not horrible nor great

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Ralph Morgan (Professor Kristan), Maxine Doyle (Marguerite Mane), Pedro de Cordoba (Dr Bizet), Russell Gleason (David), Mischa Auer (Zan), Lucy Beaumont (Mother Molly), Carl Stockdale (John Mane), Heida Shope (Anna), Marilyn Knowlden (Maria), Paul Weigel (doctor), Edward Cecil (Manservant), Ted Billings (bell ringer), Charles Slim Whitaker, Harold Goodwin, Dick Curtis, Frank Brownlee, Horace B. Carpenter (villagers), Jean Handel (old crone). PROLOGUE: Barbara Bedford (woman), Ferdinand Schumann-Heinck (man), Robert Frazer (doctor). Director: FRANK R. STRAYER. Original screenplay: Karen DeWolf. Photography: M.A. Anderson. Film editor: Richard D. Reed. Art director: Edward C. Jewell. Music director: Abe Meyer. Title music composed by David Broekman. Production manager: Lon Young. Assistant director: Melville Shyer. Sound recording: Richard Tyler. Producer: Maury M. Cohen. Filmed on standing sets at Universal Studios. Copyright 5 September 1935 by Invincible Pictures Corporation. U.S. release through Chesterfield: 15 September 1935. No recorded New York opening. 7 reels. 67 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A small European village is terrorized by a monster bat. COMMENT: Despite its second-string cast (only Maxine Doyle as the pretty heroine and Mischa Auer as the devoted hunchback make any sort of impression), this little "B" emerges as a fairly effective horror yarn, thanks to Strayer's suspenseful direction and Anderson's atmospheric lighting. The sets are also highly effective, and I must commend the director's decision not to use wolfish make-up for the monster but to let the actor concerned register his transformation simply by changing his facial expression from bland to menacing.

'Condemned …' doesn't repeat Strayer's earlier movie about bloodsucking in a peaceful village. The story lines are unlike. This one should of been both more romantic and unnerving. 'The Vampire Bat' wasn't about _vampirism, but about crazy science, an insane scientist, hypnosis, a henchman …. 'Condemned …' is about _vampirism, it has much more drama (which would of required a better cast), no comedy. It brings a natural explanation to _vampirism, and in both movies the _vampirism is related only to bloodsucking, but not to any unholy things whatsoever. Here, there's no copper, but a rival. For those who complain about humor in suspense movies, we are completely spared of it, the chills are straight.A peaceful village, a cave and its pit …. Also, the villagers with torches. The eeriness in both is basically natural: a disease here (and the giant bats are real, though they live in the depths of Africa), the hypnosis in the earlier movie.The script depends much more on drama (and here, the cast dis-serves it), not at all on comedy, Kristan, as played by R. Morgan, is wholly bland, though doomed, a bland altruist stricken by a disease; Maxine Doyle is banal, and more naughty and knowledgeable than a village ingénue. The cast has Auer, whose role was smaller than advisable; in an earlier movie, also by F. Strayer, he had been the illegitimate son of a wealthy man, and made a good role. The script offers a romantic drama, but Kristan (one of the medicine professors who practiced in peaceful villages) should of been more keenly characterized, while Maxine Doyle looks nothing like her role. When the stepfather Bizet arrives, the professor seems surprised, though he had informed his guest about his plans to marry. And the denouement in the cave comes off as less grand than needed, with the villagers turned suddenly into a sympathetic crowd.So, in a sense, Frank Strayer did return to his peaceful village, but to shoot an entirely different tale. Here, the names are fancier: Kristan, Bizet …. In fact, Strayer tries here a new thing, positively strives not to repeat himself, to acknowledge another template, for a dissimilar plot. The supporting players, mainly Auer, but also the foster father and the girl's father, upstage the leads. The overtones of sexual pathology perhaps required better scenes, according to later criteria; but within the age's code, the dissonances are spelled as explicit as possible (the manservant Zan is a double of the professor, and like a son, signifying the inner deformity; the girl is another double, not inner, not interiorly, but as mirroring his repression and denial).'Condemned …' is a movie about _vampirism understood as a disease; it also links this illness with morbid sexuality, the girl's bland sentimentality, guessed by both Bizet and the professor's rival, mirror the vampire's unacknowledged _pulsions, and both the professor and his fiancée are trapped in an unhealthy relationship to deny their genuine leanings (wholly morbid, his; entirely sane and ordinary, hers). The paternity plays an important role: Bizet is the professor's foster father, the professor himself is like a foster father to Zan, the oaths of the girl's father prove worthless. So, the seeming paradox is that this movie will at once endear Strayer's fan, and disappoint slightly; as its style is what at once endears, and proves insufficient. The script could of been better, though it's uncanny enough as such; but even with the one given, a better cast was needed, one more glamorous and striking. The earlier movie had been a sure recipe, and meant as such; the later one tries a new territory: gloomy drama, and it needed a dependable cast, and even Auer, underused here, had been better filmed by the very same director.There's a bit of effective music I recognized from another '30s chiller.R. Morgan and Maxine Doyle weren't the most enjoyable leads. The professor comes across as not only understandably weakened, but positively repugnant and lecherous. In an earlier Strayer movie, Auer had been much better showcased.

Marilyn Knowlden was a sweet and exquisite child actress who played sweet and exquisite children (Little Cosette in "Les Miserables" (1934), Frances in "The Conquerors' (1932), Kim in "Show Boat" (1936) and Princess Therese in "Marie Antoinette" (1938) among others). "Condemned to Live" was one of her very few budget films but she was in good company. Ralph Morgan was always a good character actor, excelling in quirky villain roles until he became better known as Frank Morgan's older brother. He plays Professor Paul Kristan who, along with his apelike assistant, Zan (Mischa Auer) is called to a cave in his village to examine a man that has been killed by a bat. He is engaged to marry Marguerite (Maxine Doyle) who although she doesn't love him, worships him as a village hero. Unbeknownst to the village the professor is really a vampire!!! Paul's mother was bitten by a vampire bat and so Paul carries the curse. He kills his victims and then leaves them to be found in the cave. The village believe the killer to be a bat, but David (Russell Gleason) who is in love with Marguerite thinks a human is responsible. When Marguerite's maid is found dead, suspicion turns to Zan, who always seems to be around. Paul realises he is the "fiend" but when he finds himself alone with Marguerite, like a fool she somehow manages to blow out all the candles. He then attacks her but Zan bursts through the windows and saves her. The villagers, thinking Zan is the fiend chase him to the cave until David catches up with them and tells them it is really the beloved Professor.With a plot borrowing heavily from "Frankenstein" and "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", it is an interesting film. There is even a little Maria, a village child played by Marilyn Knowlden.Recommended.

"Condemned to Live" is one of those movies that make you feel sorry for the monster. An unfortunate creature caught up in circumstances beyond it's control. The creature seemed to me to be a cross between a vampire and a werewolf although which one it actually is, is really unimportant to the movies plot. There is a nice assortment of characters and a romantic theme that goes along with the horror story. I thought that it was a pretty enjoyable movie. You do have to consider that it is a 1935 movie made by Invincible Pictures Corp. Old and probably a low budget film. You do have to like older movies to enjoy this one. I thought that it should have a rating of 5+ or a low 6 and decided on voting for the 6. It is worth seeing.