i must have seen a different film!!

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Blistering performances.

Blistering performances.

"The Walking Dead" is one of those films that may not be shown too often but when it is, you get your money's worth.Released in 1936, Boris Karloff plays a man who is wrongly convicted of the murder of a local judge.A scientist brings Karloff back to life after conducting various experiments. The gangsters responsible are brought to book by Karloff in his own way.Michael Curtiz directs this one with a more "no- nonsense" but professional manner. Running at about 65 minutes, "The Walking Dead" has plenty of enjoyment.

One of Karloff's finest films. I find the film heavier in the genres of crime, sci-fi and thriller than that of horror but there is definitely horror elements within this film. The classic film is outstanding and very much worth watching.Karloff plays John Ellman - a man framed for a murder he did not commit, was electrocuted and brought back to life. Ellman seemed more interested in wanting to know why he was framed than getting revenge. The scientist, Dr. Beaumont, who brought Ellman back to life, becomes interested in what did Ellman see, learn and experience while he was dead.Very interesting movie. Highly recommended viewing.9.5/10

Ex-convict John Ellman (Boris Karloff) is framed by crooked lawyer Nolan (Ricardo Cortez) and executed for a murder he didn't commit. Scientist Dr. Beaumont (Edmund Gwenn) uses electricity to bring Ellman back to life. But he doesn't come back right. He's seemingly mentally impaired yet out for revenge for those he holds responsible for what happened to him. Fantastic Karloff movie. Sort of a combo horror and gangster flick. Karloff would do many more movies with similar plots over the years but never quite this good. Part of what makes it so good is the excellent direction of Michael Curtiz. The "kills" are staged in very clever ways, implying some kind of divine justice. Also, Karloff's performance is very sympathetic and you really root for this guy because he was so badly treated by slimy Cortez. Great WB supporting cast includes Barton MacLane and Henry O'Neill. A real treat and a must-see for Karloff fans.

First off, I rated this flick a '7' because I like the old Hollywood stuff. From that, my first real fascination was with the "Universal" monster stuff, particularly 1936 and before. With that in mind, here is my review. Quite simply, this is a Warner Brothers 'knockoff' of the Whale/Karloff Frankenstein films, with a particularly strong nod to 1935's "Bride". The entire time I was watching, including the 'scientific' scenes, I kept seeing the 'Monster'. A couple of very 'telling' things: the Karloff character removes his dentures after the re-animation sequence. There is a silver streak in his hair at the same height as the 'monsters' flat head. He is dressed in the same dark outfit, and lumbers around. The imagery is strong. While the over the top Jack Pierce make-up is absent, the lighting, etc, and the above things mentioned create a more 'human monster' visual, but it is there. Next similarity.....in the first "Frankenstein", one could be forgiven for not finding the monster altogether sympathetic. After all, despite Whale/Karloff's sympathetic presentation, the thing is a child killer. He also ends the film in murderous rage directed at Henry. However, in "Bride", there is no such ambiguity. With the exception of the first murder (Maria's father underneath the mill), we are clearly shown who the 'victim' is in the film. The film score in "Bride" is exquisite as well, a slow pulse throbbing underneath a majestic arrangement. Enough of the set-up. In "The Walking Dead", I saw the sympathetic reanimated Karloff character (looking much like the 'monster' in the shadows) lumbering around while some really bad 'know it all characters' get their comeuppance, one by one. There is a similarly soaring film score delivered over an insistent bass pulse. Where this film differs is, instead of the "Universal" staples of 'mad doctor', Una O'Conner type comic relief/character actors, you get the Warners staples. Cynical lawyers, DA's and gangsters, etc. All of that said, I enjoyed this film. I probably hadn't seen it in 35 years, if at all. All of those things that may seem like negatives, as written above? I like the Warners 'stock characters' and love the "Universal" monster stuff. I just saw all the similarities, and noted the year of 1936. This film definitely was targeting a particular audience...the "Universal Audience". Ms. Churchill even appeared in that sexy scene from "Dracula's Daughter" featuring Gloria Holden that very year. I thought Cortez did his "Warners thing" well in this flick, and Mr. Glenn was good. If you like the kind of flicks I do, you'll enjoy seeing this as a curio. Unlike some of the other reviewers, I do not see this as some type of 'forgotten classic'. Far too many plot holes. (the most famous guy in the world, being watched by everybody, seems to effortlessly disappear and reappear without anyone noticing, and in the most OBVIOUS of places). But again, for what it is (a genre knockoff), it is well directed, well filmed, and has all of the right people in all of the right places.