as THE VAMPIRE BAT was filmed on standing sets from James Whale's much-superior THE OLD DARK HOUSE (1932; with which it had even shared leading man Melvyn Douglas), this one uses leftover scenery from that same genre master's BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) and, it seems to me, even some from his FRANKENSTEIN (1931), not that these are adopted in any imaginative way given CONDEMNED TO LIVE's relentlessly talky approach! In the end, Morgan bows out not by the traditional stake through the heart but by simply leaping, of his own free will, from a cliff…followed in quick succession by Auer himself (apparently, the latter saw no point in living if he cannot be with his beloved master – make of that what you will!). The film, then, is at least watchable for trying to be different but, ultimately, it emerges as nothing more than a curious footnote in the history of the (sub)genre.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Village Doctor discovers truth about the monster within himself
snicewanger3 September 2015
Condemned to Live story concerns a physician in a small village in Europe who is born a vampire because his mother was bitten by a vampire when she was pregnant with him. So his vampirism is an affliction rather than a curse.The doctor blacks out when he is overcome by his disease which occurs when night falls and when he awakens he has no memory of his actions. A Trusted college arrives and helps him finally realizes that he must be the vampire that is murdering the villagers for their blood.

Invincible Pictures was a poverty row studio but they did produce some watchable movies. Condemned to Live was one such movie. Eventually Invincible was absorbed by Republic Pictures.

Ralph Morgan was a notable character actor who became overshadowed by his more famous younger brother Frank. Ralph had roles in some big movies and quite a few "B" pics.He was often cast as weak or timid men. He really didn't project a strong enough personality to be an effective lead.

The acting is uneven. Maxine Doyle portrays the doctors much younger fiancé and her performance is flat and lifeless. Mischa Auer plays the doctor's hunchbacked servant who is loyal to a fault. Auer adds a little fire to the proceedings. The rest of the cast is professional enough.

Condemned to Live is an interesting take on the vampire legend but there are just too many plot holes and weak performances to make it a really good movie. The ending is kind of a downer as well. Still as I said it was a watchable film for horror buffs.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A European doctor is more than he seems.
michaelRokeefe2 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Professor Paul Kriston(Ralph Morgan) is a well liked and respected doctor in his tiny village. The beautiful Marguerite(Maxine Doyle)is willing to be his bride in spite of being in love with another man, David(Russell Gleason). The doctor has a hunchbacked servant(Mischa Auer);this is the clue that this is a horror flick. Kriston has suffered a vampire curse his whole life and is not even aware that he has a blood-sucking habit at night. Miss Marguerite discovers her fiancée's secret, only after she realizes she's actually in love with her other man. Things have already turned sinister.

This 30's chiller is directed by Frank Strayer. Other players include: Pedro de Cardoba, Lucy Beaumont and Carl Stockdale.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Decent
Michael_Elliott13 October 2008
Condemned to Live (1935)

** (out of 4)

A Professor (Ralph Morgan) learns that his mother was attacked by a vampire bat while pregnant with him and soon he begins to fear that he is the vampire stalking his small town. This film comes from the same director as The Vampire Bat, which was made two years earlier. If you enjoyed that Lionel Atwill film then you'll probably enjoy this one as well. For me, I didn't enjoy the previous film and this one here didn't work either, although there were a few interesting twists on the vampire legend. I think the biggest problem for the film is that it's pretty much all talk from start to finish without very much happening. Whenever something exciting does happen it's usually off screen and we only hear about it through more dialogue scenes. Morgan delivers a fine performance but the rest of the cast are rather boring. The direction is also off to the point where the film, for me at least, drags quite a bit and the 65-minute running time seems very long. I enjoyed the relationship between the Professor and a hunchback but this is about the only thing that worked for me. It's far from a really bad movie but it is rather slow and dull. It's also worth noting that the movie was shot on the same sets as Bride of Frankenstein.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Lacked Both Action and Suspense
Uriah4315 March 2016
This movie begins with a pregnant woman and two men hiding in a cave somewhere in Africa in order to escape being captured by warriors from a certain tribe. All of a sudden a large bat appears out of nowhere and bites the woman before being chased away. The film then fast-forwards to forty years later where a man by the name of "Professor Paul Kristan" (Ralph Morgan) is helping his fellow villagers resolve a recent spate of murders in which the victims have be totally drained of blood. To further assist him is his loyal servant, "Zan, the hunchback" (Mischa Auer), his fiancé "Marguerite Mane" (Maxine Doyle) and his old mentor "Dr. Anders Bizet" (Pedro de Cordoba) who has just recently arrived. Yet, in spite of their best efforts, none of them are quite able to find out who-or what-is killing the villagers. At least, not for the time being. At any rate, rather than reveal any more I will just say that this could have been a pretty good vampire film if it hadn't been so bogged down with repetitive dialogue and a lack of action. Likewise, the overall lack of suspense certainly didn't help this movie either. In any case, although I certainly don't consider this movie to be necessarily bad, I honestly don't believe it merits a high score either. That said, I have to rate it as slightly below average.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
"Until this dreadful thing is caught, shun the dark!"
richardchatten28 June 2019
Although an enormous bat is initially blamed, the Fiend ripping out peoples' throats after dark is a much messier eater than your average vampire, and it quickly becomes plain that the culprit is either a werewolf or a psycho-killer like the compulsive murderer in 'M'.

The film is slow and talky but Ralph Morgan brings his usual presence to the proceedings, and it all looks good thanks to sets and costumes plainly recycled from earlier productions. Also recycled is the faithful simpleton and red herring played a couple of years earlier in the same director's 'The Vampire Bat' by Dwight Frye, and this time by Mischa Auer.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Slow-going vampire story
Leofwine_draca21 May 2023
CONDEMNED TO LIVE (1935) is a low budget vampire horror made by Invincible Pictures, a studio hoping to rival the success of the Universal monster show. It even reuses some costumes and furniture from THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. The story, which is reminiscent of DRACULA, involves a village being plagued by strange deaths for which a giant vampire bat is blamed. But could there be a more human explanation?

This is a story that works on paper, with a heroic professor, a hunchbacked manservant, torch-wielding villagers running amok, and an array of unfortunate victims. As a film, it never really gets off the ground, feeling more staged and stately than even Lugosi's DRACULA. There's even a guy attempting a Bela accent in the cast. The mystery hinges on a plot twist which isn't too satisfying, and even with the drama of the climax it just sort of plods along.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A well-made film that is still entertaining.
doctorsmoothlove29 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Rating films as from this era can be quite challenging. American horror films of the 1930's are notorious for unbelievable special effects, degrading female acting, and incoherent plots. This film is no exception, but Condemned to Live is still entertaining due to the care with which it was made. It isn't Karloff's Frankenstein, but it's worth a viewing.

In an African cave, a pregnant woman is bitten by a vampire bat. It is implied that her child is born and sent back to a European village. He becomes a doctor and is quite respected in his town. This prestige has earned him the admiration of a young woman, Marguerite. However, Marguerite has fallen in love with her neighbor David, but feels obligated to marry doctor Kristan. Kristan is visited by a college, Dr. Bizet who discovers Kristan's affliction: he becomes ferociously violent when the lights are dimmed and has killed several people. Kristan does not recall any of these murders and thinks the culprit is a giant bat. He remains innocent due to his devoted hunchback, Zan, covering his outbursts. Both are discovered and commit suicide at the end of the film.

With such a short running time, a lot happens in Condemned to Live, and most of it happens too quickly. Despite the compressed time, the film develops an intriguing antagonist. Dr. Kristan is hell-bent on discovering the perpetrator of the murders, but is unaware of his involvement in them. While it isn't difficult to see this plot twist, Strayer's incorporation of Jeckyll and Hyde personality disorder and vampirism into Ralph Morgan's character add suspense to the film. Zan also shares traditional horror elements, with his inhuman devotion to his master and his shrunken appearance. These two also have a fitting end in their joined suicide. Kristan is a knowledgeable man, and he knows he must separate himself from the village in order to continue serving the people.

The special effects are also worthwhile and appear as realistic as one could expect from a film so old. The bat in the opening sequence doesn't appear fake given the film's age, which is unlike some films today (Army of Darkness is a modern film which incorporates absurdly unconvincing special effects). Morgan's portrayal as a bloodthirsty killer is also intriguing. He exhibits no obvious traits of being a vampire, but bites people as if he were. I interpret his desire to bite as a trait inherited from the bat which attacked his mother. This is why he prefers biting people on the neck, but isn't a real vampire.

I may have read too much into the film, but a good film allows an audience to do that. The film does suffer from a low budget, and certain parts of it are difficult to see. If you find a single disc version, I would suggest that you watch it, since I've had better success with them. I've read the plot summary for The Vampire Bat, and feel obligated to warn you that this film is similar but they both have around a 5.0 rating on IMDb. Yes, there are several holes in the plot, but I don't think I can fairly lower the film's score given its age. While Condemned to Live is dated, it is still a great way to spend 67 minutes of your time.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Who is the killer? Zan has a hunch.
BA_Harrison7 September 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Professor Paul Kristan (Ralph Morgan) is a kind, wise and good man, worshipped by the people of his village, especially by beautiful Marguerite (Maxine Doyle), to whom he is betrothed. BUT, he does have a hunchbacked assistant, which, in a horror movie, is as good as saying that the prof is the killer. The problem is, Kristan doesn't know he's the 'monster' responsible for tearing out locals' throats and drinking their blood: he suffers from a malady that makes him faint and forget what he has done, his sickness the result of his mother being bitten by a vampire bat when she was pregnant.

The superstitious locals believe that a giant bat is responsible for the deaths, but Marguerite's level-headed friend David (who has known her since school and is in love with her) doesn't believe this: he reckons that the killings are the work of a man.

A poverty row effort with a sympathetic monster, Condemned to Live evokes the tragic horror of The Wolf Man, which would follow six years later. As such, it makes a welcome change from mad scientists and genuinely evil villains, although revealing Kristan as the killer early on robs the film of mystery and reduces the horror, the only tension coming in the final act, when the professor is alone with Marguerite (and even then, we know she is going to be rescued). Director Frank R. Strayer struggles to keep the action moving at a reasonable pace due to an overly talky script (and stiff performances), and the visuals are uninspired and unmemorable.

The film ends in tragic fashion, with an angry mob pursuing hunchback Zan, who they believe to be the killer, only for Kristan to tell them that it is he who committed the murders. The prof then leaps to his death off a cliff, followed by his faithful assistant. Oh well, at least that leaves Marguerite free to hook up with David, the lucky so-and-so.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
sexual pathology, repression (the girl's inhibitions mirror the professor's), thoughtful storyline, bland leads
Cristi_Ciopron26 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
'Condemned …' doesn't repeat Strayer's earlier movie about bloodsucking in a peaceful village. The story lines are unlike. This one should of been both more romantic and unnerving. 'The Vampire Bat' wasn't about _vampirism, but about crazy science, an insane scientist, hypnosis, a henchman …. 'Condemned …' is about _vampirism, it has much more drama (which would of required a better cast), no comedy. It brings a natural explanation to _vampirism, and in both movies the _vampirism is related only to bloodsucking, but not to any unholy things whatsoever. Here, there's no copper, but a rival. For those who complain about humor in suspense movies, we are completely spared of it, the chills are straight.

A peaceful village, a cave and its pit …. Also, the villagers with torches. The eeriness in both is basically natural: a disease here (and the giant bats are real, though they live in the depths of Africa), the hypnosis in the earlier movie.

The script depends much more on drama (and here, the cast dis-serves it), not at all on comedy, Kristan, as played by R. Morgan, is wholly bland, though doomed, a bland altruist stricken by a disease; Maxine Doyle is banal, and more naughty and knowledgeable than a village ingénue. The cast has Auer, whose role was smaller than advisable; in an earlier movie, also by F. Strayer, he had been the illegitimate son of a wealthy man, and made a good role. The script offers a romantic drama, but Kristan (one of the medicine professors who practiced in peaceful villages) should of been more keenly characterized, while Maxine Doyle looks nothing like her role. When the stepfather Bizet arrives, the professor seems surprised, though he had informed his guest about his plans to marry. And the denouement in the cave comes off as less grand than needed, with the villagers turned suddenly into a sympathetic crowd.

So, in a sense, Frank Strayer did return to his peaceful village, but to shoot an entirely different tale. Here, the names are fancier: Kristan, Bizet …. In fact, Strayer tries here a new thing, positively strives not to repeat himself, to acknowledge another template, for a dissimilar plot. The supporting players, mainly Auer, but also the foster father and the girl's father, upstage the leads. The overtones of sexual pathology perhaps required better scenes, according to later criteria; but within the age's code, the dissonances are spelled as explicit as possible (the manservant Zan is a double of the professor, and like a son, signifying the inner deformity; the girl is another double, not inner, not interiorly, but as mirroring his repression and denial).

'Condemned …' is a movie about _vampirism understood as a disease; it also links this illness with morbid sexuality, the girl's bland sentimentality, guessed by both Bizet and the professor's rival, mirror the vampire's unacknowledged _pulsions, and both the professor and his fiancée are trapped in an unhealthy relationship to deny their genuine leanings (wholly morbid, his; entirely sane and ordinary, hers). The paternity plays an important role: Bizet is the professor's foster father, the professor himself is like a foster father to Zan, the oaths of the girl's father prove worthless. So, the seeming paradox is that this movie will at once endear Strayer's fan, and disappoint slightly; as its style is what at once endears, and proves insufficient. The script could of been better, though it's uncanny enough as such; but even with the one given, a better cast was needed, one more glamorous and striking. The earlier movie had been a sure recipe, and meant as such; the later one tries a new territory: gloomy drama, and it needed a dependable cast, and even Auer, underused here, had been better filmed by the very same director.

There's a bit of effective music I recognized from another '30s chiller.

R. Morgan and Maxine Doyle weren't the most enjoyable leads. The professor comes across as not only understandably weakened, but positively repugnant and lecherous. In an earlier Strayer movie, Auer had been much better showcased.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Poverty Row Cash In
JoeB13121 November 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Before there was The Asylum and the Mockbuster, there was Poverty Row and their quick imitation movies. Cashing in on the popularity of Universal's Dracula, this movie is about a man whose parents were hiding out in a cave in Africa from some angry natives (that hasn't aged well), and a vampire bat bites the woman. (Clearly, the writers didn't know vampire bats are from South America, not Africa.

Flash forward to the present day, and the baby has grown up to be a respected professor who tells the dumb peasants of this town how to live their lives. But by night, he creeps out and drinks blood. He's tragic because he doesn't know he's doing this. Put in there a love triangle with a girl who wants to marry him for status and not really love and a hunchback who covers up evidence of the murder, and you still have... a pretty dull melodrama from the days when movies were more like stage plays than movies.

Worth a watch? I guess if you are into film history.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
From bland to menacing.
JohnHowardReid12 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Ralph Morgan (Professor Kristan), Maxine Doyle (Marguerite Mane), Pedro de Cordoba (Dr Bizet), Russell Gleason (David), Mischa Auer (Zan), Lucy Beaumont (Mother Molly), Carl Stockdale (John Mane), Heida Shope (Anna), Marilyn Knowlden (Maria), Paul Weigel (doctor), Edward Cecil (Manservant), Ted Billings (bell ringer), Charles Slim Whitaker, Harold Goodwin, Dick Curtis, Frank Brownlee, Horace B. Carpenter (villagers), Jean Handel (old crone). PROLOGUE: Barbara Bedford (woman), Ferdinand Schumann-Heinck (man), Robert Frazer (doctor).

Director: FRANK R. STRAYER. Original screenplay: Karen DeWolf. Photography: M.A. Anderson. Film editor: Richard D. Reed. Art director: Edward C. Jewell. Music director: Abe Meyer. Title music composed by David Broekman. Production manager: Lon Young. Assistant director: Melville Shyer. Sound recording: Richard Tyler. Producer: Maury M. Cohen. Filmed on standing sets at Universal Studios.

Copyright 5 September 1935 by Invincible Pictures Corporation. U.S. release through Chesterfield: 15 September 1935. No recorded New York opening. 7 reels. 67 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: A small European village is terrorized by a monster bat.

COMMENT: Despite its second-string cast (only Maxine Doyle as the pretty heroine and Mischa Auer as the devoted hunchback make any sort of impression), this little "B" emerges as a fairly effective horror yarn, thanks to Strayer's suspenseful direction and Anderson's atmospheric lighting.

The sets are also highly effective, and I must commend the director's decision not to use wolfish make-up for the monster but to let the actor concerned register his transformation simply by changing his facial expression from bland to menacing.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Vampire Mystery
Rainey-Dawn24 May 2016
I liked this film to a degree: the idea of vampire bats, a murder mystery and a belief that one might be a vampire rolled into a film is a pretty neat idea 1935 and still is today.

The acting is good, fine. The story is just "okay" - nothing to really brag about but it's not a terrible film either. The biggest thing is it's easy to solve the mystery, so you are left watching the characters "solve the mystery" when you already know the answer - but it is kind fun watching them solve it.

Dr. Anders Bizet is played by Pedro de Cordoba - quite well I must add. But I have to admit I kept seeing John Carradine playing the role in my mind.

5.5/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Now, Go To Your Homes And Pray!"...
azathothpwiggins27 July 2021
CONDEMNED TO LIVE opens with a pregnant woman in a cave being bitten by a vampire bat.

Years later, the woman's son, Professor Kristan (Ralph Morgan) lives in a small village where several ghastly deaths have occurred. The victims have all been drained of blood. Kristan starts to wonder if he's been cursed by what happened to his mum.

Could he be the killer?

As the body count rises, the villagers grow increasingly paranoid, superstitious, and desperate.

This movie is similar in theme and plot to THE VAMPIRE BAT. Both films contain a series of unexplained deaths, suspected vampirism, mass hysteria, and a big twist.

Morgan plays his haunted role well, as does Mischa Auer as his faithful servant, Zan.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"There are stranger things upon this Earth than you could know of, Dave."
utgard1417 June 2017
A pregnant woman is bitten by a vampire bat. Years later, a village is terrorized by a series of murders and the woman's baby, now grown and a respected professor, believes he might be the killer. Is he a vampire? Probably not or else this might be more well-known.

Well this is interesting. A neat little (sort of) vampire movie I'd never heard of nestled away in 1935, the same year as Mark of the Vampire. Ralph Morgan stars as the professor. There's also a hunchback played by Mischa Auer. Shot on Universal sets, which helps a lot. Romantic subplot about a young woman (Maxine Doyle) in love with a guy while being engaged to Morgan's character, thirty years her senior, is a negative. Doyle was not a good actress. At least there was no annoying comic relief. The movie never quite lives up to the strong opening but it's perfectly watchable and even atmospheric in some scenes. Slow-going but worth a look for classic horror fans who think they've seen everything.
0 out of 1 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