Sorry, this movie sucks

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Hey, what's with the ridiculously low and miserable rating of not even 3 out of 10? I ventured into this film without checking its title page on IMDb, which is something I rarely ever do, but now I'm glad, otherwise I probably would have passed an missed out on a fairly engaging, original and chilling little 60's gem. Perhaps the low rating is linked to the fact that this is another film that undeservedly received the feared and notorious MST3K-treatment, which tends to hugely influence viewers opinions, but it really isn't such a bad film albeit admittedly a bit derivative and suffering from a lack of budgetary means. But at least the film is atmospheric. Like clowns, ventriloquist dummies have some sort of uncanny aura surrounding them and the more you look at them, the scarier they become. Director Lindsay Shonteff ("The Million Eyes of Sumuru") clearly realized this as well, because he stuffed his film with extended still shots of dummy. It's strangely unsettling because you're staring at something lifeless, yet you somehow feel like he's staring back at you. The script of "Devil Doll" also centers on another eerie surreal phenomenon apart from ventriloquism, namely hypnotism. The Great Vorelli has a successful act where he hypnotizes people on stage and then ends with his dummy Hugo, a dummy that can not only talk and pull menacing grimaces, but also walk all by himself! The skeptical journalist Mark English is intrigued with the act, and whilst he's trying to unravel the mystery of Hugo's ability to walk, Vorelli has set his mind on conquering the heart and soul of Mark's enchanting fiancée Marianne, whether she wants to or not. The revelation of the mysterious dummy's secret is ingenious and I don't think I've seen this type of twist in any other movie ever before. The acting performances are good, notably Bryant Haliday's sinister role of the Great Vorelli is memorable, there's a constant atmosphere of tension and Hugo is one scary Pinocchio! If you come across this film, please do ignore the bashing reviews and low scores and give it a chance. It may be not nearly as good as other wicked-dummy movies, like "The Great Gabbo" and the downright brilliant short segment in the horror anthology "Dead of Night", but it's unquestionably a worthwhile 60's horror effort.

I've never been particularly enamored by IMDb's ratings system (most of my favorite films rank a 5 or 6), but currently rated at 2.8, this one has me completely baffled. I have to wonder if the low ranking comes from people who've seen the "Mystery Science Theatre" version and decided the film was utter crap. Perhaps if you have idiots mocking the film, that could sway your perception of it (haven't seen that version and I don't intend to).Though it's not the first film to use the concept of a sinister living doll, it's one of the earliest and one of the best. The cinematography is absolutely exquisite, the story was fresh at the time, the acting is very good (despite the occasionally corny dialog), it's pretty well-paced and certainly involving. Perhaps most importantly, the titular doll is genuinely creepy. "Devil Doll" seems like it could have been an overlong episode of "The Twilight Zone" (which also had a few living doll stories) -- and by my logic, that's a huge compliment.I'm glad that I'm not swayed by popular opinion. And it just reinforces my theory that many of the people ranking films on this site are adolescents and buffoons.

While watching this film you often have the feeling that this was supposed to be a longer, more fleshed out film. Vorelli re-gluing his beard back on is never really explained, among a few other open-ended events.The one thing that can be said is that this film is genuinely creepy at several points throughout. Watching it late at night in the dark when everyone else is asleep will lead to looks over one's shoulder! The fight scene at the end between Vorelli and Hugo is actually nightmare inducing! If you have the chance, do see it! Oh, how I long for the actually SCARY films of days gone by! Hey Hollywood take note... CGI doesn't scare anyone! A film like this one will definitely give you the heebies and the jeebies! If you want to see a creepy movie, get a hold of this one!

I don't think I will ever regard "Devil Doll" as a classic or even a "good" film, but I have to admit that there is, in spots, some decent film making going on here. The obvious comparisons for this movie would be to "Magic", "Child's Play" or even (for the real film buffs among us) "Dead of Night". Indeed this movie works many of those same visual aspects and themes. "Devil Doll" does have a good twist, though in that the dummy, who initially seems to be a sinister, evil figure, turns out instead to be a victim of the the ventriloquist (the "Great Vorelli"), rather than the usual way around. And Hugo (the dummy) manages to turn the tables on Vorelli at the very last moment (in an unintentionally hilarious fight scene that will make you snort milk out your nose). "Devil Doll" also reminds me of "She Creature", another black and white horror manqué about a hypnotist/magician using his Svengali like powers to make a beautiful woman his slave. Same grainy black and white noir photography, same dreary staging and pacing, and the same morally repulsive villain locked in a struggle with a rather bland 'hero' for the soul of a beautiful woman.I know all this sounds good, but alas, the execution is somewhat lacking. In spite of a very energetic opening orchestral introduction and enigmatic credit sequence, and some interesting acting choices and creepy individual scenes and close-ups, "Devil Doll" soon bogs down into an endless succession of scenes of people talking, smoking, talking, smoking some more, talking some more, mixed in with disturbing moments of Vorelli taunting the dummy, both on-stage and off. Bryant Haliday and William Sylvester (as Vorelli and the chain smoking reporter hero "English", respectively) give this material their best shots. Unfortunately, Vorelli is an amoral creep, and English is bland and uninteresting. Every other character in the story is either a victim (the man whose spirit is stuffed into "Hugo" and his family, the girlfriend) or a dupe (all the audience members, Vorelli's stage assistant). So there isn't a whole lot here to root for. If Sylvester's character had been written to be more effective and interesting, maybe the movie might have had more energy to it. Or maybe not. While some of the individual shots and closeups of Hugo, VOrelli, and English are quite effective, and while Haliday does a great magician/slime-ball, there is an aura of seediness and dreariness over all the proceedings that is compounded by smeared lighting and photography , and muffled, garbled sound design.(This might have been the fault of a bad print, I can't tell.) Seediness and dreariness might have been the feelings the filmmakers were trying to create - as I said, Vorelli is a human hairball, and the movie is essentially about him and his attempts to enslave a woman via hypnosis - but 90+ minutes of this atmosphere and pacing doesn't go down well to my modern American palette. Still, if you keep your eyes open and your attention tuned, you will find some nice acting and some moody moments buried among the smothering farina of the screenplay. I wouldn't spend any money to buy this, but I would watch it on late night cable if nothing more interesting was on.