George Zucco was a fine actor. Never more-so than in this film where he plays identical twins, one good, one evil. I saw it on a whim and was taken by not only his performance but the good quality of the production. Sure it was a "B" movie but it had atmosphere, which is missing from pretty much every horror\mystery film made in modern times. When was the last time a film of recent vintage took us to the fog filled moors?
Under rated actor in an under rated film.
[deleted]
I totally agree with Songod...George Zucco gives possibly his best performance in this film, which is actually a remake of 'Dracula' in many respects. Like Lugosi's vampire, Zucco plays the role of one Undead, and like Lugosi, is aided in his schemes by good old Dwight Frye. The vampire tale is Americanized here, and the townspeople all come out of a Republic western.
I should point out that I have always regarded Lugosi's 'Dracula' as a rather dull, talky film. Being a purist, I certainly appreciate the look of Lugosi as 'Dracula'. But it seems to me that Dwight Frye as 'Renfeld', in his way, steals the film from Lugosi, as Renfeld's madness, replete with his penchant for eating flies, is truly inspired strangeness.
Frye gives it the old college try here, right down to his hunchback, but it's thirteen years later, and his vitality has waned. Mary Carlisle is downright dull as the virginal bait for the evil vampire Zucco. Nedrick Young is forgettable as well. Having said that, Zucco, a venerable character actor for years, is a standout in dual roles as the good doctor and his evil brother. I truly found his vampire as scary as Bela, without all of the hamminess. Look up 'beady eyes' in the dictionary and there's a picture of George Zucco! He makes the most of those eyes in his portrayal of the monster.
Zucco was never given starring roles in the 'A' pictures he appeared in, but I was glad to catch this little 'B' movie, in which he carries the whole film. Zucco got lost in the shuffle of so many other actors, and this film got lost in the sea of how many really bad vampire movies? They're STILL making bad vampire movies. Nice to find this nice performance from 1943.
Well put! I disagree only with your assessment of Lugosi whom over the years as I have watched the film notice so many nuances in his performance. The pauses especially... he never dd them in another role to my recollection, but here as Dracula, he would pause in unusual places or elongate a phrase is such a way that it truly appeared he was a 500 year old who rarely has to speak to anyone and also talking in a foreign dialect.
Frye indeed stole the show. But it is the triumvirate of Frye, Lugosi, and Sloan that make the second half of the film bearable. Otherwise it would have been a complete crashing bore instead of simply dull.
FYI,if you're in the mood for a good spoof of both the vampire genre and reality TV I recommend "What We Do in the Shadows". I had no hopes going in due to reading too many wonderful reviews of it (which often indicates a terrible film) but found myself laughing out loud through most of it.