No, this is not the comic book or TV series, and there are no zombies to be seen. In this case, "The Walking Dead" is the story of John Ellman - an ex-con who just two weeks after his release from prison is wrongfully convicted of the murder of the judge who originally sentenced him for his earlier crime. Ellman is the victim of a conspiracy among a group of rackateers who wanted the judge dead - a conspiracy that included his own lawyer. But Ellman's "good fortune" (maybe) is that Dr. Beaumont has been doing experiments involving bringing the dead back to life. Convinced by two of his associates (who know Ellman is innocent) to try his procedure on Ellman, Beaumont succeeds in raising him from the dead - and becomes fixated on what Ellman experienced while dead (although that really isn't a particularly well developed sidebar to the story.) Ultimately, Ellman takes revenge on those who framed him - although his revenge seems to be somewhat supernatural, and he never actually touches anyone.
There's a "Frankenstein-ish" quality to this very short movie - which includes Boris Karloff (famous, of course, as Frankenstein's monster in the 1931 movie and the later "Bride of Frankenstein" in 1935.) In fact, Karloff apparently expressed some concerns that in the original script, Ellman was too much like the monster - especially because of his inability to speak - and the script was rewritten to accommodate Karloff's concerns. Even Beaumont's process of reviving Ellman resembled Dr. Frankenstein's experiment just a little bit - with bolts of lightning involved. To me, Karloff seemed to put on a ho hum performance. It wasn't especially riveting, although director Michael Curtiz made good use of close ups of Karloff's eyes. But this movie really wasn't at all frightening, and Ellman was no monster, although, again, there's a similarity to "Frankenstein" in the fact that both Ellman and the monster Karloff portrayed in the earlier movies were both objects of sympathy, not really responsible for anything that happened. Aside from the lack of any real fear factor, the movie may have tried to pack a little bit too much into 66 minutes. There are a lot of characters and a somewhat convoluted plot.
Aside from Karloff, I immediately recognized Edmund Gwenn. Still more than a decade away from his famous turn as Kris Kringle in "Miracle on 34th Street, Gwenn here was Dr. Beaumont. He was all right in the role, but I honestly didn't feel that any of the cast were particular standouts, and the story is, for my taste, too much of a rehash of some of the basic plot of "Frankenstein." (3/10)
There's a "Frankenstein-ish" quality to this very short movie - which includes Boris Karloff (famous, of course, as Frankenstein's monster in the 1931 movie and the later "Bride of Frankenstein" in 1935.) In fact, Karloff apparently expressed some concerns that in the original script, Ellman was too much like the monster - especially because of his inability to speak - and the script was rewritten to accommodate Karloff's concerns. Even Beaumont's process of reviving Ellman resembled Dr. Frankenstein's experiment just a little bit - with bolts of lightning involved. To me, Karloff seemed to put on a ho hum performance. It wasn't especially riveting, although director Michael Curtiz made good use of close ups of Karloff's eyes. But this movie really wasn't at all frightening, and Ellman was no monster, although, again, there's a similarity to "Frankenstein" in the fact that both Ellman and the monster Karloff portrayed in the earlier movies were both objects of sympathy, not really responsible for anything that happened. Aside from the lack of any real fear factor, the movie may have tried to pack a little bit too much into 66 minutes. There are a lot of characters and a somewhat convoluted plot.
Aside from Karloff, I immediately recognized Edmund Gwenn. Still more than a decade away from his famous turn as Kris Kringle in "Miracle on 34th Street, Gwenn here was Dr. Beaumont. He was all right in the role, but I honestly didn't feel that any of the cast were particular standouts, and the story is, for my taste, too much of a rehash of some of the basic plot of "Frankenstein." (3/10)