I recall the first time I read Edgar Allen Poe's 'The Murders in the Rue Morgue' how ludicrous it felt that he would have come up with a plot in which an orangutan was a murderer. I still can't get over it.Anyway, here's the story put to film and it seems almost as ludicrous all over again. That's not to say I didn't find it entertaining enough, although I don't think I would have cast Karl Malden as the principal heavy. His character, Dr. Marais, was working on a theory that all living things have a latent killer instinct, while his experimentation in conditioned reflex reaction resulted in using bells to trigger a gorilla's response to kill victims at his command. One of the more comical elements of the story occurred when he pulled out some trinket to hypnotize old Sultan; can you really hypnotize a gorilla? Inspector Bonnard (Claude Dauphin) also struck me as somewhat comical in the exercise of his police duties. It seemed he was always looking for the easy way out to find the guilty party, on the basis that "it's so much easier to find a criminal who looks like a criminal". That reminded me of a line Benson Fong used in the 1945 film "The Scarlet Clue" when he remarks to Sidney Toler's Charlie Chan - "That's easy Pop, the murderer will be the one with the guilty look". If only it should be so easy.At least by researching this picture I'm now aware of the Bela Lugosi version of "Murders in the Rue Morgue" from 1932. I didn't know about that one so I'll have to be on the lookout for it. Lugosi strikes me more of the mad scientist type than Malden, who nevertheless got kind of spooky himself when he eventually turned on the girl who jilted him (Patricia Medina).

This version of "Phantom of the Rue Morgue" is far superior to the earlier Bela Lugosi version in virtually every respect! Firstly, the music score by David Buttolph adds a sinister spine tingling note that heightens the element of fright. The cast members, all of them, led by Karl Malden and the underestimated Claude Dauphin as the Inspector, move the plot along and ably hold the audience's attention as the story unfolds. The mood, the period, the locale of turn-of-the-century Paris are all re-created very well by Director Roy Del Ruth. The garish hues of Warner Color, too, heighten the imagery. Having first seen this flick more than half a century ago as a young boy, I was terrified then. Given some of what makes it to the screen these days, "Phantom" is, indeed, quite tame by comparison! Nonetheless, it is a very entertaining horror flick of the period

I recall watching this as a kid, though not the opinion I had made of it back then. With this in mind, I am baffled by its maligned reputation (the "Leonard Maltin Film Guide" gives it a measly **); mind you, I would not say that I prefer it to the classic 1932 Bela Lugosi version but it is more readily enjoyable (and faithful to its source). The film, in fact, is quite stylish in color – with special care given to the art direction – and a worthy follow-up to Warners' success of the previous year HOUSE OF WAX (1953); like that one, it was one of the numerous genre efforts from the early 1950s to be made in 3-D (though, typically, it was used gratuitously more often than judiciously). The cast is effective, too: Karl Malden adds an Actor's Method sensibility to the lead role of biologist/misogynist, Claude Dauphin is fine as the Police Inspector investigating the various gorilla slayings, Steve Forrest ideal as the handsome hero/accused and Anthony Caruso as Malden's loutish henchman/gorilla keeper. The murders are well-done, suggesting the animal's brutish strength without actually showing it – even the 3-D process comes in handy here as one of the victims throws something at the ape in defense and the latter responds by throwing a chair back at the girl!; there is, however, a goof in the scene depicting the killing of the circus performer (assisting her jealous husband in a knife-throwing act) as she is seen taking off the tell-tale bracelet but is then unaccountably back at her hand in a shot of the mangled (albeit conveniently covered) body! On a personal note, Malta's name comes up a number of times throughout the film: the Maltese cross on a sailor's (eventually revealed to be Caruso) scarf and his inopportune meeting in a dingy tavern with a drunken former 'colleague' (sealing his fate by unwisely disclosing his knowledge of the ape's existence). The latter stages, veering from the Poe tale, actually feel closest to Universal's earlier adaptation – as Malden cannot hold back his obsession with heroine Patricia Medina (engaged to his former student, and presently incarcerated, Forrest), an impulsive move which can only lead to the expected poetic justice of the climax in which the villain meets his own grisly come-uppance at the hands of the trained (read: abused) gorilla. By the way, having included a handful of films during this challenge in which this type of animal was featured as a menace (two more followed in quick succession), I came to realize just how many were made over the years. Finally, as I said in the beginning, this is pretty much underrated both as horror/monster movie and as adaptation of a highly-influential literary work.

A total rip-off of Edgar Allan Poe's short story. The plot is a bunch of crap, it has something to do with an animal running around killing woman. This reason why he does it is also a bunch of crap. Karl Malden is a good actor but totally wasted here. Watch house of wax instead.