The Vincent Price Movie Review

Released in 1940
Directed by Joe May

“we’ve got orders to shoot on sight”

“i thought you said he was invisible!?”

The Invisible Man Returns was Vincent Price’s fourth movie. Some say it was Price’s first venture into the horror genre, but that is debatable; it is more of a sci-fi thriller than a horror flick. This movie is the first sequel to the original Invisible Man. Unlike most sequels, however, The Invisible Man Returns is a good movie. Technically Vincent Price is the main character, but we don’t actually see his face until the last scene in the film. His presence is mostly established by his unique voice acting.

So how does Vincent Price become the next invisible man?

Geoffrey Radcliffe (Price) is fortunate enough to be close friends with a certain Dr. Frank Griffin (John Sutton), who just happens to be the brother of the original Invisible Man. Dr. Griffin discovers his brother’s formula for duocaine, the chemical that causes loss of color in humans. (and guinea pigs!) When Radcliffe is found guilty of murdering his brother, Dr. Griffin slips him the vanishing cream just in time to escape the execution. Radcliffe manages to get away, but is dismayed by the knowledge that duocaine causes gradual madness. While Radcliffe searches for his brother’s true killer and evades Scotland Yard, Dr. Griffin works frantically in his lab trying to discover an antidote for duocaine before his friend degenerates into a lunatic.

While all this is happening, we are continually treated to the numerous special effects employed to create the illusion of an invisible man. For a movie of its age I was expecting some fairly cheesy effects, but was surprised by how well executed they were. The effects, although not jaw dropping for a jaded modern viewer, are still neat to watch. IMDB lists this movie as being nominated for an Academy Award for Special Effects.

The cast and script are both good as well. I enjoyed pretty much every performance in the film, even the supporting cast. Vincent Price’s voice acting is superb, and he displays a wide range of characterization in his lines. He goes from frantic fugitive to self-deprecating lover to vengeful ghost to insane babbler to ordinary Geoffrey, while managing to infuse his character with a sympathetic quality. John Sutton puts on a good show as Dr. Griffin. Sutton is similar to Price in that he possessed a distinctive voice. You might recognize him if you are a Vincent Price fan because they acted in a lot of movies together. Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Nan Grey give notable performances as well.

Vincent Price’s first horror movie? Maybe. Vincent Price’s first sci-fi thriller? Yes. Either way you should watch this movie.

Released in 1939
Directed by Rowland V. Lee
Written by Robert N. Lee
Based on Shakespeare’s Richard III

“Marry your enemies and behead your friends”

Tower of London was Vincent Price’s third movie right after he did Elizabeth and Essex. It is based somewhat on Shakespeare’s Richard III play, which I read for the first time before viewing this movie. Starring alongside Vincent Price are Basil Rathbone as Richard and Boris Karloff as Mord, his menacing executioner henchman. The plot, like the original play, is somewhat convoluted and involves many side characters. If you haven’t been exposed to British historical legends or aren’t familiar with the play, you will probably find yourself a little confused as to what is going on in the movie. Some dramatic license is taken as well. A brief background:

The events take place during the last part of the War of the Roses between the houses of York and Lancaster. On the York side are the brothers Edward, Clarence, and Richard. On the Lancaster side is Henry VI and his son, the Prince of Wales, and Henry Tutor who is in exile in France. Richard III is the younger brother of King Edward IV, who claimed the throne from the mentally incompetent King Henry VI. Richard III wants the throne for himself, but there are many people ahead of him in the line to be king. The first is King Edward IV, his brother. Then next in line are Edward IV’s two sons. After that is the Duke of Clarence, Richard’s older brother. Another strong claim on the throne comes from the Prince of Wales, Henry VI’s son.
To ascend to the throne Richard III must do away with all of these people; British history lesson concluded.

Well, let’s get back to the movie. Putting Karloff, Rathbone, and Price all together in a film is a good idea. I think the only other movie with all three of them was The Comedy of Terrors. Rathbone and Karloff both know how to play creepy and sinister, and they do so with good effect in this movie. Rathbone portrays Richard with an icy confidence. This is highlighted thoughout the movie but in particular when Richard is murderously musing over his little throne room dolls, plotting the death of each person with a sneer. (For some reason his appearance kept reminding me of Spock, from Star Trek. Rathbone would have made a good Vulcan.) The role of Mord seems to be created just for Karloff. It’s a brutish, lurching, frankenstein looking character who delights in the torture and murder of others. Vincent Price plays the Duke of Clarence, who in this movie is portrayed as effete and cowardly. His favorite activities include whining and drinking malmsy wine. One of my favorite parts in the film is when Richard and Clarence agree to have a drinking contest to determine the ownership of some disputed territory between them. Awesome.

The supporting cast is somewhat forgettable. John Sutton is okay as Wyatt. (he was in half a dozen movies with Vincent Price) Ian Hunter as Edward IV is not bad.

It’s an old movie, but it’s worth seeing.

There was another Tower of London movie made in 1962 starring Vincent Price as Richard.

Released in 1946
Directed by Alfred L. Werker
Based on a story by Albert DeMond

“you’re losing your mind, Mrs. Stewart….”

Shock is a relatively obscure movie hidden way back in Vincent Price’s early career. I put it in my Netflix queue randomly, as I had never heard anything about it, but was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be a solid thriller.

The film opens when a young woman named Janet Stewart(Anabel Shaw) arrives at a hotel to rendevous with her husband who has recently returned from serving in World War II. As she waits in the room, she peers out the window which is facing another room of the hotel, and witnesses an argument between a man and his wife. The quarrel soon takes a violent turn as the man bludgeons the woman to death with a candlestick. Upon seeing the horrible death, Mrs. Stewart succumbs to psychological shock. She is found later by her husband, who promptly takes her to a doctor in residence at the hotel. The doctor recommends a reputable psychiatric specialist named Dr. Cross (Vincent Price) who conveniently resides at the same hotel. Unfortunately for Mrs. Stewart, the man she witnessed murdering his wife is none other than Dr. Cross himself!

Knowing that Mrs. Stewart can implicate him in the crime, Dr. Cross immediately recommends that she be taken to his private sanatorium, where he is the head physician. Dr. Cross keeps her under heavy sedation while he vacillates in his next course of action. His mistress(Lynn Bari), who is also his nurse, eggs him on to murder Mrs. Stewart. Not being the cold-blooded killing type, Dr. Cross initially dismisses the idea. In the meantime, he has to arrange his wife’s death to appear an accident. His schemes start to unravel when Mr. Stewart and a police detective both start sniffing around and putting the facts together.

-

I love it when you pick out an obscure movie at random and it turns out to be good. There was nothing bad about this movie except maybe what happens to his nurse at the end. The story was solid, the dialog was decent, and the performances were good all around - especially Vincent Price’s.

This is the type of role Vincent Price was born to play; he excels at portraying complex villains that evoke the viewer’s sympathy. The Dr. Cross character, who is an emotionally weak person as well as being an intelligent and powerful man, allows us to see a nice range of performances from Price.

And now a random bit of trivia…

Shock is the only movie or book I can recall where someone gets murdered by a candlestick, other than Clue, which came out in 1949.(the boardgame) Shock was released in 1946. Coincidence? Maybe Vincent Price inspired the creator of Clue to include a candlestick in the gallery of weapons. (i also suspect he was the first on-screen villian to lovingly stroke a cat in The Three Musketeers - somebody look that up)

Trivia aside, Shock is a good movie that is definitely worth watching. It’s a shame that nobody has even heard of it.

Released in 1939
Directed by Michael Curtiz
Based on the play by Maxwell Anderson

Filmed way back in 1939, The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex was Vincent Price’s second movie. I was taken by surprise after popping it into my DVD player. Instead of seeing an ancient, grainy, black and white screen, the film opened in marvelously restored technicolor. It looks fantastic.

The movie is based on the play Elizabeth the Queen, which is a fictional dramatization of the social affairs of Elizabeth I (Bette Davis) and the Earl of Essex (Errol Flynn). Their relationship is a complex one. Both of them are headstrong and vain, and their affection for each other is in competition with their stronger loves of power and England. Even though Essex goes to war in Ireland, the film stays focused on the relationship between Elizabeth and Essex. Their relationship, already strained, is further complicated by the machinations of people in the court who would like to see it fail.

One of these scheming persons is Sir Walter Raleigh, played by Vincent Price, who doesn’t have much to do in this film. If I remember correctly, Price had previously played Essex in the theatrical version. It was reported that Vincent Price had to repeatedly feed Errol Flynn his lines. Flynn, being a notorious cad, often came in late and unprepared for shooting. This may have fueled the enmity between he and Bette Davis. (pay close attention to the slap scene, Flynn looks pissed after Davis smacks him upside the head!) Flynn does a decent job as Essex, however, and performs with casual ease. He seems to fit well with the vain and fiery nature of the character.

Davis’s portrayal of Elizabeth is interesting. The first thing you will notice is how fidgety and nervous she is. I found this a bit distracting the first time I viewed the movie. This must have been a deliberate choice by Davis in order to add more nuance to the character. Keep in mind Davis was only around the age of thirty when this movie was made, and Elizabeth at this period in time was around sixty. Although Davis’s performance does exhibit frequent tenderness, she seems more effective playing Elizabeth as cold and shrewd.

The chief problem I had with this movie is the chemistry between Davis and Flynn…there isn’t any. The movie is primarily a love story between two people, but I found myself unable to believe that they actually held affection for one another. The story is already fictional, so why not go ahead and make Elizabeth a tad younger and a bit better looking to complement Flynn’s handsomeness. (or pick an older looking Essex)

Overall, I found this movie a bit so-so. It’s not really a bad movie, but the aforementioned lack of chemistry between the main characters hampers would could have been a much better film. If you’re thinking of viewing this because of Vincent Price, then give it a pass. He has hardly any screen time. If you enjoy romance films set in Elizabethian England and/or seeing lots of men in tights, give it a shot.

Released in 1950
Directed and written by Samuel Fuller

The Baron of Arizona is a film that is loosely inspired by the real life tale of the con artist James Reavis, who fraudulently laid claim to the majority of Arizona land before it was admitted to the United States. At that time, (late 19th century) Arizona was only a territory and Spanish land grants were still being recognized as valid. While a more humble grifter would be content with a generous pastoral spread and the accompanying lucrative mineral rights, Reavis shoots for the moon - he doesn’t stop until he owns the entire territory of Arizona.

The film opens with Reavis(Vincent Price) studying a book on historical forgeries while hatching up his grandiose scheme. His plan involves a young orphan girl, Sophia, whom Reavis uses as the lynchpin of his claim. He presents evidence(manufactured) that this girl is a long lost descendant of the Spanish Peralta family and the rightful heir of vast tracts of Arizona land. The little girl doesn’t question his story, but afterall what little girl doesn’t fantasize about being a rich princess? Or in this case, a baroness.

Reavis goes to great lengths to authenticate his fraudulent claims. He researches the history of the area, the penmanship of other written grants of the period, and even the kind of ink the grants were written in. But his main problem is the fact that no Peralta grant for Arizona actually exists in the Spanish records. To correct this problem, Reavis travels to Spain and joins the monastery there that is in charge of maintaining the Spanish land grant records. After making the successful alterations, he returns to Arizona to marry Sophia and present their land grant claim to the government.

Many people are bewildered by Reavis’s claim, but the government initially honors it because they cannot prove any evidence of forgery. Civil unrest erupts after Reavis begins to demand payment from the many existing landowners within his lands. In the meanwhile, the US government employs it’s top forgery expert in gathering evidence to disprove Reavis’s claim, which eventually leads to the unravelling of all Reavis’s work.

I wanted to like this movie, but it just didn’t work for me. Vincent Price gives an adequate performance despite the uninspiring script and dialog, with the supporting cast being hampered by the same problem. The first half of the movie is just uninteresting, even though the events themselves aren’t. The documentary-style narration over the scenes makes it even worse. The second half is better, but still not as good as it could be given the source material. I would love to see this movie redone. It’s a fascinating story that many people haven’t heard, and could be told with a gripping narrative.