Dr. Cyclops (1940)

Who payed the critics

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

Dr. Cyclops is a unique film in several regards, having been released in 1940 it's one of the very first (if not the first) Sci-Fi films to be shot in 3-Strip Technicolor, as far as it's special effects go it was certainly an innovative film for it's time (specifically it's "little people" footage), and lastly the highly-excitable music of film maestro Ernst Toch. Special mention must be made regarding the music that's heard during this film's most exciting and distinctively off-kilter of moments - and there are many. Because at the drop of a hat, this film often finds itself bouncing off the walls but in a most delightfully playful and fun-spirited kind of way. This is in large part do to the films eccentric combination of it's numerous processed shots/optical effects, it's oddball scenarios, and a most hyper-active musical score, which has a way of whipping the film into a frenzy of unfettered lunacy and whimsical eccentricities. Ultimately what this all adds up to is a film that's unique in both look and feel or to put it another way, Dr. Cyclops comes off like a live-action cartoon, in TechnicolorUnfortunately... aside from it's obvious strong-points, Dr. Cyclops I'm afraid, is a rather average movie. For instance it's casting (with the exception of Albert Dekker in the title-role) is serviceable at best and it has no "big names" in it's cast. My guess is that most of the films budget went to it's special-effects photography, which surprisingly enough was filmed in Technicolor no less - a prohibitively expensive process at that time. I find the acting of the film is often workman-like in it's mediocre quality, which ranges from the pompous and super-serious Dr. Bulfinch to "Pedro" a modestly effective comic-relief character, then there's Janice Logan as Dr. Mary Robinson and well she simply makes for a very unconvincing scientist. Once you get past the films spectacular opening credits sequence (all that green mist!), Dr. Cyclops starts out rather slowly as it's cast members, one-by-one, are introduced and the movies scientifically-based back-story is laid out. In that respect Dr. Cyclops, like most movies, does get a lot more exciting in the second half which leads to some truly unique and inspired action sequences. Having seen this movie several times over the years, it tends to leave an impression on you (especially if you see it at a young age) and when considering the subject-matter at hand, well... I think the term "live-action cartoon" is a particularly apt description, with what one can expect from this eccentric Hollywood relic from yesteryear, as it is all to often a VERY whimsical affair.If you enjoy Dr. Cyclops you'll probably like "The Incredible Shrinking Man"(1957) as well, as both deal with micronized people, in fact at his smallest The Incredible Shrinking Man stands at a mere 1 inch tall; much smaller than what's seen in Dr. Cyclops. Also "Attack of the Puppet People"(1958) though not as good as the others is also worth checking out. When one weighs this films many merits and innovative nature Dr. Cyclops does indeed seem more worthy than most for the re-make treatment (I typically don't like re-makes) and with Ant-Man making waves recently, the time seems right or "primed" for a lavishly produced re-make of Doctor C; one that dials-up the craziness and is truly and absolutely unhinged.

Partially sighted molecular biologist Dr. Alexander Thorkel (Albert Dekker) invites a team of fellow scientists to help him with his work at his laboratory deep in the Amazon jungle; within hours of their arrival, the problem that Thorkel has been struggling with has been resolved, and the surprised boffins are immediately given their marching orders, none the wiser about the precise nature of their ungrateful host's experiments.Eager to learn more, the curious group sneaks into Thorkel's room to take a peek at his notes, but discover more than they bargained for when they become the guinea pigs in the secretive genius's next experiment: bundled into a room, they are exposed to a heavy dose of radiation that reduces them to a fraction of their original size.Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack, one of the team responsible for bringing King Kong to the screen in 1933, Dr. Cyclops is a fairly routine mad-scientist sci-fi/horror potboiler, but one that benefits immensely from a incredible array of groundbreaking special effects and sumptuous Technicolor photography. Technically, this film is way ahead of its time, looking more like a product of the mid 1950s than the early 40s, and for this reason alone it should be a priority for all fans of fantastic cinema.Utilising a combination of careful camera placement (low shots to make Thorkel appear huge; high shots to make his victims appear small), detailed over-sized sets and props, rear projection, split screen and mattes, Schoedsack and his effects team create scene after scene of memorable movie magic. Take into account that this movie is now over 70 years old and it cannot fail to impress.On the downside, the score is extremely heavy handed and some of the performances are less than stellar (Dekker is excellent, but the exaggerated mannerisms adopted by the pint-sized profs are embarrassingly trite). Thankfully, these are minor quibbles when measured against the film's massive technical accomplishments and the film remains a consistently entertaining experience nonetheless.7.5 out 10, rounded up to 8 for the sight of yummy egghead Dr. Mary Robinson (Janice Logan) in her sexy makeshift toga: she might be reduced to a foot in height, but she's certainly no shrinking violet.

"Dr. Cyclops" is known as one of the better "early sci-fi" films, made in '39 and released in 1940. (It is also in color.) But while the story has potential and there are some good moments, this is a very confused film.The plot is simple - crazy mad scientist on some remote island can shrink animals, and wants to try it on humans. He manages this on a scientific team that came to check things out. They get angry, and the crazy scientist eventually gets really angry because his new shrunken subjects won't cooperate.The thing is, the film doesn't seem to know if it wants to be a thriller, or a goofy movie. Dr. Cyclops (never called that but referenced to a Cyclops after one lens in his glasses breaks) looks cool in his "30's style sci-fi helmet" as he performs experiments and can be chilling at times. But there is so much "Disney-style goofy music" going on that it is hard to take anything seriously. The music belongs in a family comedy for the most part, and is played when the shrunken people do things like try to survive, and creep around the floor. Add that a few of them have pretty gruesome deaths and that just adds to the confusing atmosphere.The FX aren't so bad but nothing special. The giant sets built are pretty impressive though. There is a scene where little fires are tossed at a real crocodile's head which probably made animal activists angry.It also takes a long time for anything to really happen. This movie could have been done in a nice tight half-hour. Good for a viewing, but you probably won't watch again. The performance of the guy who plays Dr. Cyclops is definitely the main attraction.

Let me say that I have a love/hate relationship with this film since I first saw it way back in the late seventies at the age of eleven. I LOVE the general concept of a mad scientist conducting miniaturization experiments deep in the Amazon jungle of Peru. I also LOVE that the film had the most impressive special effects,of it's time, and was made in "glorious" Technicolor. But I HATE that the film used an ugly, bald and smelly cockroach of a man in the title role of the insane biologist. As far as I'm concerned, this is one of the great injustices of modern film. It is never explained why this disgusting nut case is attempting to play GOD. Nor, are the backgrounds of any of the other two-dimensional characters ever fleshed out. And this ruins any chance the story has to offer any type of credibility. Had the story been told another way, it probably would had been more successful during it's initial run, thus gaining greater public awareness. How dare the very talented film-making team who produced one of the greatest films ever-KING KONG- make such crap. And it is now my life's ambition to correct such a travesty. Finally, in my humble opinion, Dr. Cyclops is one of the worst films ever made just for the reasons I stated. And as one noted reviewer wrote, "dr. cyclops is a classic example of a missed opportunity".