BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

vincentlynch-moonoi I love old movies. But there's a line -- it varies by film -- where a film just has that old look and feel; I find it often around 1932 or 1933. This film was 1935 and has that old, old, old cinema-look, but it was a British film, and the Brits were a bit behind in the development of cinema. That's not to say it's unwatchable.The other problem here -- often a problem with the more simple scripts of the early 1930s -- is predictability. While the end is not so predictable, various points throughout the film are, and this hardly keeps you on the edge of your seat.Claude Rains was one of my favorite character actors. Here it was actually difficult to like him much. This was his third film, but right after "The Invisible Man". I think a big problem with this film is not only over-acting, but also "over-directing".Claude Rains is fairly good as Maximus, the clairvoyant, although there's a bit of mugging...to reminiscent of silent films. This is the least favorite role I've ever seen him in. Fay Wray, never one of my favorites, is actually quite good here as the wife. Jane Baxter, with whom I am not familiar, was good as the woman who comes between the Maximus and his wife when they realize she is somehow the contact with the spirit world. However, no one stands out here.To me, the only real reason to watch this film would be to see a VERY old style movie. This might be a good film for a remake.

binapiraeus This is a VERY unusual movie - because, in contrast to the many other movies with supernatural subjects, that clearly uncover them at some point as charlatanry, with fake séances and other known tricks of the trade, "The Clairvoyant" actually suggests to us that there ARE such supernatural powers! (The only other classic movie of that kind that I can remember is "Night Has a Thousand Eyes".) The funny thing is that, in the beginning, we're being pretty clearly informed that 'the Great Maximus' IS a charlatan, and how he does his tricks at a modest little vaudeville show. BUT as soon as a certain woman turns up in the audience one evening, he clearly changes and suddenly is able to REALLY foresee future events - and his mother from behind the scenes realizes, shivering: "I know what that is; my father had it: it's the gift to SEE..." And actually, he foresees a horrible train accident while they're on their way home - and this strange woman passes him by again... They get off the train; and soon afterward, there's the crash he foretold...Now things change radically in Maximus' life - and in his character, too: he becomes pretty much conceited, and bargains for a big engagement at a famous theater, although his wife and assistant Rene begs him to give the whole thing up... Well, but his gift seems to have disappeared together with the strange woman; and so he gets fired soon. But then the woman comes to visit him, and turns out to be Christine Shawn, the daughter of a very influential businessman - and immediately, his 'gift' returns: spontaneously, he predicts the (VERY unlikely) derby winner; and is once again right, and celebrated by the public.He's introduced to the 'high society' by Christine's father - which makes Rene jealous, and she decides on the spur of the moment to leave him while he's speaking at a banquet. But at the same moment Christine turns up - and now Maximus starts foreseeing REALLY tragic events; with horrible consequences for himself...This movie, whether you find its insisting on supernatural powers crazy or not, is in ANY case worth watching for every fan of classic cinema: first of all, it gives Claude Rains the possibility to show as 'the Great Maximus' ALL nuances of his huge acting talent, from the cocksure swindler to the genuinely frightened man - frightened by himself and his 'powers'. Then there's of course lovely Fay Wray as his wife Rene, who, besides her usual sweetness, is also allowed to show a display of jealousy here - which gradually changes to some strange kind of sympathy with Christine, who 'gives' her husband his inspirations. There are moments of genuine drama, of supreme suspense, of emotions of all kinds, and even of humor to lighten up the atmosphere; anyway, there's not a MOMENT of boredom throughout the whole movie!

wes-connors Charlatan clairvoyant Claude Rains (as Maximus) and impetuous wife Fay Wray (as Rene) become wealthy and successful when their con act benefits from his acquisition of real powers. The newfound ability to foretell the future comes in handy when Mr. Rains visits the racetrack. Rains' predictive powers seem to stem from mysterious Jane Baxter (as Christine Shawn), which makes Ms. Wray jealous. Call it her "woman's intuition." There are more problems for Rains when he predicts a horrific disaster, inviting some "kill the messenger" reaction from the public. Both Rains and the film's credulity are put on trial - one wins, one loses.***** The Clairvoyant (1934) Maurice Elvey ~ Claude Rains, Fay Wray, Jane Baxter Mary Clare

dougdoepke Professional mind-reader Maximus (Rains) suddenly becomes a genuine foreteller of the future, causing a bunch of problems.That early scene of Maximus on stage is a little gem of staging, editing, and directing. The backdrop of a giant The Thinker is impressive, suggesting that a mental force much larger than the dwarfed Maximus is in play, as indeed it is. His transition from professional trickster to derided dunce to man possessed is riveting, especially as echoed in the gamut of audience reactions. Riveting also is Christine's (Baxter) trance-like stare, which oddly becomes Maximus's pathway to the future. I just wish the movie's remainder equaled this early atmospheric plateau.The main problem is that the screenplay, having set up the compelling premise of genuine clairvoyance, is unsure where to go with it. As a result, events meander into a love story culminating in an utterly conventional ending that unfortunately undercuts that brilliantly ominous stage sequence. Then too, as others point out, the coal mine and court trial sequences are poorly thought out, making that part pretty murky. Just why Maximus is blamed is never made clear-- (although the mine owners responsible for the dangerous conditions could have been implicated for shifting blame). Claude Rains as a leading man takes some getting used too. Nonetheless, he's excellent at alternating Maximus's many moods, and I especially liked his moment of uncharacteristic gaiety when he thinks he's out-foxed the money men. And, of course, there's the gorgeous Fay Wray—a man like Maximus is truly possessed who would think of leaving her. Plus, Jane Baxter who I haven't seen before is also compelling in a very well-cast film. All in all, the movie comes across as an uneasy combination of the brilliant, the conventional, and the muddled.(In passing—one direction for the uncertain storyline would have been the question whether the future is ruled by the inalterable hand of fate. If so, then future events cannot be changed no matter how hard we try. Maximus thinks his prophetic ability provides the opportunity to alter the future. However, suppose we factor in the possibility of a future ruled instead by fate. Then the question of how Maximus fits into fate's inalterable equation becomes an interesting one. Anyway, it's a thought.)