LeonLouisRicci Surprisingly Bloody, this was made after House of Wax (1953), also in 3-D, was Such a Hit. This one Holds Up pretty Well with the Vincent Price Movie, although Karl Malden seems Out of Place.The Attraction of this Film is the Gruesomeness of the Violence. There are some Attractive Indoor Scenes. But when the Movie Ventures Outdoors it is Stilted and Stage Bound. There is some Tension as the Brutal Murders continue and when the Evil Doctor Locks the Heroine in the Barred Room (cage) it is quite Terrifying.Overall, a Man in an Ape Suit is Rarely Effective, although done somewhat Believable Here. The Movie is just about as Good as one would expect Considering the Limitations of the 3-D Format and 1950's Sensibilities, in Fact, maybe a Bit Better. The Downside is the Aggravating Police Department and there are a lot of Scenes where Folks just Stand around and Jabber.

Michael_Elliott Phantom of the Rue Morgue (1954) *** (out of 4)The police are baffled by some gruesome murders to local women and they think the case is solved when they arrest Paul Dupin (Steve Forrest). What Inspector Bonnard (Claude Dauphin) doesn't realize is that the real culprit is Dr. Marais (Karl Malden) who has trained an ape to do the killings for him. This remake of the 1932 Bela Lugosi film was Warner's follow-up to HOUSE OF WAX, their first 3-D and color horror film. Most reviews seem to be very mixed in regards to this movie and while it's not quite as good as that Vincent Price classic, I think there are enough effective moments to make it worth viewing. The one thing that really caught me off guard was how ugly and rather violent the movie was. I guess director Roy Del Ruth was wanting to go the extra mile by delivering some violent scenes and while we don't always see the violence the aftermath is on few view. There are several scenes of women badly beaten and bloody and an even more memorable scene has one wannabe hero getting thrown to his death in a violent fashion. Another memorable scene is when a model is being attacked by the killer and we see blood splash across the wall but then it's revealed to be something else. I thought the performances were also good, if nothing too special. Malden doesn't do his greatest work here but there's no question that it's fun to see someone like him in a horror movie like this. Forrest does a good job as the innocent suspect and Patricia Medina makes for a good female lead. We even get Anthony Caruso playing a creepy, one-eyed assistant. There are many flaws with this movie including the police who are downright annoying. Just watch how whenever someone is being attacked and they scream, whenever a police officer is around they simply walk to see what's going on. Had any of these guys actually ran to the scene then the murders would have been solved early on. The Technicolor is another major plus here as are the sets and costumes. PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE certainly isn't a masterpiece but it's good entertainment to kill some time.

DS3520 This version of "Phantom of the Rue Morgue" is far superior to the earlier Bela Lugosi version in virtually every respect! Firstly, the music score by David Buttolph adds a sinister spine tingling note that heightens the element of fright. The cast members, all of them, led by Karl Malden and the underestimated Claude Dauphin as the Inspector, move the plot along and ably hold the audience's attention as the story unfolds. The mood, the period, the locale of turn-of-the-century Paris are all re-created very well by Director Roy Del Ruth. The garish hues of Warner Color, too, heighten the imagery. Having first seen this flick more than half a century ago as a young boy, I was terrified then. Given some of what makes it to the screen these days, "Phantom" is, indeed, quite tame by comparison! Nonetheless, it is a very entertaining horror flick of the period

thewag777 This was a good mystery, and I suppose by 50s standards, a good thriller. As a young man obsessed with horror films, I was bored throughout the first half of the movie. It takes a long time to build up the plot, like so many movies of the 50s and 60s, like Rosemary's Baby and Night of the Ghouls.I will not spoil it, but lets just say its better than night of the ghouls. From a horror standpoint, it is weak. However, it is a nice mystery. Because it is a mystery, I can't go into too much detail without spoiling it. Trust me though, if you like mystery, you will like this. Do not do what I did and watch it while drunk, you will need to pay attention to this movie. If you're like me, and like to watch bad horror movies that actually look good while drunk, than stick to "The House that Screamed" I and II and "Witchhouse II."I gave it 6 of 10. Only the last 20 minutes are enjoyable, but you have to watch the whole thing to understand it, and be sober (an attribute I don't like in movies.)