LeonLouisRicci Fans of Bogey like to Scoff at this "Miscasting" and Bogart would Demean and Destroy this Movie at the Drop of a Hat, but...Bogart shows Range and Style and is as Creepy as They Come.Playing a Resurrected Mad Scientist with a Blood Craving Disease He manages to Steal the Movie. Not that Hard considering it is not really a Return or Sequel, the Dated Comedy elements Threaten to Sink the Thing from the start, and this Short LIttle B-Picture was not really Warner Brothers Forte.It's a genuine Horror Film nonetheless with enough Lurid and Scary elements to Sustain the Shortcomings. Although Bogart makes it His Film, some others also Impress. John Litel as the Serious Scientist trying to Find a Cure for Diseased Blood and Lya Lys as an Actress falling Victim to the Madness shines in few Brief Scenes.Can be Appreciated Out of Context for Humphrey Bogart's Iconic Career and the Comedy inclusions Ignored, This is a Pretty Good Entry in Thirties Horror.

gavin6942 A hotshot reporter (Wayne Morris) and a young doctor (Dennis Morgan) team up to investigate a series of grisly murders and a mysterious sample of synthetic blood.This film has become somewhat notorious for being one of Humphrey Bogart's earliest roles, and one that he spent his life trying to ignore. For some reason, rather than embrace it, he seemed to be horrified by the subject matter and offended that he was forced to take part. He should be grateful: it is one of the few films he was able to give even a bit of range in his acting.What is troubling is not the subject matter, but the attempt to pass this off as a sequel to "Doctor X". Although both films feature a character named Maurice Xavier, there seems to be no connection between them. They are not played by the same actor, and the first X was not a bad guy, even if he might have been eccentric. This second one is a child murderer...

DarthVoorhees You can like Humphrey Bogart as a persona and as a character but you can't go as far as to say he was a talented actor. Bogie was a persona that he never really ever left aside from ironically enough here. Ironically in 'Return of Doctor X' I see some acting chops hidden beneath the surface. Is this a great film? It's a great curiosity because there is definitely something very interesting about seeing the ironically cast Bogart as a vampirish doctor.In the film there is a scene where our newspaper hero pieces together the macabre happenings using articles with Bogie's picture next to them. I thought to myself like James Whale supposedly did when he met an unknown Boris Karloff, "there's a face with interesting opportunities". In some of the reviews of the film I've seen critiques of how awkward Bogart looks in the make-up and frankly I don't see it at all. He looks menacing and other worldly. Just aesthetically I completely buy Bogart as this monster. In the long run Bogart was not a traditionally handsome man. He had an awkward face and mouth. That Jack Warner thought to try him in a horror film under a creature make-up I actually think is kind of inspired. But aesthetics aside I actually think this monster is given a fair amount of pathos from Bogart. There is a brilliant sequence when Garrett and Rhodes first meet Bogart's character. Like Lugosi in 'Dracula' there is a total disconnect in the monster trying to pose as a human being. It is made all the more interesting in that Humphrey Bogart is your monster and yet I didn't actually see him as the Bogart persona here. That's the greatest compliment you can give an actor who struggles to find range. The scene is capped with Bogart breaking a beaker in his hand. The look on his face is phenomenal. He clearly is a step above the rest of this B-Movie cast.The rest of the film is pretty standard fair. It's a competently shot B-Movie with mediocre to competent performances(Although I will say I do really like the femme fatale here). It's never boring though and fans of this era of horror films will be entertained. I know as a horror fan I was. But what really dragged me into the picture was Bogie as this monster. I'm sure he hated the role but I'd say it is an essential one in appraising him as an actor. In a lot of ways Humphrey Bogart and Bela Lugosi were a lot a like. Both played variations of the same character over and over. Who would have thought Bogart could be an effective figure of terror?

johnc2141 i am a huge fan of b movies,especially when they have good actors in them.i am also a fan of the old warner brothers gangster movies with James Cagney,Humphrey Bogart,and George Raft.well return of Dr x is the only horror film that Humphrey Bogart ever made.there's a rumor that he was being punished by warner brothers to do this movie.that might be.but i think it was one of his better movies,Bogart plays a zombie like creature named Dr Kane who must kill to get blood,now it sounds like a vampire.well Kane was brought back to life by another Dr after he was executed in the electric chair for being a child murderer.sort of like an early version of Freddy Krueger.the title is very misleading,it is not a sequel to 1932s Dr x.the early two tone color horror starring;Lionel Atwill,and Fay Wray.it is a very interesting rare gem of a b movie that could've starred Boris Karloff who I'm sure was intended for the role.but to see Humphrey Bogart as a zombie vampire walking dead guy its unusual to say the least.i was impressed with return of Dr x.