The Phantom Fiend (1932) User Reviews

Novello's second stab at 'The Lodger'

[didi-5 · 6/10 · 27 August 2007]

This film, known in the US as 'The Phantom Fiend' and seemingly only surviving in appalling prints with muddy soundtrack, was the first sound remake of Hitchcock's wonderfully atmospheric silent classic, 'The Lodger'.

As in the earlier film, British composer and matinée idol Ivor Novello plays the mysterious lodger of the title, this time affecting a bizarre European accent and managing to be even more creepy than in the silent version. His acting though was far too mannered for the sound screen, even if we do get to hear his piano playing in this film!

In support, Elizabeth Allen and a very young Jack Hawkins are not at all bad, although the story is extremely familiar and you could take a fair attempt at guessing the ending. Maurice Elvey's direction is rather pedestrian but the principals are photographed well and the tension is kept up well over the short running time.

Not a substitute for the silent version (or the superior sound version with Laird Cregar) but an interesting curio.

THE LODGER (Maurice Elvey, 1932) **

[Bunuel1976 · 5/10 · 18 April 2006]

This was actually the shorter (67 mins. as opposed to the full-length 85) version released in the U.S. under the title THE PHANTOM FIEND. While it pales in comparison with Hitchcock's seminal original – a rare expressionist film to emerge from Britain – especially since this has the tendency typical of early Talkies to emphasize dialogue (which is so muffled as to be unintelligible most of the time anyway, a deficiency which unfortunately seems to plague most British films I've seen from this era) at the expense of technique. As a matter of fact, the latter is only apparent during the atmospheric, fog-laden climax in which leading lady Elizabeth Allen mistakes the real Ripper-type murderer for the young man who lodges with her family (Ivor Novello, who reprises his role from the Hitchcock classic!).

Despite its basic purposelessness (though I would guess that a remake was commissioned, so soon after the Silent version, not so much to have a Talkie of the intriguing story – based on a popular novel – but more in response to the American horror boom of the early 30s), the plot is compelling enough to keep one watching…and predictable enough to be followed, so that it could have dispensed with dialogue altogether. The film features an impossibly young Jack Hawkins in one of his earliest roles as a fast-talking reporter (!) and Allen's fiancé, whose jealousy of Novello leads to the latter being targeted as prime suspect of the killings (also because his background, and wardrobe, is strikingly similar to that of the murderer)!

As I said earlier, perhaps the film's best sequence – at least with respect to direction – is its denouement; however, the changes done to the ending from the Hitchcock original are unconvincing and unsatisfying (especially since the romantic triangle at the centre of the plot isn't resolved…though this may very well have been trimmed for the American version, hence its abruptness.

The Lodger is back - and talks...

[binapiraeus · 7/10 · 24 February 2014]

This is the 'soundie' remake of Hitchcock's first thriller "The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog", again with Ivor Novello in the title role - but without Hitchcock as director...

The story is pretty much the same as in the original: a strange lodger comes to Mr. and Mrs. Bunting's house, and their daughter Daisy is soon feeling very much attracted to him - but then the suspicion falls on him that he might be the mad killer who calls himself the 'Avenger' and goes around cutting young girls' throats... Only the twist ending takes a slightly different turn this time - but see for yourself!

Of course, this film can't reach the class of Hitchcock's masterpiece; but seen for itself, it's still a very neat and scary classic whodunit - especially the nightly London fog scenes are extremely suspenseful. Ivor Novello's performance may look a little like he's still stuck in the silent film days - but then it's the role he played before, and maybe he wanted to recreate it just as it was. While beautiful Elizabeth Allen (who would also become the heroine in another scary movie, "Mark of the Vampire", two years later) is really excellent as sweet, trusting Daisy; and there are some typical British 'characters' - and a PRETTY unpleasant reporter (he sure wouldn't have been depicted in a Hollywood movie this way; reporters usually were, especially in that era, heroes!) who's also in love with Daisy...

If you haven't seen Hitch's original - or if you can accept the fact that most average directors just haven't got the GENIUS Hitchcock had - this film will be quite entertaining, and somehow nostalgic in a... well, British way...

I enjoyed this movie as a contrast to the (admittedly very much better) 1926 version

[rosian · 7/10 · 5 June 2007]

As an Ivor Novello enthusiast (you don't have to be nearly in your grave to be interested in this superlative Welsh superstar of the earlier 20th century!) my prime purpose in buying this DVD was to have an Ivor Novello talkie since the only other movie I have of him is the famous silent Lodger. So it was a delight to hear and see him in action. Also a delight to for the first time see him playing piano live.

I presume the director decided this movie must not be a copy of the marvellous expressionist 1926 Hitchcock movie. So Novello is required to be relatively "normal" rather than as in the silent movie when his behaviour is so often disturbing. Unfortunately the normalness removes some of the tension. The Lodger still has opportunities to look guilty, but not enough.

*****spoiler********

I think we understand far too soon that the lodger is not the Avenger. In the earlier movie, we could still wonder even after someone else is arrested when caught in the act. Seminal moments that are used to full effect by Hitchcock are glossed over in 1932, especially the Lodger's arrival in the fog which isn't sinister enough and his demand to have the pictures of pretty women removed - 1926 he turns them to the wall as in the book, so why change this in 1932 to a weak protest about preferring plain walls? The romance with Daisy is nicely acted and Novello is very accomplished at love scenes (no wonder women adored him) but lacks the startling charisma between Novello and the actress June in 1926 and the tension is lost somewhat when the Lodger says too much too soon re himself to Daisy.

Daisy's parents are well acted although the landlady doesn't in this movie have that strange relationship with the Lodger that is in the other movie to some extent and very strongly in the book.

Joe the brash journalist is well played by very young Jack Hawkins.

The finale is rather weak. Does the Lodger (Michel) actually murder his brother the Avenger? It seems so unless the Avenger has a heart attack and dies after Michel has prevented him killing Daisy. As both parts are played by Novello, we don't actually see the Avenger's death, just Michel crouching over his brother. It seems clear from Michel's weeping statement afterwards that he did actually commit murder or thinks he did in order to free his brother from the misery of his insanity.

Daisy comforts Michel and says he is now safe, no one can hurt him now. But we don't learn if Michel is to be free - or will he be hanged for murder? Impossible to know without some further information although it's ominous as Michel has no wish to hide what he has, or thinks he has, done. The movie stops here very abruptly.

Annoying too to learn this version I have is probably shortened by about 20 minutes. Does this mean there are further scenes which show what happens next and what else is missing?

I don't entirely agree with those reviews that say this is a weak movie but it's certainly not as good as the 1926 and the unfortunate American title (the original title was also The Lodger) which belittles this classic story into any old horror story. However, one is comparing good with exceptional.

I happened to see a later version of this story with Jack Palance which is good on tension and stays more closely to the book so it seems clear the Lodger is the Avenger. Palance acts the part very well although lacks that amazing charisma Novello has that lights up the screen no matter what he does. But Palance isn't meant to be beautiful but fated which was so often Novello's movie setup, but instead inspires plenty of fear at his increasingly obvious strangeness.

There's a magnificent book "Ivor Novello Screen Idol" by Michael Williams that delves deep into the Lodger, Novello's style, etc, and explains a great deal about expressionism and Hitchcock. Rewatching The Lodger both versions after reading this book was particularly interesting.

Note the pun in the Lodger's name in this movie? Michel Angelo - Michaelangelo. I wonder who thought that up - possibly Novello who so we're told had a wicked sense of humour.

Interesting historical curio is possibly the the best thing Ivor Novello is known for other than being a character in Gosford Park

[dbborroughs · 5/10 · 4 August 2006]

I saw the short US version (Phantom Fiend) of the sound remake of Hitchcock's the Lodger which was based on a novel based on the Jack the Ripper murders.

Ivor Novello (the real life counter part to Jeremy Northam's character in Robert Altman's Gosford Park) stars as the strange man who has rented a room from a nice family in London. The times are dangerous as some one called the Avenger is killing young women. Things begin to get dicey as the family begins to suspect that they may in fact be harboring a killer.

This is strange film due to the odd performances of some of the actors (Novello included) who seem to still think they are in silent films. The sound is uneven with some exchanges lost in "mud" due to poor sound recording. It makes it a bit tough to get through. Not helping matters is the fact that the story has been told and retold numerous times, so odds are you'll have some idea of whats going on. Its not a bad tale just one that I find overly familiar.

Its an okay film, thats of interest more for the odd early sound touches and casting than anything in the story.

Interesting Curio

[GManfred · 16 May 2009]

Enjoyed this film very much. I am making my way through my DVD gift box of mysteries (a trudge,sometimes) and I am always pleased to come across an unknown gem - unknown,at least,to me. Have seen "The Lodger" many times but this one was made special by Ivor Novello, whom I had never seen, and Jack Hawkins, who never looked so young in any picture I had seen.

It was early in the sound era which could explain the hammy acting, and so I overlooked it. I thought Ivor Novello was an almost hypnotic presence - too bad he made so few movies.I also enjoyed the trick ending which was different than the American version but, from what a reviewer from the U.K. states, is the way it was in the original Hitchcock version, which I have never seen.

All in all, a very pleasant surprise. I hope I find a few more in my collection. The transfer copy must have been very old and it is probably a title hard to come by, which would account for the occasional blotches on the print and garbled sound track, but it really is better than the 6 rating it presently sports, and I gave it a rating of 7.

"Well, I have found just what I want".

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 5 July 2009]

I saw this film under it's U.S. release title, "The Phantom Fiend", and it was interesting to pick out the similarities and differences between this one and the 1927 silent picture "The Lodger", which was Alfred Hitchcock's first mystery thriller. Actor Ivor Novello appeared in both as the title character, exuding a finely nuanced and mysterious performance in both, though he was probably a bit creepier in the original version. His first appearance on screen in the earlier picture had him with a wrap across his face, hinting a bit too obviously that he might be the "Avenger" killer. In this picture, he appears as a more refined individual, a practiced musician, who inadvertently seems to match up to the real Avenger's description perfectly.

For purposes of this story, the character of Joe Martin (Jack Hawkins) is made a newspaper reporter instead of a police detective. Though introduced as a suitor for pretty Daisy Bunting (Elizabeth Allan), he comes off as a boorish lout, and you'll probably wonder as I did what Daisy might have ever seen in him in the first place.

It was curious to see how way back in the early Thirties, criminal psychology painted a picture of the 'call box murderer' as someone with an 'unhinged brain'. The Avenger had developed an animosity toward all women after his wife deserted him, taking out his revenge on blonde women in the heart of London. The picture leaves some room for interpretation as to whether Michel Angeloff (Novello) might have known the real killer, (the name sounded like Stephan Ovanitch to me, but that character isn't listed in the credits). Angeloff uttered Stephan's name just before he saved Daisy from attack, but it could be he learned of that name from the press.

Just before that though, Angeloff made his retreat from a local pub as frightened patrons identified him as The Avenger. I had to wonder how they concluded that, since the papers never printed a picture of the unhinged Stephan, who Angeloff did bear an uncanny resemblance to. Then, once the crowd began to follow him out the door, Angeloff somehow manages to elude them off-screen to make the save for Daisy. The chase scene in 1927's 'Lodger' led to an entirely different conclusion, and the abruptness of this picture's finale caught me somewhat off guard.

Both pictures, this one and the original, both have their merits. Hard to say which one of the two is 'better', although Alfred Hitchcock fans will want to see the earlier version for a look at the master well before he refined his film making style. It's also the first of Hitch's pictures in which he makes a cameo, one of the hallmarks of his later efforts.

Just Not There

[Hitchcoc · 5/10 · 27 April 2007]

Having seen the HItchcock silent film, this was a disappointment. It lacks HItchcock's gift for the misunderstood protagonist. There is so much done to make Ivor Novello look like the bad guy that we know immediately that he is not it. He is made much more quirky and not mysterious enough. At times he lapses into normalcy and quickly moves back to this eccentric, almost unapproachable being. The plot, of course, involves a "Jack the Ripper" figure who is killing women near telephone boxes. Novello's character shows up and rents an apartment at the home of an older woman and her husband. The female interest is also there. Because "London is lonely," he strikes up a relationship with the young woman, much to the chagrin of her boyfriend, a loudmouthed, overbearing character. People are suspicious of the foreign visitor and when he is discovered with blood on him, he is handcuffed but escapes. There is great concern for the young woman who, by the way, should be scared and should be looking out for herself. I will not spoil the end, but it is not nearly as captivating as the Hitchcock version, where the man is hunted mercilessly. The speeches are really hard to make out; alas, the new technology; and this really diminishes the effectiveness. See this as a curiosity. It just doesn't work very well.

Not A Bad Remake

[Rainey-Dawn · 7/10 · 11 May 2016]

This is a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's The Lodger (1927) - we also have the same man as the lead character Angeloff played by Ivor Novello.

Ivor was a bit goofy acting in this 1932 version whereas in the 1927 version he was a bit more mysterious as the character should be. What got to me in this 1932 version was the fact that Angeloff was a bit talkative and not as quiet and mysterious of a man as he suppose to be.

The original film was really dark and mysterious - one of those films for a "dark and spooky night". This film would work for that scenario but the original film gives us more of the darkness that is desired for a film of this nature.

Did I like this film version? YES I did - very much so and I would watch it again. It's just not quite as good as the original but it's good.

7.5/10

loses a lot in translation

[kidboots · 5/10 · 12 May 2008]

A remake of sorts of the 1926 Alfred Hitchcock film "The Lodger". Seeing this film makes you realise how good the earlier one is. Ivor Novello even repeats his role as the lodger!!!!

London is in the grip of a series of murders - "The Avenger murders". As the film opens Daisy (Elizabeth Allan) takes a call from a woman who becomes the next victim. The same night, the mysterious Mr. Angeloff (Ivor Novello) comes as a lodger to Daisy's family. His increasingly suspicious behaviour lead people to suspect him of the murders. Daisy is the only one who believes in him.

The 1926 Lodger was far superior. Being a silent film Novello's character was mysterious but you could put your own interpretation on his actions - in this version his heavy Bela Lugsi type accent make you view him with suspicion. Also there was a scene involving a locked cupboard that was not followed up ( obviously I, too, saw the short "Phantom Fiend" version). In the silent version it was found to have a map of the murderer's route and locks of a girl's hair. This was explained in a much more satisfying ending. This movie (1932) had a very over the top ending.

It was nice to see Elizabeth Allan as a modern day heroine. Once she went to America she spent most of her movie life in films like "David Copperfield" and "A Tale of Two Cities". Also in the film, Jack Hawkins, in one of his first roles, plays Daisy's persistent suitor.

The Mill Creek version is barely watchable - or listenable

[gridoon2024 · 5/10 · 13 September 2023]

This remake of the silent 1927 Alfred Hitchcock film of the same name (which I have not seen yet) is difficult to judge, at least based on the 63-minute Mill Creek version I watched called "The Phantom Fiend". The print is severely damaged, and the sound is so poor that only about 30% of the dialogue is intelligible; as an example, at the very end there is a big "he was my...." revelation, except that we can't hear what he was! In its present form, the film looks cheap and slapdash, with everyone behaving pretty stupidly (Ivor Novello acting extremely creepily, even though there is a serial killer operating in the area, as if he wants to be suspected; everyone else accepting him into their midst not picking up any signs), but I'll reserve full judgement until I can find a better copy. ** out of 4.

"I Like The Fog"

[cutterccbaxter · 16 August 2023]

There's an outbreak of murders and the lodger in The Phantom Fiend makes for a good suspect.

Reasons why the lodger makes a good suspect: He's a foreigner (although from my perspective every one in the film is a foreigner, but he's more foreigner than everyone else).

He's a talented pianist. He tickles the ivories all too well as far as I am concerned, and that makes him suspicious in my book.

He acts suspiciously, which makes him the perfect movie suspect. He's so suspicious that he probably isn't the murderer. Then again, maybe he is because he does act so overtly suspicious.

The actor who plays the lodger has played the lodger before. This made me suspicious of him. Why was he playing the lodger again?

He liked the fog. Only a crazy killer likes fog.

One reason I didn't think he was the killer was he paid his rent on time.

An unnecessary remake.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 2 May 2012]

Alfred Hitchcock's "The Lodger" is one of the best mystery/suspense films of the silent era. However, with the advent of sound, there was a huge push to remake these silents into new talking versions. While some might have applauded it, the results were not always positive. Take "The Phantom Fiend". It is a shabby remake of the original in every way--but the most glaring is the strange performance by the lead, Ivor Novello. While he was just fine in the Hitchcock version, her in the remake he's simply awful. Part of it was his bizarre accent he approximated for the film and part of it was his overacting. The intention was for the audience to suspect, like everyone else, that he was a psychopathic murderer. So why, then, did he overdo it so much? He behaves like a crazy man throughout the film and this made the ending all the more improbable. Having Hitchcock as the director of the remake might have solved this and a good director should have seen the deficiencies in Novello's characterization--but this one did not. My advice is just watch the original and let that be enough. If you do want to see "The Lodger", it's available for free download at archive.org--or just follow the link on IMDb for the download.

Here we go again, Mr. Rippe!

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 11 January 2016]

Poor sound and creaky photography are the flaws in this first sound version of "The Lodger", an allegory version of The Jack the Ripper story previously made as a silent film by Alfred Hitchcok and later remade several times. Ivor Novello had appeared in the Hitchcock silent and repeated his role in this sound version which is barely watchable.

Early British sound films haven't had the luck of American films in being restored, and the low budget B films suffer greatly as a result. This one has patches where I was desperately struggling with the dialog. Long pauses too make the film interminable and setting it in modern times seems to take away the gloriously gloomy atmosphere that makes the London fog seem like a character more than just a weather condition.

The future Lucy Nannette of MGM's "A Tale of Two Cities", Elizabeth Allen, is certainly lovely and has a gentle demeanor which makes her the perfect screen heroine. But the lack of truth on the re-telling is a major detriment so I must put this one as a missed opportunity that fails to impress.

Age Really Impaired Version I Saw

[dougdoepke · 18 November 2016]

Not much to recommend in this creaky antique. It's another version of the Ripper story, with the mysterious killer loose in London. He appears to be a lodger in an ordinary household where the daughter takes a shine to him despite his odd behavior. But then his lyrical piano playing does indicate a romantic soul. On the whole, however, actor Novello delivers a rather unfocused performance as the lodger, never gelling as a real object of menace. But I suppose something like that was required for his crucially ambiguous role. On the other hand, actress Allan is quite natural as the charming daughter, a turn that could easily transfer to the modern screen.

The Amazon print that I saw was murky in the extreme, effects of age I suppose. Too bad, because whatever atmospheric lighting was used was clouded over; that plus a muddy sound track made this version rather difficult to watch. Moreover, the choppy narrative suggests a poorly edited longer cut. Overall, it's an oft-told tale, done to much better effect by Hitchcock (1927) and John Brahm (1944), at least in terms of the version I saw.

Least of the Three

[Michael_Elliott · 28 February 2008]

Lodger, The (1932)

** (out of 4)

The first remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1927 film of the same title. A serial killer is running through London at the same time as a strange young man (Ivor Novello) shows up at a boarding house. Even though this thing runs a small 60+ minutes it feels like three hours because the pacing is so incredibly slow and boring. The acting is among the worst I've ever seen and the performance by Novello is incredibly bad. I could help but laugh at his acting, which is so bad it almost seems like he's spoofing the film.

"The Next Time We Will Talk Of Less Gloomy Things!"...

[azathothpwiggins · 4 October 2021]

Based on the original silent version of THE LODGER, Director Maurice Elvey's THE PHANTOM FIEND is a classic in its own right.

Angeloff (Ivor Novello) moves into a London boarding house just as a murdering maniac gets busy with his grisly work. Angeloff is immediately under suspicion due to his odd behavior and "peculiar" way of speaking. His deepening relationship with a young woman named Daisy (Elizabeth Allan) is the emotional heart of the film.

The fear of strangers / others is explored. Novello plays his eccentric role very convincingly, mixing a controlled menace with a subtle vulnerability.

Elvey uses various lighting and camera techniques to give the sense of growing paranoia.

A wonderful movie that's more than just another thriller...

"Get back to your country!"

[Alba_Of_Smeg · 29 September 2020]

The Phantom Fiend (1932) is a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's silent film The Lodger: A Story Of The London Fog (1927), which was adapted from the novel The Lodger by Marie Belloc Lowndes. It seems like this this was remade purely just to make a sound rendition of the silent one that was released 5 years earlier. To be honest I hated a lot of the dialogue and interactions between the characters in this. The cinematography can't match the previous versions standards and unfortunately the audio is poor. Ivor Norvello reprises his role as the lodger.

I haven't read the the book but from what I've heard about it, it's the subtlety and sense of ambiguity in which it was written that makes it such a suspenseful read. Alfred Hitchcock's 1927 silent film adaptation which I have seen, conveys that sense of suspense and mystery over really well I thought, up until the ending anyway. This talkie remake however has feels very ham-fisted and does not seem to understand subtlety. They practically point an arrow at Norvello's character that reads WATCH HIM, HE'S A BLOODY FOREIGNER!! Short of giving him a twirly moustache and an evil laugh they did everything they could to take the suspense and excitement out of this.

Then there's the tacked on "twist" Scooby-Doo-like ending. The equivalent of yelling HA! You were wrong all along, IDIOT. It was his evil long lost twin brother! DUN DUN DUUUUN.

That's great, you got me. Next film please..