Supernatural (1933)

Why so much hype?

Very disappointing...

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

"Ruth Rogen" (Vivienne Osborne) is a black widow serial killer who has been found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to death. Speculating that her malevolent spirit might be released upon her death and cause similar murders a psychologist by the name of "Dr. Carl Houston" (H.B. Warner) gets permission to conduct an experiment on her body immediately after her execution to prevent this from happening. Unfortunately, something goes terribly wrong and a rich heiress named "Roma Courtney" (Carole Lombard) becomes possessed with Ruth's spirit instead. Also included in the plot is a fake spiritualist who is trying to obtain Roma's fortune and who also had a relationship with Ruth just prior to her incarceration. Anyway, rather than detail the entire story and risk spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this was a fairly interesting movie for the most part. Made during the Great Depression, filmed in black and white and lasting only 65 minutes this movie is obviously a product of its time. That said, while I certainly understand the limitations placed upon any film during this era I firmly believe that a bit more time should have been added to this movie in order to help clarify and establish the overall plot. In any case, I enjoyed it and rate it as slightly above average.

Supernatural (1933) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Decent horror/thriller from Paramount has a woman about to be executed for killing three of her lovers during an orgy. She asks for her forth lover to come visit her but when she refuses she swears revenge. After her death a doctor accidentally releases her spirit into the body of a good girl (Carole Lombard) who then tries to carry out the death wish. This here was directed by Victor Halperin who directed White Zombie the previous year and the biggest difference between the two films is that this one here actually moves at a rather fast pace unlike the Lugosi title. On the other hand the story is a bit too dry to be fully entertaining and both Lombard and Randolph Scott give pretty mediocre performances.

Having independently made one of the most unusual horror films up to that time in WHITE ZOMBIE (1932), the Halperin Brothers were given the opportunity to duplicate its success – on a bigger budget, relatively speaking – by a major studio, Paramount. Alas, the result wasn't as good and, in fact, SUPERNATURAL emerged as a lesser addition to the studio's brief output in the genre during its Pre-Code heyday! Despite a nice opening montage sequence depicting the exploits of the murderess (Vivienne Osborne), it takes a while to get going: Carole Lombard only appears 15 minutes into the movie, and the possession plot only really comes into play during the last 15 (interestingly, the 'transference of souls at the moment of death' gimmick was also featured in EXORCIST III [1990] – though it's unlikely this element was derived from the film in question). That said, I enjoyed SUPERNATURAL a good deal and there are some undeniably stylish sequences throughout.Still, one might say that luscious Lombard's virtually the whole show here, though she isn't totally comfortable in her role. Randolph Scott and H.B. Warner lend solid if unexceptional support – but the villainous character of the spiritualist (Allan Dinehart) isn't particularly well-developed, while Beryl Mercer offers the obligatory comic relief as the latter's tipsy landlady (who isn't above spying on and eventually blackmail her boarders!).For all that, the latter stages of the film – involving the séance (highlighted by the 'apparitions' of Lombard's dead twin brother and various other tricks perpetrated by Dinehart to milk his gullible clients) and Lombard's possession (particularly the nice close-ups of her lit eyes) – are reasonably effective. All in all, while I wasn't excessively let down by it, I can only see SUPERNATURAL (I wouldn't mind having it on an official DVD from Universal, either, perhaps as part of a horror collection?) improving with further viewings, and I would certainly like to catch up with the Halperin Brothers' subsequent horror outings – REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (1936) and TORTURE SHIP (1939) – even if their reputation is nowhere near as assured as this one's is, let alone WHITE ZOMBIE

This is a very unusual, interesting and even pioneering horror andhaving read a number of negative comments about this film I can't help feeling people are missing the point almost as much now as audiences did in 1933. MAJOR SPOILERS AHEADTry to see this as not a Carol Lombard film but a bigger budgeted follow up from the guys who made White Zombie. It's a beautifully shot and decidedly unusual story which actually takes it's subject matter quite seriously, while providing some genuinely shocking moments and a chilling ending when the real killer returns. Whilst it's true that Lombard is pretty bland through most of this she does okay in her possessed scenes.But the performance that really stands out for me is that of little Beryl Mercer as the landlady of the faker who attempts blackmail. Mercer, most familiar as James Cagney's simple minded mother in Public Enemy, excelled at playing downtrodden yet naively positive types and always brought a touching quality of innocence to her performances. Even here, as a seedy and unscrupulous character that warmth is evident and it makes you not want to see her hurt. So her terror and disbelief when she realizes her tenant has poisoned her, makes for a very chilling and heartbreaking moment, one of the most powerful pieces of acting I've seen in an early talkie. That scene alone lifts this film far above the normal, and since then I'm always pleased to see her in any supporting cast.