The Return of Doctor X - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Return of Doctor X Reviews

Page 1 of 2
July 18, 2015
Not very good horror film is really only worth watching for what has to be the most bizarre casting of Humphrey Bogart's career as Doctor X. A reporter is investigating a string of murders that involved the victims being found drained of their rare blood type, which eventually leads to the titular Doctor X. Bogart himself hated this film and never wanted to talk about it. His role as Doctor X was originally going to be played by Boris Karloff, so that gives you an idea of how different a role this was for Bogey and just how miscast he was, with goofy glasses and a Bride of Frankenstein-like grey streak. Overall, this film is only worth watching as a curio in Bogart's filmography, this being his only sci-fi or horror film appearance.
½ October 16, 2014
Kind of a little good/bad movie in that i's poorly made but watchable. Humphrey Bogart is completely miscast as ghoulish Dr. X. This isn't a true sequel to the extremely memorable 'Doctor X' (1932).
½ August 20, 2014
bogies first n last appearance in a horror pic
½ April 9, 2013
Even that is a bad film, Bogart's performance is not as bad as the other characters film.
½ October 27, 2012
Sort of entertaining but definitely a b-grade flick that never rises above the ordinary.
July 12, 2012
Humphrey Bogart is creepy as a resurrected cadaver in this entertaining little movie.
½ December 13, 2011
W/ a role that originally intended for Boris Karloff this is a strange turn for Humphrey Bogart & I believe his only horror movie. Apparently he was quite upset w/ the role. Personally I think it's nice to see him step into the genre but then again I feel this would have been a better movie w/ Karloff. Boogie does look a bit uncomfortable but all in all it's pretty good for what it is. It's running time is a little too brisk to chalk it up as anything special but it did have potential & the concept of creating synthetic blood & bringing the dead back to life is a novel one. It just doesn't necessarily deliver on all fronts. That again is mostly due to it running time. John Litel is fucking hilarious though constantly looking suspicious. Talk about no one paying attention to body language
½ October 30, 2011
No Lugosi or Karloff kinda detracted from this, but we do have Bogart in this one. A murder-mystery, this one had less humor as the original (but there was some that was a bit out-of-place). There was some Expressionism present (reminiscent of the earlier German school) which actually didnt seem out-of-place. I didnt like this one as much as the first one, though it was interesting seeing Bogart in a role like this.
½ July 30, 2011
Thank goodness every possible clue was featured as the headline of a newspaper at one time or another. While Humphrey Bogart is fun to watch as a shifty-eyed doctor, this sequel is mostly forgettable. The rest of the cast seems totally disposable and twenty minutes after watching it, I'm already forgetting much of what happened. A Bogart fan should see it for him, absolutely. Otherwise, there's little to see. Move along. Move along.
½ July 17, 2011
Humphrey Bogart is effectively menacing in his only horror movie role. Whilst it's not a sequel to the 1932 film Dr X, it borrows some references, inpartivular synthetic blood replacing the first movie's synthetic flesh. Atmospheric and with a couple of effective leading players, it doesn't outstay it's 62 mins running time.
Super Reviewer
½ September 19, 2010
This movie is supposed to be the sequel to Dr. x, but it strays so far away from the original that it's a different story altogether. Bogart, who wasn't in the first movie plays an evil scientist, and it's not his best performance. I didn't like this movie.
August 5, 2010
Bogart makes a great villain in this rather uninspired sequel to the wonderful "Doctor X".
July 24, 2010
Pretty lackluster stuff. This sequel of sorts has little to do with the original Technicolor nightmare and does little to advance the story of Doctor X. Frankly, there's just too much yacking involved, and when there isn't anybody interesting talking the film becomes a bore quickly. The one point of interest is a young Humphrey Bogart as Doctor X himself; he manages a partly creepy performance as the bunny stroking mad genius back from the dead and saves the film from absolute pointlessness.
½ December 16, 2009
good stuff ok b movie fare
October 23, 2009
A harmless little grade B sleuth reporter picture with some horror elements tossed in. The weakest thing is the ending that pops out of nowhere, seemingly culled from a low end gangster movie. Bogart's heart may not be in the role of the title character but he is still creepy with his pale, greasy skin and white streaked hair. That sight alone is the film's best recommendation.
½ September 2, 2009
A l'origine, Michael Curtiz devait tourner cette suite de son Doctor X et mettre en scene Boris Karloff qui avait deja joue un savant fou a la meiche blanche dans "The Walking Dead" de Curtiz. Par manque de budget, la production ecarte Curtiz et Karloff du projet et donne le role a un acteur a l'epoque meconnu: Humphrey Bogart. Bogy herite donc de cette meiche blanche caracteristique dans cette serie B qui etait pour lui a l'epoque un travail alimentaire. Neanmoins, apres la carriere qu'on lui connait, il est amusant de le voir dans ce qui est sans doute son seul role fantastique.
½ April 12, 2009
The Return of Doctor X (1939) -- [5.5] -- The best thing about this movie is Humphrey Bogart's creepy turn as an executed baby killer brought back to life by the science of Dr. X. He makes a great villain, but unfortunately, no one else in this movie can match his screen presence. Overall, the sequel (in name only) is definitely better plotted and paced than the 1932 original, and benefits from a full musical score and a better cast. It's not a bad film. It's just not a very memorable one, either.
July 25, 2008
Closer to the slapstick side of horror, this movie has an original idea just not done in the best way. Supposedly this is a sequal to "doctor X" but in no way are they related. Humphrey Bogart plays out of his straight and narrow/ love interest parts and becomes the villain. At best, I'd watch this just to see how Humphrey handles a different side of acting.
October 5, 2007
This didn't really play like a sequel to DOCTOR X. That said, it was a enjoyable mystery thriller. I had heard that Bogart was horribly miscast in the title role, but I thought he was great. A very creepy performance.
½ September 16, 2007
Humphrey Bogart plays creepy excellent, I wish he did more roles like this.
Page 1 of 2