User reviews

The Charlatan is a forgotten film. It was well-chronicled in the book "of Gods and Monsters". Its' plot is extremely dated, but looking from 2003, this is a good thing as it very much seems like an important relic of its' time. The Charlatan is a great example of what passed for pulp in the 1910s and 1920s.

The best part about the film is that it was made by Universal right before they started their classic horror cycle. The plot concerns a mysterious sideshow charlatan named Count Merlin. He reads the palm of a woman and tells her of how she once had cheated on her husband and stole his child away. She is stunned by his seeing that, and leaves. Count Merlin is in fact, her long-estranged husband in disguise. Her friend encourages her to have a party at her house and to invite Count Merlin to perform his magic act. When he is invited, murder ensues and it is his ex-wife who is the victim.

The plot is even more complicated than that, but what makes the film work is the terrific direction and lighting of George Melford and George Robinson, the pair who shot the stylish, but not as interesting "Spanish Dracula" two years later. There is a wonderful thunderstorm that lights up the evening at the house and a really good performance in the lead by Holmes Herbert who would later play supporting parts in many great horror films such as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and The Invisible Man.

It is really a shame that a film like this is so hard to see. Universal won't even release their other late silent horror/mystery classic The Last Warning, directed by Paul Leni and these films are quite superior to a lot of the hack horror films they released in the 1940s.

Wealthy Florence Talbot goes to consult mystic Count Merlin (Holmes Herbert). She is skeptical about his powers until he addresses her by the name she had in her first marriage - Dwight - and then recounts for her how she left her first husband for her current husband and took her baby daughter, Ann, with her. What Florence wants to know is if the man she is currently having an affair with has a love that is true for her. Count Merlin answers in the negative.

After she leaves, it is revealed that the mystic is actually her first husband, Peter Dwight, in costume. He has vowed to get his daughter back and make Florence pay for keeping his daughter from him for fifteen years. He is later invited to the Talbot home to entertain the guests at a dinner party with his powers. There is lots going on in the home besides palm reading. Florence is cheating on her husband with her personal physician by feigning illness and having him brought to her room. And the doctor's wife is pretty sure she knows that something is going on. Florence has made the doctor promise to run away with her that night, but it seems he really isn't anxious to uproot himself from a good position in the community. Later that evening, when Florence is murdered, there is no shortage of suspects. Fortunately, the local district attorney is also a guest, and he immediately begins an investigation.

This was, overall, a very good film with quite a bit of suspense. However, it has quite a few plot holes, not the least of which is that Florence was murdered when all of the guests were gathered in one particular room, and thus it would have seemed obvious if one of them was missing long enough to murder her. This film was also shot as a part talking film, and I imagine problems in editing one version versus another caused some of the plot holes that I noticed, although it shouldn't have caused the big one that I mentioned.

There were also a couple of matters that seemed not so much plot holes as incomprehensible. First of all, as a mystic, Peter Dwight's costume includes a turban, indicating that perhaps he is a Sikh. But there are also curtains and drapes hung about that have the star of David on them. This wasn't just a one off art design error, because later, when Dwight appears at the Talbot home as the mystic, the cabinet that he uses for his disappearing person act has a cloth draped around it with the star of David on it. Why would a Sikh have items with Jewish religious symbols on it? Then there are the press photographers who arrive with the police to investigate the murder who ask no questions but keep taking photos of anybody who crosses the room, even though the room is completely dark.

It's all in all a very interesting curiosity from the late silent period and Universal Pictures, and I'd recommend it.

Excellent entertainment. I watched the silent version of this Part Talking film. The murder takes place during a dinner party in which Hindu mystics have been invited to perform a seance and some magic tricks. I had a hard time guessing who the murderer was because a number of the suspects had motives so the film remained suspenseful until the end and was quite good. I assume the Part Talking version would have been even better but that version seems to have been lost.

Holmes Herbert is great as the Hindu mystic who is seeking revenge against his ex-wife for running off with his daughter with another man without warning years before. Margaret Livingston plays the part of a deceitful self-centered woman well. Hal Roach (Laurel and Hardy) fans will recognize Anita Garvin who plays the part of wife of a doctor. Even though Margaret Livingston has remarried she is now has plans of two timing her second husband and run off with the doctor.

As you can see this leads to a situation with many possible suspects and makes the film suspenseful to the surprising end. Highly recommended murder mystery.

Like many films that came out in 1928-29, "The Charlatan" had multiple versions, since many movie theaters still did not have sound systems installed to play talking pictures. So, of course, there's a silent version...the one I watched. There's also a partial sound version which has disappeared and is assumed lost. I say partial sound becasue many films during these years were essentially silent with a few talking scenes...to the studios would claim the films were 'talkies' when they really were just 'talkie..ish'! Regardless, the only version you'll likely see is the one I watched tonight.

When the story begins, you learn that a man has been searching many years for his wife and daughter. It seems the wife ran off with another man...taking the child with her long ago. From what the viewers know, the man was an innocent guy who was misused by the wife. Now, he has caught up to her when she comes to him to have her fortune told, as he's now in disguise as 'Count Merlin'...a psychic with a traveling show. However, on the night he arrives at her home as an invited guest, Mrs. Talbot (the wife) dies...the victim of poisoning. However, it's not certain who did it...and it seems likely the husband did it to exact his revenge. But what's next??

This is a very good movie...with some nice plot twists, some excellent acting and an enjoyable mystery. There's very little not to like about it, in fact.

By the way, in the film the doctor says that the woman was killed by a substance like curare. He further says curare is a 'virus'...which it is NOT. It's actually extracted from the bark of certain plants.

Holmes Herbert (as Peter Dwight) is a magician, and quick-change master-of-disguise; he has assumed the role of Count Merlin, a "Master of Occult Services". Margaret Livingston (as Florence Dwight Talbot) is his ex-wife, who, fifteen years earlier, took their baby daughter and hooked up second husband Rockliffe Fellowes (as Richard "Dick" Talbot). Ms. Livingston isn't one to stand by her men, and has already decided to run away with her doctor, Philo McCullough (as Walter Paynter). She goes to Mr. Herbert for a crystal ball reading, unaware he is her ex-husband…

You should know, initially, that the "crystal ball story", early in the film, is the story of how Livingston took her daughter and left Herbert for Fellowes. It really isn't at all clear (as either a bell, or a crystal ball). It's also astonishing how Livingston sits right down with Herbert for a dead-on perfect "reading" of their past, and doesn't know who he is, under the turban. She later says, "What a fool I was not to have recognized you!" Indeed.

Later, events are easier to understand. Circumstances lead to all the characters being in a house, during a storm. A murder is committed, and you're left wondering - who's the guilty party? While there is some suspense, there are no real clues (that I could see); so you'll have to take a shot in the dark on this one. Herbert's is the film's main performance attraction; he certainly is a master of disguise!

***** The Charlatan (1929) George Melford ~ Holmes Herbert, Margaret Livingston, Philo McCullough