UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Horror >

The Face of Marble

The Face of Marble (1946)

January. 19,1946
|
4.9
|
NR
| Horror

The story of Dr. Charles Randolph, a scientist dedicated to deciphering the secrets of life and death. Aided by assistant David Cochran, Charles conducts experiments that have horrifying side effects. Charles's lonely wife, Elaine, is frightened by his work, and in order to protect her, housekeeper Maria unleashes a torrent of voodoo that wrecks havoc.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Scott LeBrun
1946/01/19

Horror legend John Carradine remains a delight to watch, as always, in this mostly routine but reasonably atmospheric tale from Monogram and director William Beaudine; he raises the rating by a point. The rest of the cast is adequate at best. The special effects are actually not bad. The script by Michael Jacoby (based on a story by Edmund L. Hartmann and Wilhelm Thiele) is awfully talky, a clear sign of a very low budget. Still, this is the kind of thing people could still easily enjoy watching in those wee hours of the morning.Carradine portrays Dr. Charles Randolph, a fairly typical mad scientist (actually, he's not THAT mad) who wants more than anything to conquer death and bring the dead back to life. Alas, his experiments are not working out. Sometimes they even have weird side effects, such as his wife's rejuvenated dog developing a taste for blood and the ability to walk through things. Yes, this movie features a "vampire dog" 32 years before "Zoltan Hound of Dracula". Adding another wrinkle to the plot is the conniving housekeeper on the premises, Maria (Rosa Rey).Some plot twists are mildly amusing and help to keep the film somewhat entertaining. At least it has the typically short running time (73 minutes all told) for a genre picture from this era. Female cast members Claudia Drake as Elaine (Randolphs' wife) and Maris Wrixon are easy enough on the eyes. Robert Shayne ('Adventures of Superman') has some likability as Randolphs' colleague and Willie Best adds un-p.c. comedy relief as a pop eyed butler. Rey is a hoot in her role.All in all, this is diverting enough while it lasts.Six out of 10.

More
gavin6942
1946/01/20

Totally engrossed in his project to bring the dead back to life, Dr. Charles Randolph (John Carradine) fails to notice his wife Elaine's interest in Randolph's young lab partner, Dr. Cochran.The sound and picture of this film need serious clean up, if possible. And there is some strange, latent racism here. But beyond those issues, there is a lot of horror potential -- reviving the dead, voodoo and a lab with electricity going everywhere. Randolph fits the idea of a "mad scientist" perfectly (but with less wild hair).Some scenes are hard to follow because of how dark the picture is, but the story is decent, and if there was a way to fix this up, I would increase my rating.

More
preppy-3
1946/01/21

A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.

More
funkyfry
1946/01/22

This film is distinguished by high-quality high contrast photography. There's little else here in this standard-issue John Carradine mad scientist story, in which Carradine and his assistant manage to resurrect a man, then a large dog, and finally Carradine's wife (at his perhaps obsessed assistant's insistence!). A few interesting plot twists are turned when the script starts to lose its direction (owing in part literally to the director, infamous "One Shot" Beaudine, who probably prided himself on his ethic of efficiency over all artistic or dramatic considerations), but there seems to be no effort to make a really good movie here. Too bad; it just might have been a lot better with some effort (kudos to the actors, though, who all played it straight like Beaudine wanted them to).

More