Supernatural (1933) User Reviews

SUPERNATURAL (Victor Halperin, 1933) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 15 April 2006]

Having independently made one of the most unusual horror films up to that time in WHITE ZOMBIE (1932), the Halperin Brothers were given the opportunity to duplicate its success – on a bigger budget, relatively speaking – by a major studio, Paramount. Alas, the result wasn't as good and, in fact, SUPERNATURAL emerged as a lesser addition to the studio's brief output in the genre during its Pre-Code heyday! Despite a nice opening montage sequence depicting the exploits of the murderess (Vivienne Osborne), it takes a while to get going: Carole Lombard only appears 15 minutes into the movie, and the possession plot only really comes into play during the last 15 (interestingly, the 'transference of souls at the moment of death' gimmick was also featured in EXORCIST III [1990] – though it's unlikely this element was derived from the film in question). That said, I enjoyed SUPERNATURAL a good deal and there are some undeniably stylish sequences throughout.

Still, one might say that luscious Lombard's virtually the whole show here, though she isn't totally comfortable in her role. Randolph Scott and H.B. Warner lend solid if unexceptional support – but the villainous character of the spiritualist (Allan Dinehart) isn't particularly well-developed, while Beryl Mercer offers the obligatory comic relief as the latter's tipsy landlady (who isn't above spying on and eventually blackmail her boarders!).

For all that, the latter stages of the film – involving the séance (highlighted by the 'apparitions' of Lombard's dead twin brother and various other tricks perpetrated by Dinehart to milk his gullible clients) and Lombard's possession (particularly the nice close-ups of her lit eyes) – are reasonably effective. All in all, while I wasn't excessively let down by it, I can only see SUPERNATURAL (I wouldn't mind having it on an official DVD from Universal, either, perhaps as part of a horror collection?) improving with further viewings, and I would certainly like to catch up with the Halperin Brothers' subsequent horror outings – REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (1936) and TORTURE SHIP (1939) – even if their reputation is nowhere near as assured as this one's is, let alone WHITE ZOMBIE

Horror film not for Lombard fans

[mhesselius · 6/10 · 26 July 2010]

Negative reviews of this film should be seen in context. Most Carole Lombard fans are looking for light comedies and romances, certainly not horror pictures. Horror fans, however, must be delighted to find Lombard starring in this movie from the Halperins, who produced the successful Lugosi vehicle "White Zombie" in 1932.

Only a few times in the 1930s' golden age of horror did these films get the star power and production they deserved. Among major studios Paramount led the way with this type of film, even predating Universal with John Barrymore's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" in 1920 when the only horror films were coming out of Germany. In the '30s Paramount, encouraged by Universal's success, cast Charles Laughton in "The Island of Lost Souls" and Frederic March in a remake of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." In "Supernatural" Lombard is fine in the lead role of a woman possessed by the evil spirit of a murderess. And while this film is not a classic, it is an effective horror film by a major studio. The fact that it rates 6.0 stars is amazing when you consider what types of films Lombard's fans are used to seeing her in.

You'll probably dislike this one if ...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 4 December 2010]

... you're expecting the Carole Lombard of those great mid-30's screwball comedies and beyond. However, she does give a great dual personality performance here. In order to make it believable that she is possessed by the more aggressive personality, she has to make the other personality extra demure and undistinguished so you can tell them apart. Believe me, you can.

The film opens with Ruth Rogen being tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for strangling her three lovers with her bare hands for the fun of it all. Dr. Carl Houston (H.B. Warner) comes to visit Miss Rogen in jail and asks if he can perform some experiments on her once she is dead, since the good doctor is interested in the paranormal. She agrees only because she sees the possibility of the escape of her soul into another person's body - it seems there is one more person she wants to strangle before she closes her affairs in this world and she doesn't care whose body she uses to do it.

At the same time, wealthy Roma Courtney (Carole Lombard) has just lost her twin brother, John, through death. There are some nice touches here showing the depth of Roma's grief and her close relationship with her brother including her playing some home recordings that the two had made together and their dog, confused by his master's absence, bringing John's slippers to a now all too empty chair. Slimy fake spiritualist Paul Bavian (Alan Dinehart) reads the newspapers and gets an idea. At night he slips into the mortuary where John's body is, makes a death mask of John's face, and then uses that mask to try and perpetrate a fraud on Roma, claiming that he can reach beyond the grave and contact John. Did I mention that Bavian is the one that informed on Ruth to the police when he couldn't get her to break off their affair? Did I also mention that Roma got a little too close to Ruth's body during one of Dr. Houston's experiments one night? I think you probably know where this is going.

This one is very atmospheric and moves quite briskly at only 65 minutes in length. The séance scenes are not scary at all, since the audience can see how Bavian is doing his tricks, but the scene where Roma and her fiancé walk in unexpectedly to Houston's lab and see the body of Ruth Rogen sitting upright in a chair, dressed in some kind of evening gown, seeming to stare right at them - that is good precode horror stuff.

Good horror with a most shocking moment.

[tom.hamilton · 24 February 2003]

This is a very unusual, interesting and even pioneering horror and

having read a number of negative comments about this film I can't help feeling people are missing the point almost as much now as audiences did in 1933.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

Try to see this as not a Carol Lombard film but a bigger budgeted follow up from the guys who made White Zombie. It's a beautifully shot and decidedly unusual story which actually takes it's subject matter quite seriously, while providing some genuinely shocking moments and a chilling ending when the real killer returns. Whilst it's true that Lombard is pretty bland through most of this she does okay in her possessed scenes.

But the performance that really stands out for me is that of little Beryl Mercer as the landlady of the faker who attempts blackmail. Mercer, most familiar as James Cagney's simple minded mother in Public Enemy, excelled at playing downtrodden yet naively positive types and always brought a touching quality of innocence to her performances. Even here, as a seedy and unscrupulous character that warmth is evident and it makes you not want to see her hurt. So her terror and disbelief when she realizes her tenant has poisoned her, makes for a very chilling and heartbreaking moment, one of the most powerful pieces of acting I've seen in an early talkie.

That scene alone lifts this film far above the normal, and since then I'm always pleased to see her in any supporting cast.

A memorable old horror film

[JohnSeal · 6/10 · 4 November 2001]

I find this film immensely enjoyable. Sure it's ridiculous, but wouldn't any film with this title be a little silly? The cinematography is outstanding (particularly in the remarkable opening montage) and the cast is fine. The hero is Randolph Scott. Recommended.

Supernatural (Universal Vault Series DVD-R)

[trimbolicelia · 7/10 · 30 December 2019]

Actually a Paramount Production film. A not bad 1933 thriller with elements of horror. A convicted serial murderess vows revenge before being put to death. A doctor obtains the body to experiment on and her evil spirit enters the body of an heiress grieving for her brother. A fake spiritualist tries using the situation for his financial gain. But, SPOILER ALERT), the dead brother's spirit comes back to save the day. Not bad, and at 65 minutes does not drag. The quality is pretty OK for a creaky oldie. Stars A-listers Carole Lombard and Randolph Scott. The Universal Vault Series DVD-R quality is pretty good but this obscurity is unlikely to come out on a regular DVD. Recommended for fans of the genre.

Mildly enjoyable, bogged down by uneven writing

[I_Ailurophile · 6/10 · 18 September 2022]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have mixed expectations before I sat to watch. On the one hand, while not all her films are equal, I really like Carole Lombard. On the other hand, I was less than impressed with filmmaker Victor Halperin's biggest claim to fame and previous picture, 'White Zombie,' and I found his 1935 quasi-sequel 'Revolt of the zombies' to be even worse. The first moments of 'Supernatural' also give me pause: I recognize the stylization as common to older features, yet the opening quotes from Confucius, Mohamed, and the bible that generically speak about "the supernatural" come off as ham-handed embellishments. Ultimately I'm inclined to think this 1933 movie is modestly well made and modestly enjoyable, though flaws dampen the entertainment.

In a runtime of scarcely over one hour the plot seems to uselessly meander and drag for much of the first third (if not beyond), then rush in the last 5-10 minutes such that story beats feel forced, inorganic, and less than believable. It does pick up, though if the writing were tightened this may well have clocked in at less than sixty minutes. To that point: the themes of gullibility, fraud, trickery, and murder wrapped up in notions of supernatural doings should set of the alarm bells of anyone who exercises critical thinking. Even with the best suspension of disbelief, though, still other aspects of the storytelling raise a skeptical eyebrow - "Dr." Houston's "experiment's; Bavian's whole deal seems thin from this viewer's perspective; the resolution of the climax is altogether unconvincing. In the broad strokes the story is promising; the details are too often sketchy.

The writing is the most important part, and I find it a little wanting. I'm also again unenthused about Halperin's direction; though capable in comparison to the other movies of his that I've watched, his contribution still seems to me to be a smidgen bland in every regard. What I do like and appreciate are the production design and art direction, the hair and makeup work, and the costume design; the acting here is fairly decent. Arthur Martinelli's cinematography is fine, as is the editing. Only - nor do these aspects abjectly inspire, and how much do they really matter if the screenplay doesn't make the grade?

You could do better, you could do worse. No matter if you're watching as a fan of horror flicks, old movies, someone in the cast, or just a cinephile generally, there are contemporary titles much more deserving, but this also isn't altogether bad. The concept is great, and I just wish more care were taken in developing it for the screen. Don't go out of your way for 'Supernatural,' but if you happen to come across it, it's a passable way to spend one hour.

A happy Medium.

[brogmiller · 1/10 · 27 January 2022]

Director(I use the term loosely) Victor Halperin has succeeded here in giving us one of the most unintentionally funny films of all time.

I feared the worst from the opening quotes by Confucius, Mohammed and St. Matthew to the accompaniment of a truly appalling score. There were apparently no less than three composers all of whom must have been extremely relieved to remain uncredited. Someone named Sidney Salkow who is credited as 'dialogue director' deserved to be run out of town.

Thank heaven for small mercies in the shape of the divine Carole Lombard. Contractually obliged to appear in this rubbish one can easily imagine her falling about with laughter whenever the camera stopped rolling. It has been said of her that she has the ability to look both tender and cruel at the same time which ironically makes her perfect casting as an angelic socialite whose body is possessed by that of a previously executed strangler. She even manages to make her amorous scenes with charmless blob Allan Dinehart convincing(well, sort of) She is far better suited to juvenile Randolph Scott but he looks woefully out of place in this setting and seems lost without his horse. As for the rest of the cast there is plenty of Ham on display but none of it of the finest quality.

I am forever puzzled by the need of so many 'reviewers' to inflict upon us a wordy synopsis. Why and for whose benefit?

Watching this awful opus has at least enabled me to add Victor Halperin to my ever-growing list of directors to avoid at all costs.

Quietly impressive.

[jemkat · 8/10 · 20 March 2004]

Unlike a lot of reviewers here, I was quite impressed by this film. Sure it's not scary - I didn't expect it to be - but it effectively builds an unsettling atmosphere without resorting to the usual mood enhancers such as haunted houses, gloomy mansions, isolated islands, etc. Prosaic things such as a spark generated from a railway wheel, the taking of a key, have an edge to them. There are also some very nice touches along the way, eg, the dog bringing the slippers to Carole Lombard's brother.

It is also interesting to see Carole Lombard this early in her career - from my point of view she acquits herself quite well in the part. And H. B Warner is also well suited to his role of Dr Houston. Randolph Scott however is wooden, and the role of Bavian could have done with a more charismatic player than Alan Dinehart. The real scene stealer in this movie however is Beryl Mercer - much better in this than anything else I have seen her in.

I also find this film interesting plot-wise, as I have on occasion come across texts which refer to "The Uninvited" as the first significant Hollywood film to deal with spirit possession when clearly this is not the case. I suppose it depends on what you mean by significant.

Anyway, it is certainly interesting to see what the makers of "White Zombie" came up with when they had the backing of a major studio.

Restless Spirits

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 1 October 2006]

By the thinnest of plot connections in Supernatural is millionaire heiress Carole Lombard connected to Vivienne Osbourne a serial murderess who is awaiting her execution in prison. Alan Dinehart, Osbourne's sometime boyfriend is the one who turned her in to the authorities because he was afraid. With good reason as it turns out.

Dinehart is a fake medium, but H.B. Warner is the real deal, a psychologist studying life after death. He wants Osbourne's body after she dies for experimentation and she agrees to it.

Turns out he's a family friend of Carole Lombard who is mourning the recent death of her brother, leaving her sole heir to a vast fortune. And Dinehart has designs on it through her.

Warner has the best performance in this film. His scientist is part Dr. Frankenstein and part Dr. Van Helsing, the best parts of both. Closely following is Dinehart who is definitely one scurvy rat.

Lombard did far better work in her career in those screwball comedies than she does her as a frightened heiress who gets possessed by the spirit of a killer. Supposedly a female serial killer has not been identified, but apparently Supernatural anticipates one will eventually be found.

Randolph Scott plays Lombard's boyfriend. He was doing B westerns for Paramount at the time, based on Zane Grey stories mostly. He looks like he'd rather be back in the saddle than in the tuxedo he wears mostly in this film. Of course his part is colorless and he's given little to do, but look concerned.

Not the best work for fans of either Carole Lombard or Randolph Scott.

What possessed them to make this?

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 2 June 2020]

Hailing from 1933, Supernatural has got to be one of the earliest (if not THE earliest) possession film that I have seen. Unfortunately, it's also one of the silliest. The basic premise is reasonable enough -- an executed woman's spirit possesses the body of a wealthy heiress to wreak revenge on the man who betrayed her -- but Victor Halperin's direction is terrible and Garnett Weston's story is frequently laughable, while several hammy performances help to make the film a creaky, corny horror potboiler that has quite rightly been largely forgotten.

The star of the film is icy blonde Carol Lombard, who was apparently not happy about starring in such dreadful baloney, but was contractually obliged to do so. Despite her indifference to the film, Lombard is actually the best thing about it: she plays Roma Courtney, whose brother John has recently died, leaving her the sole heiress to the family fortune. Dreadfully upset about her brother's passing, Roma is intrigued when she receives a letter from spiritualist Paul Bavian (Alan Dinehart), who says that he has been contacted by John's spirit and that, if she is interested, he can arrange a seance. Roma's concerned boyfriend Grant (Randolph Scott) quite rightly smells a rat: Bavian is a fraud out to scam some cash from the vulnerable young woman.

Meanwhile, Dr. Carl Houston (H.B. Warner), a close friend of Roma and Grant, is experimenting with the dead body of triple-murderess Ruth Rogen (Vivienne Osborne), trying to prove his theory that, when executed, a killer's soul is free to possess the living and kill again. As crazy as that sounds, Doc Houston is on the money: Ruth's spirit possesses Roma and goes after her ex-lover, the equally villainous Bavian.

The film displays its credentials as a dumb piece of logic-free tripe almost immediately, as Bavian strolls into the funeral parlour where John's body lies in an open casket, and casually takes a plaster cast of the dead man's face for use in his future deception -- that's some next-level skulduggery right there! Bavian shows himself to be even more of a scoundrel when he murders his landlady... by shaking hands with her (his poisoned ring scratching her skin). The seance itself ramps up the stupidity even further: through the use of a specially rigged chair, Bavian is able to control objects on wires and activate audio visual effects to fool his clients -- amazing work for a two-bit charlatan living in a low-rent dive (there's no explanation for how he recorded John's voice though).

Bavian is invited to perform a second seance at Roma's home, for which he has cooked up some more neat tricks: a hand-held projector to throw an image of John's face onto a wall, and a handkerchief scrawled with special invisible ink, the writing appearing on cue. The man is clearly wasting his talents: he should have his own show in Vegas! All of this is very daft, but not as ridiculous as what follows: Ruth Rogen's spirit takes control of Roma's body and exacts her revenge, the pretty blonde luring the fraudster to her yacht, where she tries to strangle him to death (somehow, Ruth/Roma has the strength of a professional wrestler). Escaping, Bavian stumbles over the edge of the boat, becomes tangled in a rope, and is hung by the neck.

Supernatural is mildly enjoyable if you're in the mood for a bit of a giggle, but far from a good film; Lombard deserved better than this.

3.5/10, generously rounded up to 4 for the meaningless opening quotes from Confucius, Mohammed and the Bible, and the sensational newspaper article that reads 'Ruth Rogen yesterday confessed she killed each of her three lovers after a riotous orgy in her sensuous Greenwich Village apartment.' -- definitely pre-Hays code!

Shock after shock!

[JohnHowardReid · 9/10 · 6 November 2006]

After the success of White Zombie (1932), the Halperin Brothers moved to Paramount where they produced this stylish, big-budget horror piece, its thrills even more chilling because they now seem so credible when presented against such lavishly realistic sets, and augmented by Martinelli's rivetingly moody cinematography.

The cast too is absolutely out of the box. Carole Lombard gives one of her finest performances as the troubled and ultimately possessed heroine, making the transition from innocent yet ultra-sophisticated mourner to vengeful, homicidal madwoman with disturbing conviction. As the villain of the piece, suave, hateful, murderous Allan Dinehart is truly a stand-out. The hideous scene in which he coldbloodedly murders his lowlife landlady (brilliantly played for both repugnance and sympathy by Beryl Mercer) is seared into my memory.

Randolph Scott's disbelieving hero is also well played. So is Warner's high society doctor, and especially William Farnum's amiably greedy Hammond.

Last but second only to Miss Lombard's is the powerful performance delivered by Vivienne Osborne in a tenth of the star's footage. Her presence literally haunts the whole film.

Paramount have not spared any expense. The sets, whether grimy, hell's kitchen tenements or palatial high society palaces are so naturalistic, the viewer never questions or doubts for a moment his role as a committed voyeur in this disturbingly real-life scenario. True, the special effects are few, but this admirable restraint only serves to make them so much more frighteningly believable.

Director Halperin never puts a foot wrong. He seems to know instinctively when to slow down the pace to build up a brooding atmosphere and when to heighten the drama with quick cutting to deliver shock after shock.

A disaster in 1933; a camp classic in 2013!

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 21 March 2013]

All leading ladies must have something in their repertoire which they despise. Myrna Loy had "The Mask of Fu Manchu" and Carole Lombard has this, an hour long thriller where she is the vessel which a dead murderess uses to seek revenge. Not a great film by any means (and one that Lombard resented having to make), it is actually pretty enjoyable for its spooky atmosphere, haunting photography, and the melodramatic performance of Vivienne Osborne as the most malicious psychopathic murderess in film history. There's a good thrill or two to be had in this, especially when nosy landlady Beryl Mercer gets a bit too nosy and the antics of doctor H.B. Warner who fears that once Osborne is executed for her crimes, her evil spirit may not be finished.

Lombard doesn't really get much to do in this other than open her eyes extremely widely for the scenes where she is infiltrated by the dead woman's spirit. It certainly wasn't a juicy part for her after all the good things she had been doing up to that point and I can see why she resented having to do it. You have to suspend belief in many places, and if you manage to do that, you will find yourself having a good time.

It just doesn't work

[Maciste_Brother · 2/10 · 25 April 2007]

In time, many films are forgotten. Some are unjustifiably forgotten while others are justifiably forgotten. SUPERNATURAL is one of the latter. It's a valiant attempt at horror from the director of WHITE ZOMBIE but in the end, it just doesn't work. The cast in excellent. The sets are excellent. The cinematography is excellent. Some scenes are really effective but nothing gels together and the end product is more a collection of ideas strung together but with no idea of what to do with them. The worst part of the film is the ending. It's truly groan inducing, even for a film made in the 1930s.

The most amazing scene in SUPERNATURAL is the one at the prison, when the warden and psychologist have a discussion. Nothing interesting really occurs during this scene except during a brief moment during their conversation, we see prisoners walking in line in the yard outside the office window. The composition and imagery is quite startling. I've never seen anything like this.

But even with these flashes of brilliance here and there, SUPERNATURAL is simply not worth your time or attention.

Gives me the creeps, even after 3 viewings

[DeborahPainter855 · 9 August 2002]

I've seen this film 3 times over the past 16 years and I have to say that it still has its moments. Real pros were in charge of seeing to it that the movie evokes the right mood. No, it's not made in the same vein as "The Blair Witch Project" or any of a number of modern scarefests. Older movies often have a distinct style which is different than that used by directors, cinematographers and set designers today. This should not detract from the appreciation of old scary movies. Black and white cinematography can only enhance them. See the scene with the dead murderess in the scientist's laboratory for an example of what I mean. Brr.

A Fairly Interesting Movie

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 23 May 2014]

"Ruth Rogen" (Vivienne Osborne) is a black widow serial killer who has been found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to death. Speculating that her malevolent spirit might be released upon her death and cause similar murders a psychologist by the name of "Dr. Carl Houston" (H.B. Warner) gets permission to conduct an experiment on her body immediately after her execution to prevent this from happening. Unfortunately, something goes terribly wrong and a rich heiress named "Roma Courtney" (Carole Lombard) becomes possessed with Ruth's spirit instead. Also included in the plot is a fake spiritualist who is trying to obtain Roma's fortune and who also had a relationship with Ruth just prior to her incarceration. Anyway, rather than detail the entire story and risk spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this was a fairly interesting movie for the most part. Made during the Great Depression, filmed in black and white and lasting only 65 minutes this movie is obviously a product of its time. That said, while I certainly understand the limitations placed upon any film during this era I firmly believe that a bit more time should have been added to this movie in order to help clarify and establish the overall plot. In any case, I enjoyed it and rate it as slightly above average.

creepy and effective

[myriamlenys · 7/10 · 8 September 2023]

A sweet-natured young woman from a rich family is devastated by the death of her twin brother. Soon afterwards she gets contacted by a medium who says he's got an urgent message from the deceased. Well-meaning people insist the medium is a fraud and a charlatan, but actually he's even more dangerous than that...

"Supernatural" is a horror movie notable for its atmosphere of sinister menace. It's quite an original movie, both with regard to the themes and with regard to the imagery. For the 1930's it must have been strong stuff and indeed, it still kicks like an ornery mule. Actress Carole Lombard gives proof of her great versatility by playing a dual rule, first as a kind and well-meaning girl and later as that selfsame girl possessed by something vengeful and unhinged.

Personally I would have simplified and streamlined the plot, for instance by removing that whole "Your brother was murdered" angle, but who am I ? Anyway, I recommend "Supernatural" to anyone who likes a strong, genuinely creepy horror.

The Vidiot Reviews...

[capone666 · 6/10 · 27 August 2018]

Supernatural

For maximum comfort while possessing, pick a vessel with the same shoe size.

Luckily, the lost soul in this horror movie found the perfect fit.

Paul (Alan Dinehart) is a medium who's trying to bilk heiress Roma (Carole Lombard) out of her fortune by pretending to be in spiritual contact with her lost brother. However, during one of their séances the spirit of Ruth (Vivienne Osborne), an executed murderess, enters Roma's body and seduces Paul.

But just as they are about to set sail on her yacht, Roma reveals to Paul that she's really Ruth, the wife he sent to the electric chair.

While the possession angle of the story is just as goofy as it is nonsensical, the lively antics of the bewitched Carole Lombard are enjoyable to watch; unfortunately, the 1933 special effects are not.

Moreover, no matter whose body you possessed in the 1930s you always end up in the breadline. Yellow Light

vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

Visually impressive but that's it

[preppy-3 · 4/10 · 29 October 2001]

Silly horror tale about the soul of an executed murderess possessing the body of another woman. Film starts off well but quickly becomes slow and boring. Some impressive visuals throughout, but the main plot is absurd--according to this, the spirits of executed killers possess living people and have them perform "copycat" murders! It's ridiculous and we're supposed to take it seriously.

The cast doesn't help. With the sole exception on Vivienne Osborne as the murderess everyone is horrible--even Carole Lombard and Randolph Scott! Lombard was forced into this movie--she really didn't want to do it--and it shows. Montgomery is certainly handsome but VERY bland and dull. The rest of the cast is just hopeless--none of them went on to become well-known--it's easy to see why.

An old, creaky boring horror film. Don't bother.

Solid supernatural horror, held together by an understated performance from Lombard

[drownsoda90 · 8/10 · 29 October 2019]

In "Supernatural," Carole Lombard stars as an heiress being extorted by a charlatan psychic claiming he is in communication with her deceased twin brother. While his plot is phony, her subsequent possession by an executed heiress is not--and the heiress has a vendetta against this fraudulent psychic.

"Supernatural" apparently had a troubled production, largely because Lombard felt the material was unsuitable for her comedy chops; though you wouldn't know it, as the result is a solid supernatural horror-melodrama that is anchored in an understated (and unexpected) raw performance from Lombard. The film's plot is rather routine, and some elements are a bit ridiculous (and ostensibly were even in 1933), but the real success of the film is that it manages to draw the audience in with its quietness. There are several scenes that linger on Lombard's character alone in the frame, and her nonverbal acting is highly communicative and serves as further evidence of what her talents were. While Lombard herself felt horror was a mismatch for her, I'd politely disagree.

The film ramps up when her character schedules a followup seance with the fraud psychic and actually becomes possessed. It's all good fun, and peppered with some marginally spooky moments. The black-and-white photography is atmospheric and effective, and at times it reminded me (stylistically) of the Val Lewton horror films that would come the following decade. The "possessed by a serial killer" plot would rear its head in subsequent decades in such films as "Witchboard" (1986), and the similarities there are visible.

All in all, "Supernatural" is a rather underrated film in the horror canon, especially as far as pre-code films are concerned. It seems to have been relegated as a footnote in both the genre and in studies of Lombard's career, which is a shame because it is actually a well-made, formidably-acted, and generally impressive horror film. Its ability to turn small, quiet moments into grand gestures is something to behold, and Lombard's understated acting helps hold the drama and thrills together nicely. 8/10.

Hit-and-miss curiosity

[hudecha · 6/10 · 20 November 2020]

As mentioned by others, if you are a Carole Lombard admirer - as I am - you might decide to pass this one. Not because it's not a comedy - I for one enjoy it when she plays different roles, and consider she was as talented to play them. But her special gift was as a "natural" actor - her acting almost never appeared strained. There was no way she could bring that gift to playing a rich heiress possessed by a psychopathic, half-hysterical murderess. Now the other more legitimate motivation is to watch this as an amateur of old horror pictures - which I am as well. In that case you might somehow enjoy the eerie creepiness of this dated story, though to be frank it is a less than half-full glass. The only really outstanding part is the opening titles and then the tightly-edited fast-forward montage of Ruth Rogen's scandalous trial and conviction. After that brilliant opening, the film slows down quite a lot and has the usual other defects of early talkies. But what really burdens it is a fairly confuse script with a number of inconsistencies. Special effects are just on par. Supposedly frightening scenes of spiritism are not very successful in creating a heavy, claustrophobic atmosphere. Nor is the final scene as tense as it should feel, though amateurs of strong sensations are in for a good one - not for impressionable kids.

Spiritual Communication

[lugonian · 5/10 · 15 October 2017]

SUPERNATURAL (Paramount, 1933), a Victor and Edward Halperin Production, directed by Victor Halperin, marks one of the studios contribution to the horror genre. Not quite a frightening premise where monsters or mad scientists are concerned as with ISLAND OF LOST SOULS (1933), but an interesting one revolving around phony spiritualists and souls taking control over one's body. It's even more interesting through the unlikely casting of Carole Lombard and Randolph Scott in their only movie together in a premise such as this.

As the opening credits roll with lightning volts shifting from listings of players to production crew through its haunting chants, the story sets its pattern through forward message readings from Confucius: "Treat all supernatural beings with respect, but keep aloof from them"; Mohammed: "We will bring forth the dead from their graves"; and Matthew "And he gave his twelve disciples power against the unclean spirits to cast them out." The photo-play opens with newspaper clippings revolving around the trial of Ruth Rogan (Vivienne Osborne), labeled one of the most dangerous women in world history, a love murderess responsible for the deaths of three men. Doctor Carl Houston (H.B. Warner), the world's greatest psychologist, confirms with the prison warden (Willard Robertson) how he believes the evil spirit of the deceased can go from one body to the next to continue its series of crimes. He wants to conduct an experiment to prevent similar crimes from ever happening again starting with Ruth Rogan. Before her execution, Houston goes to death row asking the condemned Ruth permission to obtain her body after execution. Ruth grants the request in hope she can return from the dead and avenge her execution on Paul Bavian (Alan Dinehart), the man who betrayed her to the police. More newspaper clippings hit the screen about the death of millionaire playboy, John Courtney (Lyman Williams), and how his twin sister, Roma (Carole Lombard) is now in control of the Courtney fortune. In order to obtain that fortune for himself, Bavian, a spiritualist, sends Roma a telegram on how he can hold a seance and communicate with her dead brother, thus inviting her to attend at his Greenwich Village apartment. Before this is to take place, Mrs. Gourjan (Beryl Mercer), the nosy landlady, knows Bavian is a fake and blackmails him into having her as his partner. His answer to her is offering her his handshake with a poisonous ring that puts her out of commission. During the seance where Roma attends with her beau, Grant Wilson (Randolph Scott), who believes Bavian to be a phony medium, comes along for the ride hoping to expose him, but Roma believes otherwise. The second seance attempts to prove John was murdered by Roma's guardian, Nick Hammond (William Farnum), who is later put out of commission the same manner as his other victims when threatened to be exposed. About the same time, the soul of Ruth Rogan enters and takes control of Roma's body, and through her, carries on with her treat of vengeance on Bavian while the spirit of Roma's brother guides Grant to save Roma's soul before it's too late.

An unusual tale and worthy follow-up by Victor and Edward Halperin's recently released now classic thriller of WHITE ZOMBIE (United Artists, 1932) starring Bela Lugosi. It's notable standpoint, aside from the realistic seances, is how the camera catches in close range cat-eye effect of Lombard while under the new personality of the deceased Ruth Rogan. Alan (spelled Allan in the credits) Dinehart, gives another notable interpretation as a no-conscience villain, and how he falls prey to the soul of another woman. He even has a Great Dane around to inform him through growls and barks or any snoopers outside his door while conducting plans for his next seance. Beryl Mercer, best known as the mother in either ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (Universal, 1930) or THE PUBLIC ENEMY (Warner Brothers, 1931), does well as the hard drinking landlady who spies on questionable activities that go on around her watch. H.B. Warner as the psychologist conducting experiments with the soul of the dead (and personal friend of the Courtney family), could easily have been conducted by a mad doctor in the manner of Lionel Atwill or Boris Karloff, but here is as sane as the next man who truly believes in his theories, as odd as it sounds to any layman. For only the opening scene, many rank SUPERNATURAL to be one of Vivienne Osborne's better known films. Even after her character death, her presence is felt throughout the story. In spite of some supernatural themes, SUPERNATURAL interestingly was hardly ever presented on any Fright Night or Chiller Theater Saturday evenings in the 1960s or 1970s, although it did turn out on commercial television from time to time on the late show.

Not as well known as some movies of this period, SUPERNATURAL, at 64 minutes, has turned up on video cassette as part of the Carole Lombard collection around 1995, and DVD a decade later as part of Paramount's Vault Collection, did have very rare cable television broadcasts over the years on both the Sci-Fi Channel (late 1980s) and briefly on American Movie Classics (2001-2003) before disappearing from view again. Worthwhile not so much for Carole Lombard but for the now obscure Halperin brothers who produced such a melodrama that may not be super but a natural in screen entertainment. (**)

Vivienne Osborne is Just Splendid!!!

[kidboots · 8/10 · 22 March 2011]

"Supernatural" broke new ground, being one of the first films to deal with possession by otherworldly influences. Before the Golden age of Horror, film chillers were usually adaptations of stories by Poe or Stevenson and ghost stories usually had "down to earth" explanations, explained at the movie's end. After the popularity of "Dracula" there came a greater acceptance among the public of things of a super- natural bent. The reasons may also have been that during the early talkies, when sound recording was often limited to one or two sets - movies about faith healers, mentalists and seances became extremely popular. Between "White Zombie" (1932) and it's supposed sequel "Revolt of the Zombies" (1936) the Halperin Brothers made only 2 films - one was the forgettable "I Conquer the Sea", the other was the unusual and innovative "Supernatural" starring the luminous Carole Lombard.

With several scriptural quotations, as well as a montage of newspaper headlines and courtroom shots, the scene is set and we are introduced to Ruth Rogan (the always excellent Vivienne Osborne) who is to die in the electric chair for murdering three lovers. Not only is Ruth not sorry, she is eager to kill again - if only she can get a reprieve - No Chance!!

Meanwhile, Roma Courtney (Carole Lombard), who is grieving over the death of her brother, John, receives a note from spiritualist Paul Bavian (the always excellent Alan Dinehart), who tell her he has been visited by a "distressed John" and wants to arrange a seance. There is always a naysayer in these movies and in this one it happens to be Randolph Scott, who plays Roma's shoulder to cry on (and hoping to be more) Grant. At the seance "John" appears and accuses Hammond (William Farnum) an old family friend of killing him to eventually take control of his fortune. Afterwards Roma and Grant visit Dr. Houston (H.B. Warner) and find him in the middle of a ghastly experiment. Before Ruth Rogan's execution she had given permission for Houston to experiment with her remains - to see what makes her tick!!! When Roma bursts in, Ruth (looking no worse for her electrifying death) is sitting there and after a flutter of curtains, the harassed doctor demands that Grant "get Roma out of the room" - too late she is already possessed!!!

Bavian has a few secrets, not the least that he is a phoney spiritualist. He is the man who supposedly put Ruth on her murderous path and the man she wants to return to life for, in order to kill him. He has also, just before the seance, murdered his landlady, who was getting a bit nosy. Beryl Mercer, usually the epitome of sweet, simpering mothers ("The Public Enemy", "All Quiet on the Western Front") is anything but here. If any actress can be forgiven for rebelling against typecasting, it was Beryl Mercer - maybe she was just taking one last stand, because in this movie her role was that of a sly, drink dependent hag who lived in a roach infested room.

Roma, now possessed by Ruth's evil spirit organises another seance and when Hammond is murdered she and Paul take off - he, envisioning a night of lust, she with murder on her mind. Lombard's transformation to the possessed Roma is more than just acting. Makeup creates a harsh look but at the film's end the lipstick, eyeshadow and general darkness of her face disappears and she is the old Roma once again. Again Vivienne Osborne, as the psychotic murderess really steals the show. She excelled at highly emotional parts - it was just such a pity that those roles were few and far between. She retired in the late 40s but even one of her last roles, as the sick querulous first wife of Vincent Price in "Dragonwyck", she was completely memorable.

Highly Recommended.

An Actual Possession

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 12 December 2023]

Many of you may be familiar with the TV series "Supernatural" starring Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles, but there was a "Supernatural" 72 years before them.

In the 1933 version a woman named Ruth Rogen (Vivienne Osborne) was slated for execution because she'd killed several men. She was asked by a psychologist named Dr. Carl Houston (H. B. Warner) if he could use her body for science. Her natural response was "no," however when she was led to believe that there was a possibility she could be returned to life, she assented. She had some unfinished business to take care of with a fellow named Paul Bavian (Alan Dinehart), a fake psychic who pretends to commune with the dead.

Dr. Houston posited that a powerful malignant personality (spirit) without a body of its own could possess others and make them do evil. Dr. Houston wanted to prevent Ruth's "personality" from escaping and causing others to do similar crimes as she'd committed.

Dr. Houston failed to contain Ruth's spirit after her execution and she possessed the body of Roma Courtney (Carole Lombard), a rich woman who went to Bavian in hopes she could find out who killed her brother John. Looking out for Roma was Grant Wilson (Randolph Scott). She was a damsel in distress after all.

This was the second movie from the 30's that I've seen in which the supernatural did occur ("The Mummy" being the first). Every other movie with supernatural occurrences wound up being explained away by science or trickery. I was glad to see an actual possession, it added a layer of horror, excitement, and suspense. If every spooky occurrence is always wires, projections, and gadgets, then it takes away most of the fear factor.

Free on Internet Archive.

Very Campy

[HotToastyRag · 2/10 · 21 August 2020]

Fans of old horror flicks will absolutely love Supernatural. It's so campy and overdone, you'll love to laugh. It's not supposed to be funny though, and in fact, there are some séance scenes that are quite spooky! If you're not in the mood to laugh, you'll probably turn this off. It's pretty stinky.

Vivienne Osborne gets convicted and executed for murder, but until her dying day, she wants to see her boyfriend and talk to him. He's a phony séance conductor who's obviously hiding some criminal activities. Meanwhile, a scientist H.B. Warner believes evil souls can be transferred to live bodies after death, and he fears Vivienne's will seek a new host after her execution. He tries to conduct an experiment that will prevent the transfer, but (since this is a horror movie) it doesn't work.

Carole Lombard has just lost her beloved brother, and in her grief, she agrees to see Allan Dinehart, the same séance man connected to Vivienne. Yes, it's a small world. Carole's boyfriend comes along for moral support, but he's not on board and keeps looking for tricks. If you don't see his name in the credits, you might not recognize the bulky, wavy-haired brunette actor. It's Randolph Scott! I read recently he chose westerns as his genre of choice because he was told he couldn't act. Poor guy! Yes, his acting chops in this movie leave much to be desired, but Gary Cooper couldn't act either; why wasn't Scottie given better parts early in his career?