Dead Men Walk

Put me down in agreement with the reviewers here who enjoyed this film. No, it's certainly not remotely great and I have seen much better vampire flicks, but the terrific Zucco, decent writing, and competent acting from the rest of the cast make it slightly better than average.

In regard to Zucco, I have seen him in many films and he never fails to do a good job, regardless of what he has to work with. In this movie, he's the glue that holds this plot together from beginning to end. The way he makes the two brothers distinctive is to be lauded. Privately, he might have hated this genre of movie, but you wouldn't have known it from the gusto that he gives his dual role.

It's always good to see Dwight Frye, even though this wasn't his best performance. He played countless crazy or weird characters throughout his career, yet they usually differed due to his unique characterization he gave to each role.

Some here have complained about the sound and other defects in the quality of the film, which isn't fair since the vast majority of us have seen this film only from public domain copies. For example, the copies of "It's a Wonderful Life" that I saw as a kid weren't half the quality of the actual master that we now see around the holidays. Until a worthy copy shows up, I'll refrain making a judgment on that aspect of "Dead Men Walk."

All in all, the movie is entertaining. If you like horror movies from that era, you probably wont be disappointed.

George Zucco plays two brothers, one good, one evil. One is dead and one is undead. Good brother George killed bad brother George because he was in league with the devil. The problem is that evil henchman Dwight Frye knows what happens and he resurrected the evil brother in the form of a vampire to take revenge.

I really like this movie. Sure the pacing can be slow but any film with George Zucco in it can't be all bad (actually it can but its usually fun bad). This is the creaky old creepy mystery thrillers that they don't make any more with graveyards full of mist, dark shadows and vampires with fake teeth. Its a great deal of fun.

Granted if you're not an old movie fan, and need your horror in color and rapidly paced this movie probably isn't for you, but if you're in the mood for a good old horror movie and you're done with the Universal classics you really should give this a try.

Fairly typical PRC stuff, but imho any film with 2 Zucco's has to be worth a look in. And most of the time he does alright talking to thin air, with just a couple of dud repeat shots occasionally cheapening things (even more!)

It's an interesting low budget take on vampirism, with Good Dr. Zucco finding it very hard to believe that his dead identical twin Bad Count Zucco is actually undead and on the prowl for revenge against him. Even harder for him to swallow is the remedy which to him resembles hocus-pocus - apparently like he does to the hillbilly townsfolk. Didn't they have any streets in that town, they all seemed to spend a lot of time crashing through thick forest - which had presumably just used on another film? Dwight Frye was on target as usual, but looked very chunky and unwell, perhaps not surprising that he only had a year to live.

All in all very entertaining and surprisingly well acted and atmospheric nonsense.

This is a neat little picture. Period. Sure it has an incredibly low budget. Yep, it is dark and grainy. It sure does creak in some places too. But it has a couple of fine performances by George Zucco as twin brothers. One brother has killed his evil twin to rid the town of his malevolence. The dead brother returns, with the aid of a much older and very tired looking Dwight Frye, as a vampire out to avenge his death and destroy anything that matters to his brother. Zucco does fine in both roles. He makes probably the most urbane vampire in film. The budget really hurts as the vampire just fades out and in, but it also adds to the charm of this little studio film. Frye also does a decent job returning to a much more subdued Renfield-type role. The other actors are not that bad, and the story actually had me interested till the end. Fern Kemmett in particular gave a nice performance as a superstitious woman. Some shots in the film are very atmospheric. There is a great scene in a cemetery, and the finale was orchestrated quite well. The two Zuccos fight in flames as Dwight cries from under a very heavy marble altar. Great Stuff!

George Zucco, whom I had never heard of until now, stars as a kindly doctor and his evil twin brother who is hell-bent on Satan worship, and having a hunchback assistant (because you need that). His Satan-worship even seems to make him immune to death! You might not find some aspects of the film to be original. I mean, a hunchback? And the good twin and bad twin dichotomy? Nothing new there (though newer in 1943 than today). So put this one on the pile with all those other films...

But wait! Whoever provided the imagery really cared about the scenes they wanted to show. The opening is one of the more powerful scenes you'll find in a film of its era. A book called "History of Vampires" burns slowly in a fireplace (forshadowing the later destruction of the occult book collection) while a super-imposed face speaks to us from beyond the grave.

Yes, you'll have to be tolerant of older films with no color and the less technologically advanced filming procedures. If not, you might be snoozing in a matter of minutes. But true fans of the old days will enjoy this one and all the way to the end you may not be able to guess which brother - if either one - will survive this epic battle of good versus evil.