Ominous October: Dead Men Walk (1943)

To celebrate spooky season, we view and review lesser-known scary movies from the golden age.

RODNEY BOWCOCK: The film opens as a book on the history of vampires is tossed into a fire while a head comes into focus, warning us not to be flippant with the powers of the dark arts. This leads us to a funeral in progress for Dr Elywn Clayton (George Zucco), a town misfit with a penchant for the occult. Attending the funeral is Elywn’s twin brother Dr Lloyd Clayton (Zucco again, naturally), his niece (Mary Carlisle) and her fiancé (Nedrick Young). As often happens in these sorts of things, Elwyn doesn’t stay dead for long and comes back to “life” as a vampire, and with the assistance of Dwight Frye, he is bent on revenge against his brother, whom he hated, by slowly taking from him his beloved niece. The rest of the film is spent as Lloyd and Young try to find the resting place of the vampire as Mary slowly descends into madness and anemia.

SAMANTHA GLASSER: The story is basically the second half of Bram Stoker's Dracula. The vampire targets a beautiful young woman and drains her of her vitality slowly so that she will become his bride in death. She seems powerless to solve the problem herself, instead relying on the men in her life to protect her. Dr. Clayton is Van Helsing. There is even a Renfield character played by Dwight Frye. Stoker is not credited; the "original screenplay" was written by Fred Myton.

RB: Myton was a prolific screenwriter to say the least, and was paid a flat $1,000 fee for his script for this film (and any number of other films). This was among seven features of different genres that he had penned for 1943 release alone.

SG: It is a basic, bare-bones movie. The action is shot on a limited number of sets, and according to James Neibaur, one of them was Zucco’s house. The fact that he plays two roles as the twin brothers is special. An attempt is made to use shadow to create atmosphere. I just couldn't shake the feeling that I'd seen this movie done 100 times before.

RB: Considering that the film was shot in six days on a budget of just under $22,000, the film is pretty good with decent camera work and competent direction. The shots where Zucco appears twice on screen are done pretty well. Nedrick Young is probably the weak link in the film, but he’s okay, if undistinguished. Dwight Frye is as unhinged as usual, and turns in a pretty good role in what turned out to be one of his final performances.

SG: Harrison's Reports said, "Even though the identity of the vampire is known, the suspense is sustained well since one fears lest he make good his threat to kill the heroine. One is not repulsed by the vampire's acts, since they are shown through indirection."

The Film Daily called it, "a frail exhibit of its kind."

The Film Bulletin wrote, "It frequently fails in creating a suspenseful atmosphere. However, Zucco has managed to neatly differentiate between the roles of a noted physician and his twin brother, who delves into the occult, and his portrayal is as convincing as the ghoulish story permits." Zucco was an English actor who frequently played villains in horror films, often for Universal where he repeatedly appeared in the Mummy franchise.

RB: Zucco had just come off of Sherlock Holmes in Washington over at Universal before he signed on with PRC for a trio of films of which this was the first.

SG: Motion Picture Herald described it as, "an above-average horror picture that should please all mystery fans, although the cast has no names of strong marquee attraction."

The Exhibitor wrote, "Director Newfield has turned out a creditable, workmanlike job with the aid of a cameraman who certainly knows his business. If this had a bit more production values and the mob sequences had been better handled it would have been an even better picture." Newfield was the brother of PRC production head Sigmund Neufeld.

RB: For PRC, this film got pretty great reviews, as you note above. Harrison’s Reports felt that the film “should appeal to the followers of pictures of this type”. Motion Picture Daily felt that it was “an above average horror picture” while The Exhibitor also felt that it was “one of the best vampire pictures since Dracula”. High praise!

SG: The movie is acceptable, but it has been done many times before, and with more style. Two stars.

RB: I’m going to go a little bit higher on this and give it two and a half stars, because while it’s certainly redundant, I think it’s a pretty good movie considering the budget and what the crew had to work with. In the right frame of mind, this serves as a pretty good way to waste an hour.