The Return of Doctor X Reviews

  • Jul 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.

    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.

  • Oct 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).

    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).

  • Aug 20, 2014

    bogies first n last appearance in a horror pic

    bogies first n last appearance in a horror pic

  • Apr 09, 2013

    Even that is a bad film, Bogart's performance is not as bad as the other characters film.

    Even that is a bad film, Bogart's performance is not as bad as the other characters film.

  • Oct 27, 2012

    Sort of entertaining but definitely a b-grade flick that never rises above the ordinary.

    Sort of entertaining but definitely a b-grade flick that never rises above the ordinary.

  • Jul 12, 2012

    Humphrey Bogart is creepy as a resurrected cadaver in this entertaining little movie.

    Humphrey Bogart is creepy as a resurrected cadaver in this entertaining little movie.

  • Dec 11, 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

    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

  • Oct 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.

    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.

  • Jul 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.

    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.

  • Jul 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.

    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.