lastliberal 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.

The_Void After seeing Devil Doll, I do have to say that it is not a great film; but it's certainly not a particularly bad one either and in no way does this film deserve a rating of 2.8 on this site. The plot is similar to a number of more modern films such as Magic and Child's Play and focuses on the common horror theme of a malevolent ventriloquist's dummy. I'm not an expert on this type of film - or a big fan of it - but to the best of my knowledge, there weren't too many films like this that predated Devil Doll - the best segment of Dead of Night and 1929 film 'The Great Gabbo' are the only ones that spring to mind. The central plot idea is the evil dummy but there's a fairly complicated story revolving around it. The main character is "The Great Vorelli", a ventriloquist with a dummy named Hugo. Vorelli sets his sights on rich heiress named Marianne and sets his sights on her fortune. He hypnotises her, and that induces a strange coma. However, Vorelli's mistress Magda soon finds out about the hypnotist's plans and threatens to expose him; but she is soon dealt with, leading Marianne's boyfriend to suspect Vorelli...The main problem with this film is that there's a bit too much going on and at just eighty minutes, there's not a lot of time to fit everything in. However, director Lindsay Shonteff does a good job of telling the story in spite of that and the film does remain interesting for most of the duration. Bryant Haliday takes the lead role, and I wasn't surprised to discover that he hasn't had many roles other than this one because he's very hammy and his performance does give the film a ridiculous edge, which is a bit of a problem. The film does have a good atmosphere, however, and the dummy used looks suitably malevolent. The film never becomes boring and it more or less succeeds in explaining all the important elements about the plot and how the doll at the centre of the film came about. There is another subplot that takes centre stage towards the end that plays out rather well and is very similar to an idea used in a recent Chucky movie. Overall, I do have to say that I'm surprised at all the flack that this movie takes but do have to admit that it's a long way from perfect. Still, Devil Doll gets my recommendation.

ferbs54 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.

danl57 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.