Opiniones de usuarios

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

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 ****

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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...

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.