Phonearl
Good start, but then it gets ruined
SparkMore
n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin
The movie really just wants to entertain people.
Leofwine_draca
LIFE RETURNS is an odd mix of would-be sci-fi/horror effort and children's adventure film. The subject matter, about the revival of a dead dog by scientists working beyond the remit of the known laws of biology, is based on a supposedly true story and was graphic and controversial enough to see this film banned in Britain on release. Seeing it today, it's a very dated and genteel effort, although not without interest.The film suffers from having a very poor quality print which saps it of life, but the tale itself is good enough. Onslow Stevens, a familiar face from B-movie fare, plays a scientist ostracised by his peers for his unorthodox experiments on test subjects. A casting surprise is Valerie Hobson, of THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN fame, playing his wife. The film feels like a low key version of FRANKENSTEIN in places, and taps in to some of the same sensationalist attitude.Elsewhere, we have some cute dog moments involving the film's child star. Scenes of him and his gang of buddies battling against a vengeful dog catcher make this feel like an OUR GANG movie at times although that's no bad thing. As a whole, LIFE RETURNS is unusual enough to be worth a look, although far from perfect.
utgard14
I'm a huge fan of the classic horror & sci-fi films of the 1930s and 1940s, particularly those of Universal. So when I came across this obscure title, starring Onslow Stevens and Valerie Hobson (both of much better Universal titles), I thought I'd struck paydirt. Unfortunately, I struck just plain old ordinary dirt. For starters, this movie looks cheap. If you're expecting any of the Universal polish that you find in most of their classic films, forget it. This looks like the kind of Poverty Row cheapie Bela Lugosi would be doing in years to come. The story is basically about bringing dead dogs back to life. The main selling point is supposedly this guy Robert Cornish, who appears in the movie but hardly speaks and rarely has the camera focused on his face when he does. Apparently for about 5 minutes back in the day he made headlines for bringing a dog back to life. The actual footage of that is crammed into this movie and it's about as cheap and bland as you might expect. Although seeing the guy give the dog mouth-to-mouth is worth a gander. However, despite this movie basically only being made because of Mr. Cornish, he's not the real star of it. The star is Onslow Stevens, turning in a dreary performance as Dr. John Kendrick. He staggers around in a daze for most of the picture (when he's not acting crazy, that is). But it's not entirely his fault. The character is written so unlikeable that you can't root for him even though the movie's objective is to make you do just that. After suffering ONE setback, Dr. Kendrick turns into a total loser wandering around like he's lost and looking disheveled. The guy lets his practice go to ruin, lets his wife die and kid live on the street, all the while whining and moping. He's a mess. Speaking of the kid, he's very annoying and the actor playing him is awful ("Scoota! Scoota!"). Anyway, the best part of this whole movie to me was a minor tidbit. When they show the newspaper article announcing Kendrick's engagement, the headline below that reads "Dog Saves Lad From Wasps." That would have made for a much more interesting film, I think. I was pretty disappointed in this movie and I wouldn't recommend it to anybody but Universal completists and people who like movies they can make fun of.
MARIO GAUCI
The presence in the cast of Onslow Stevens (later the nominal lead in 1945's HOUSE OF Dracula) and Valerie Hobson (who starred in both BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and WEREWOLF OF London that same year) is the only indication that this obscure curio was a product of Universal Studios during their golden age as Hollywood's top purveyors of chills and thrills. However, despite this being (relatively speaking) a "mad doctor with a back-from-the-dead scheme" scenario, the end result is far removed from the entertainment value and artistic quality one usually associates with that celebrated horror cycle. Indeed, the film ends up being closer in feel to a Warner Bros-type of social document crossed with a Hal Roach "Our Gang" flick and directed by exploitationer Dwain Esper! Unfortunately, it plays far less amusingly than that bizarre concoction sounds! Stevens falls out with his two fellow students (including real-life scientist Dr. Robert E. Cornish, who the previous year had actually accomplished the life-giving experiment that inspired the movie in the first place!) over financing their project and goes to work for a commercial firm which, however, soon drops him when his continuous attempts grow costlier and more fruitless by the day. This rejection makes him give up his well-paying daytime practice of treating elderly socialites of non-existent ailments and his consequent impoverishment drives wife Hobson to an early grave and son George Breakston to a juvenile court! The latter eventually takes to the road with his pet dog and joins a gang of streetwise kids who live on their wiles in procuring whatever food they can from 'providential' neighbors! Needless to say, this situation ends badly with the dog being caught by the authorities and subsequently gassed and one of the kids getting hurt in the attempt to free the mutt.Distressed by failing his son yet again in curing his wounded friend (claiming to be 'washed-up'), Stevens contrives to set up an operation in which Breakston's dead dog is revived, thus proving his initial theory after all! As silly as it sounds, the footage depicting this is actually authentic and integrated into the storyline by having Stevens narrate the ongoing procedure carried out by Cornish and his colleagues (similarly portraying themselves) to a group of gathered medicos – something which he himself could not accomplish because his ostensible patrons did not want to fork out any more dough on some all-important apparatus! Being a lifelong animal lover, this sequence (showing Cornish giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the dog!) could not fail to stir me and easily emerges as the film's highlight…even if LIFE RETURNS itself as a whole proved too amateurish and bland for a Universal horror product! For the record, uncredited co-director James Hogan would later make yet another lesser (but more typical) example along similar 'revivification' lines i.e. THE MAD GHOUL (1943).
MartinHafer
This is a truly bizarre little film that really baffled me--so much so that I tried to research a bit about the odd work of Robert E. Cornish and would like to know what made this odd man tick. Apparently in the early 1930s, this odd man was interested in reviving the dead--though the practicality of such work is rather dubious. Apparently he'd hoped to use this technique on humans but why is beyond me. His work, thankfully, was restricted to dogs. First, they'd euthanize a dog. Then using a combination of stimulants, artificial respiration and a teeter-totter-like device, they were able to BRIEFLY revive a couple dogs...who died PERMANENTLY soon after!!! So what possible use is this procedure?! Well, I guess if a person would be euthanized, you MIGHT be to bring him or her back BRIEFLY--and then they'll die! Wow, no wonder this guy never became all that famous! Apparently, the film makers who brought us this film decided to make use of film footage they had of one of Dr. Cornish's dog revivals. BUT, they had to create a story in which to insert this footage. As for the story, it's pretty dull and is great if you like bad 'boy and his dog' films. Ultimately, the film is sunk because this story and the footage really aren't integrated well together. First, the dog in the experiment is NOT the same one they used as an actor in the film. Second, the stuff is pretty cloying and has a crappy low-budget look and feel to it. The overall effect is poor but not bad enough to make it funny or entertaining as kitsch.
