Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

mark.waltz ...And she still has the worst line delivery in screen history!Perhaps it was the melodramatic performance of Erich Von Stroheim or the strange set or the way this "A" feature from a "B-" studio was filmed. Perhaps it is because it is a more detailed film of "Donovan's Brain" with excellent character development and even better story telling than the good United Artists remake from just nine years later. So somewhere in the Arizona desert is a gloomy looking mansion where doctors Erich Von Stroheim and Richard Arlen are doing experiments on animals to see if their brains continue to work after the animal's heart has stopped beating and they have been pronounced dead. A monkey dying of lymphoma is experimented on, and the brain continues to thrive for an hour after the poor cute little creature has passed on. This inspires the bellowing Von Stroheim to take the step further: to try it on a human! He has his hands full, being domineering to his nurse (Ralston) who is in love with Von Stroheim's assistant (Richard Arlen) whom Von Stroheim considers unworthy of her. A convenient plane crash gives Von Stroheim an excuse to interrupt Arlen and Ralston's date, sending them to the sight of the crash to retrieve the dead body of a passenger (named Donovan, an alleged financial wizard) for an autopsy. Realizing that while Donovan is dead, his brain is still functioning makes Von Stroheim decided to remove the brain for further experimentation in hopefully using this for the good of society to keep the great deeds and words of great men going. But was Donovan really the great man they believe? A visit from his widow opens up that can of worms, and Arlen is soon used as a vessel to bring Donovan's spirit back to life, not necessarily a good thing.It's easy to see why Herbert J. Yates, the head of Republic Studios, thought he could make a silk purse actress out of a sow's ear non-actress, as Ralston is very photogenic here, but unfortunately, that never transfers onto the screen as either great acting or star quality. She's very hesitant in taking chances, and as a result, comes off bland and unsure of herself. Making matters worse is pairing her opposite two film veterans from the silent era. Arlen, still handsome, is very good in going between his noble assistant and the increasingly evil Donovan, while Von Stroheim blasts his lines as if he was Harry James or Glenn Miller leading their bands. Mary Nash, as Von Stroheim's Mrs. Danvers like housekeeper, gives a slow volcanic rising performance, initially cool and dark, and as she begins to see the sinister things rising around her, daring to stand up to Von Stroheim in some shocking ways. Helen Vinson, as Donovan's widow, and Sidney Blackmer, as her attorney lover, are also memorable in their smaller roles, but the screaming Juanita Quigley as a young girl involved in a plot twist involving Donovan, is majorly annoying.Aided by excellent photography, lighting and the genuinely ghoulish atmosphere, this thriller has enough of an edge to keep you hooked, and for that reason, I rate it two stars higher than its better known 1950's remake. Von Stroheim keeps in character throughout, manages to emote over dramatically without somehow becoming too campy or over-the-top, and Arlen gives it a true touch of class. Even with the complete non-acting of Vera Hruba Ralston, the film stays devoted to its theme of how mankind should not interfere in extending life beyond its expiration date, and how when they do, it turns out to be a complete disaster for everybody involved.

Scott_Mercer Let's start with the great things. Direction and cinematography are top notch. Pacing is great, exciting. Fantastic Gothic atmosphere at the Castle. Set design and construction were superb; not just the stupendous Gothic castle and mad scientist laboratory, but the creamy art-deco nightclub straight out of a Fred Astaire/Busby Berkeley musical, and the fancy lawyer's office that oozed money. Gorgeous matte paintings and model work. Specialized lighting effects were used liberally and effectively. Good job to all those technicians on all their hard work.Now to the bad things. Putting aside the way-out concept, I can accept that. After all, this is a science fiction story. But some of the writing is just atrocious. Badly phrased dialog abounds. And why a Gothic castle in the Arizona desert? What was that all about? And ye Gods, Vera Hruba Ralston is just a TERRIBLE actress. I don't see the appeal at all. She's not even really THAT pretty. Richard Arlen is a little stiff. Erich Von Stroheim is awesome at what he does, but certainly no one will ever praise him for his versatile range as an actor.Yes, much less effective and respectable than the 1953 version, "Donovan's Brain." Check that one out first if you haven't seen it. This movie is a fun little low budget genre flick that does have some advantages to it, but it's certainly not hall of fame material.

MARIO GAUCI Although I did like my two viewings of Felix E. Feist's 1953 film version of Curt Siodmak's DONOVAN'S BRAIN (with Lew Ayres and Gene Evans), somehow I have yet to acquire it for my home video collection; besides, I am also familiar (from an age-old Italian TV screening) with the later Freddie Francis version entitled VENGEANCE aka THE BRAIN (1962) where Peter Van Eyck and Anne Heywood had the leading roles. What I did acquire very recently, however, is the even rarer original version directed by the reliable George Sherman and starring the great Erich von Stroheim, Contrary to expectations, the latter is neither the monster of the title nor (for the initiated) the man taken over by the dead financial wizard's brain; that unlucky guy is Richard Arlen – the hero of ISLAND OF LOST SOULS (1932) no less – who, as Stroheim's unlikely assistant in his underground experiments, gets to become even more obsessed with their celebrated cerebral specimen than his crazed mentor! From the rest of the cast, Vera Hruba Ralston may have later become Mrs. Herbart J. Yates (when she married the head of Republic Pictures, the studio behind this film) but, frankly, she brought very little to this particular film; on the other hand, it was nice to see Sidney Blackmer – best-known for portraying Adrian Marcato in Roman Polanski's ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968) – albeit in a supporting role of the suspicious attorney. Incidentally, the sequences depicting the blooming romance between Arlen and Ralston and those between Blackmer and Donovan's wife can mostly be written off as mere padding; small wonder, therefore, that the film was shorn of 19 whole minutes (cut down from 86 to 67!) for a later re-release…not to mention being saddled with the highly ludicrous (and utterly misleading) alternate titles of TIGER MAN and MONSTER AND TIGER MAN!! Speaking of titles, despite the sheer similarity to the earlier Paramount horror entry THE MONSTER AND THE GIRL (1941), as can be gleaned from my own reviews of both films, they have nothing whatsoever in content (other than being of the same era and genre). Despite these flaws, I generally liked the film more than I was expecting to and that fact is mostly down to two simple factors: the presence of Erich von Stroheim in front of the cameras and that of celebrated cinematographer John Alton behind them! Even though the quality of the copy I acquired was fairly fuzzy at best, Alton's atmospheric lighting came through just the same – particularly during the atmospheric laboratory sequences and the eerie scenes showing Arlen's 'possession'.

Andy (film-critic) After four nights of trying to decipher a transfer from actual film to a home-made DVD, with dark lighting and noir-styled settings, my adventure into the world of "The Lady and the Monster" was finally complete. This suddenly became a very difficult film to discuss. With nearly 20% of the film being lost to a dismal transfer (actually a decent transfer for what was available, but difficult to experience the film as a whole), would I be able to fully understand the filmmaker's tones, themes, and characters to the fullest extent? Continuing my horror/mystery binge, the basis of this 1944 sleeper begins very simply with a mad scientist and a plan, but then, as the paranormal begins our story goes from the strange to the confusing. As our characters are asked to do more than just turn knobs and scream, their strengths and weaknesses become more prevalent on the screen. As our story becomes more sinister, the ability to contain opportunity slowly gets devoured. "The Lady and the Monster" then transforms from an original sci-fi storyline, to a chaotic mess, leaving you eager to see how the 1953 remake "Donovan's Brain" may have learned from these mistakes.Perhaps it was the way films in the 40s were made, or maybe it was just the filmmaker's way of attempting to move the plot forward, but instances occurred in this film that seemed to carry no consequences. Easily our limpy mad scientist and his assistance were able to find a brain, confuse the local medical practitioner, keep the brain alive, hear thoughts, and perhaps solve a five year crime. Consequences were handed down at the end, but instead of reason it felt rushed and foolish. What begins as a film based on science fiction and horror, easily changes to this CSI-style of storytelling. "The Lady and the Monster" teeters on the border of noir and B-grade film-making. It felt like a hybrid, or a mistake by science gone horribly wrong. To begin, the hints given by Donovan's brain to help Patrick Cory (played devilishly by Richard Arlen) are executed well, making the viewer strain to hear what or where these planted words may take Cory. The switch from right to left handing writing seemed kitschy, but ultimately effective in witnessing the transformation. Alas, these were the only two "special effects" within the whole story, so they were used over and over and over again, making it fun to guess which of the two tricks would be used in each scene. It became tedious and boring to see any plot hurdles crossed by merely these two tricks. If it weren't for Arlen, his menacing face, this would have taken another four days to plow through. Secondly, the addition of Vera Ralston as not only the love interest, but also the damsel in distress was out of place. Perhaps Ralston couldn't control her character, discover her true-self, or maybe she just didn't feel like memorizing her lines, but each scene she walked into was dry and emotionless. Even as the tension builds, she is unable to give us a glimpse as to who Janice Farrell was; how she fell into this world, and why love conquered all. Finally, the ending was absurd. Stringing together several different ideas, none of which were developed at all, to give us a climax that was more based on the first half of the film than the second seemed random.Despite my gruff nature towards Ralston and the repetitive nature of the film, the science behind this feature was actually…quite fun. The idea that a brain could be kept alive has been used in dozens of sci-fi films over the ages, and this was a uniquely new way to see it. Thinking of the infamous "The Brain that Wouldn't Die" made in 1968, one should question the originality of that story penned with the concept behind this one. The notion that, with a blank slate (aka mind), that the brain could control another person was exhilarating. While the execution wasn't up to par, it was enjoyable to see the science behind it. I also liked the cliché mad scientist known as Franz Mueller (played diabolically by Erich Von Stroheim), who fit into every mold created since this film. There were fun parts to this film, elements that were conceived as a good idea, but failed because ill-development and lack of detailed story forced it to go south. Parts were enjoyable, but "The Lady and the Monster" as a whole seemed to fail.Overall, I liked certain elements to this film, but others just failed completely. The repetition of one idea failed, and the introduction to the millionaire's world as a "who-dun-it" instead of a straight forward sci-fi felt cheap. There were also huge bombs of twists dropped on us near the end without any warning to excitement. There were two moments I had to rewind to make sure that I didn't miss something earlier, because these plot twists came out of nowhere. "The Lady and the Monster" was enjoyable to watch once, but a second viewing would be overkill.Grade: * ½ out of ****