Murder at Dawn (1932) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Too many characters spread all over an "old dark house" makes for an okay but confused mystery film
dbborroughs23 July 2006
A woman and her fiancé travel to get her father's blessing on their up coming marriage. In tow is another couple. The father, a professor and inventor is working on am invention which will make unlimited power from sunlight. Arriving at the house as a thunderstorm threatens to break the quartet find themselves in the middle of a murder.

This is yet another old dark house movie with secret passages, dark cloaked figures, weird science and lots of mysterious people lurking around. Both better and worse than many similar films from the period this movie is worth a shot for those who like this sort of thing.

Graced with a game cast including Jack Mulhall and Misha Auer this is a good looking film with some nice smart ass dialog. It looks and feels like your typical old dark house movie of the period with very little of the periods creakiness. The film keeps things moving and lively in a way that many films from the period don't (they also use enough sound that you don't notice the lack of music).

The film however is far from perfect. The main problem is really split into two parts. First there are way way too many characters wandering around the grounds. Its simply too many for the story to sustain. I think there are 11 characters at the house, many of which are little more than faces that stand in the shadow or pass by the windows. Until the final denouncement we have no idea who these people are. Related to that this film simply has too much going on. Characters are spread out all over the place and its hard to tell who is doing what or why. And again, until the final denouncement we're never really sure what is going on, its a bunch of people staggering around an old dark house.

Recommended for those who like old dark house films and are a bit forgiving in their tastes. Others may like it but find it too slow and confused for their tastes.

FYI: IMDb lists this as being 62 minutes long however the version from Alpha Video that I saw ran about 10 minutes shorter. I'm not sure if that part of the reason things are confused or not. I somehow think not.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
You've seen it all before, done better, but at 52 minutes, what can you expect?
mark.waltz6 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The archetype of every character from this formula plot is there, from the eccentric scientist, the vulnerable heroine (who happens to be his daughter), her heroic fiancée, the comical drunken sidekick, dour housekeeper (is there any other kind?), stereotypical black porter, and all sorts of other mysterious and nefarious characters who pop in and out of the storyline.

Try not to laugh at the presence of the very serious Martha Mattox as the housekeeper; At one point, while holding a candle, she highly resembles "Young Frankenstein's" Frau Brucher, and when she breaks out into an evil grin, looks like "Alice in Wonderland's" Cheshire Cat. Mischa Auer steals every moment he is on as the man of mystery, clad much like Bela Lugosi and given some sinister dialog.

When the heroine, played by Josephine Dunn, is suddenly confronted by the dark Auer and doesn't instantly break into hysterics (after having already done so in other scenes), the screenplay hits its nadir. Eddie Boland, as the drunken pal of hero Jack Mulhall, is not only afraid of his own shadow, but of the shadows of tree branches as well, and no amount of booze in his system can give him any amount of liquid courage.

The use of scientific equipment, apparently also used in the earlier "Frankenstein" (and later in "Bride of Frankenstein") really has no point in being there, the bulk of the chills coming from the creepy servants who slither around the cheap set as if they had just been thrown off of "The Old Dark House".
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Thank goodness for poverty row films.....
kidboots8 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
...or else what would actors like Josephine Dunn and Jack Mulhall have done??? A lot of the interest in these type of films is the cast list - whatever happened to such and such , only the year before they were on top of the heap. Unfortunately for Josephine Dunn there were no such memories. Her main claim to fame rests with playing the meanie in "The Singing Fool". Then she was the third maiden in "Our Modern Maidens" (1929) but the other two were Joan Crawford and Anita Page, so she wasn't left with much to do other than be nasty to poor Joan!! She was then in "Safety in Numbers" (1930) with Charles "Buddy" Rogers, unfortunately she was overshadowed by Carole Lombard and Virginia Bruce, so it was on to the quickies. Jack Mulhall did have a career - he co- starred with Alice White in "Naughty Baby" and "Showgirl in Hollywood" but by 1932 was firmly entrenched as a reliable actor on poverty row.

Doris (Josephine Dunn) and Danny (Jack Mulhall) are visiting Doris' father to get his consent to their marriage. He lives in the mountains and is working on a new invention. Doris is worried as she hasn't heard from him for a while. There are strange goings on at the house, with a creepy housekeeper (Martha Mattox, looking exactly like she did in "The Cat and Canary" (1927)) and a sinister caretaker, Henry (Mischa Auer - what would Hollywood have done without him!!!). Doris' father has created a solar powered form of electricity that will cut costs!!

The night that Doris and Danny arrive, along with their friends Gertrude (Marjorie Beebe) and Freddie (Eddie Boland) other people turn up as well (a judge and other unexplained people). As usual with these "old dark house" movies, people have a habit of turning up dead!!! It seems that Henry has been building a laboratory of his own and he wants the good doctor's formula or he will be zapped by his own invention.

It is okay - not the best or the worst of these type that I have seen.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Waste Of Strickfaden's Electronic Equipment For An Inferior Film.
rsoonsa11 March 2006
The second recorded deployment of Kenneth Strickfaden's fabulous fantasy lab equipment (following the original Frankenstein), is the sole element apt to please viewers of this wearisome essay at creating an Old Dark House mystery, wherein stabs taken toward comedy and suspense are less than persuasive, and production values in this low-budget affair are anaemic. Danny (Jack Mulhall) and Doris (Josephine Dunn), in order to avoid a stall in their marriage plans, entrain with married chums Freddie (Eddie Boland) and Gertrude (Marjorie Beebe) to the mountain hermitage of Dr. Farrington, inventor father of Doris, to gain his consent for their wedding, and on a dark and stormy night (as can be noted from repeated footage of identical flashes of lightning), with the film striving for a general atmosphere of malevolence, the quartet arrives at Farrington's aerie. Meanwhile, the doctor is seen demonstrating his latest brainchild, a "VXO Accumulator", to a visiting colleague, Judge Folger, a contrivance that will purportedly mine the sun's rays for the development of free power that will benefit mankind, but as the device might also be utilized for evil, the stage is set for harrowing proceedings. These include Folger's murder, along with the kidnapping of Farrington, all while the bewildered young couples try to stay out of harm's way from such as secret passages and trap doors, disappearing corpses, a sinister caretaker played by Mischa Auer (complete with maniacal cackling laughter), in addition to two other men who skulk about the grounds (one of whom is dropped, unidentified as to name or purpose, by the script); notwithstanding these melodramatic events, the film is bare of moments that may be interesting to a sensate viewer. In truth, from its very beginning, this is a poor film, and even with the surfeit of ominous occurrences tossed at us, the work is so substandard that a viewer eventually is resigned to merely studying the sequences to wonder at examples of what are not only distinctly tedious goings-on but risible as well, the script, direction, acting, and editing being as atrocious as can be imagined.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
By the Numbers From Start to Finish
Michael_Elliott1 October 2015
Murder at Dawn (1932)

** (out of 4)

Danny (Jack Mulhall) and Doris (Josephine Dunn) are on their way to tell her father about their engagement but what they don't know is that her father scientist has created a deadly ray that can work off the sun. The father's friend is mysteriously murdered and soon more bodies are piling up as someone tries to steal the secret.

MURDER AT DAWN was one of the numerous "old dark house" movies that were produced in the 1930s. This one here features lightening, thunder, mysterious shadows, screams in the night, a nutty scientist, murder and of course an annoying lead couple who go for laughs. If you've seen at least two of these then you already know what's going on in these types of movies as there are countless suspects and out of no where one pops up at the end as the killer. Rarely do these films make any sense so it takes something really special happening in order for them to stand out in the pack.

Sadly, nothing too special happens here as there are way too many characters introduced to us and none of them really stand out in an entertaining way. All the stereotypes are in full force here and I must admit that it was rather hard following the film because it's so uneven. The performances range from fair to decent but, again, nothing really stands out. MURDER AT DAWN isn't horrible and it's mildly entertaining but it's mainly going to appeal to those who want to see all of these sub-genre movies that were made.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A pretty typical period 'old, dark house' movie.
planktonrules10 April 2018
Danny and Doris along with some friends go to Dr. Farrington's house to ask get his consent to marry. Well, once they arrive weird stuff happens...such as finding Farrington and his friend dead...and soon after this discovery the bodies disappear!! What follows is essentially a murder mystery and an old dark house film rolled up into one.

As far as the genre goes, this one is fairly good--despite coming from a low-budget studio. However, one thing bothered me and may well bother other viewers--the very ignorant black character. Back in the day, folks thought it was funny featuring a scared black man as comic relief....and this one is no different...except that he's even more ignorant than usual. A sad cliche, I know...but still a decent film despite this.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unbelievably bad
robert-temple-130 October 2009
My idea of torture, which might perhaps be inflicted upon terrorist suspects in order to make them scream and divulge their confederates, would be to tie them down, prop open their eyelids with those tools used by optic surgeons, and force them to watch this film. Richard Thorpe directed it, and later he learned how to direct, as proved by 'A Toy Wife' six years later, but at this early stage in what was to be a long career (offering him plenty of time to go to confession and tell some holy father that he had committed the sin of directing 'Murder at Dawn' abominably), he seemed to imagine that film direction was something one does with a knife in a butcher shop, serving up the offal to the masses, of which this is a misshapen specimen. To pretend that this is a film is like pretending that an ant is an elephant. Of course, everything is relative. After all, to a flea, an ant is an elephant. And similarly, to Richard Thorpe in 1932, this presumably did appear to be a film. But we who live in later times are not fooled: this is unmistakably a piece of rubbish.
6 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
"He was hangin' on a hook and he yodeled at me!"
classicsoncall3 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I guess if there weren't films as bad as this one we wouldn't be able to tell what a good one looked like. This is as muddled as they come with a cast of characters that resemble those metallic spheres in a pinball machine, bouncing all over the place and accomplishing nothing. Someone like Charlie Chan might have been able to reign in the players on the way to solving the murder mystery at the heart of this story, but without that calming effect, it looked like it was every man (and woman) for themselves.

Another reviewer on this board described Professor Farrington's (Frank Ball) invention as the VXO Accumulator; I thought I heard DXL Accumulator. It doesn't make any difference. The gizmo was supposed to be able to harness unlimited power from the sun, thereby 'setting millions of wage slaves free'. I thought about that for a while, trying to imagine what a million freed wage slaves would do then, and came to the conclusion that they'd be even worse off. Now they wouldn't even have slave wages coming in.

Considering that we had a murdered judge and a kidnapped professor to worry about, things got just a little too frantic here for my taste. A lot of scurrying about aimlessly and unidentified characters peering in through windows and around corners with no purpose that I could figure out. Presumably the crazy caretaker (Mischa Auer) had designs on stealing the Professor's secret formula that made his invention work, but things came to an end when he hit the pavement, literally. Fortunately, the run time for this flick was about a full ten minutes shy of the sixty two minutes described on the DVD sleeve. That added a bonus point to my rating for the picture.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Doris Farrington is in for a shock
Bernie444431 December 2023
The brilliant recluse Dr. Farrington (Frank Ball) has just completed his invention. The VXO Accumulator, a device that can harness the sun's rays and offer free energy to everyone. He discloses this information to his friend Judge Folger (Phillip Smalley) and plans to give it to the world tomorrow.

Wait! What's this? The lights go out. When the lights come on Judge Folger is dead and soon Dr. Farrington disappears.

The search for Dr. Farrington goes on by his daughter (Josephine Dunn) and soon-to-be son-in-law (Jack Mulhall.) Meanwhile, we have mysterious viewers, long-fingered creeps, hidden panels, and it appears that someone will be murdered at dawn.

This is a 1932 black-and-white whodunit. The only version I saw was the Alpha video DVD. It needs a little cleaning up.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Don't always underrate B movies!
binapiraeus12 February 2014
Now, "Murder at Dawn" perhaps may not suit the tastes of a highbrow who demands a perfect production and direction and an answer to everything - but it's a very stunning, atmospheric and VERY much underrated B movie, with all the elements of a classic 'isolated mansion' mystery: complete with a thunderstorm, shady types creeping through the garden at night and peeping into windows, a mysterious housekeeper (Martha Mattox, well known to fans of the genre from "The Cat and the Canary" and "Murder by the Clock"), turning fireplaces, bodies in the closet, and so on...

It's also got its 'scientific' element (which constitutes the reason for all the murderous ongoings): an inventor is working in the seclusion of this old house on a device for producing electricity, which could of course be very important for the future of mankind, but also very dangerous...

But the entertainment isn't neglected either in this charmingly old-fashioned 'cheapie': there's romance in the shape of the inventor's daughter (Josephine Dunn) and her fiancé, played by Jack Mulhall - and also a comical side, which is handled very nicely by the 'old' married couple Marjorie Beebe and Eddie Boland. And a very special surprise: Mischa Auer in a VERY unusual role as the strange and sinister caretaker - you'll have to look twice to recognize him!

For friends of the good old 30s' mysteries, an absolute 'must' - it catches the mood and atmosphere just as well as the much more famous classics of the same time, like "The Old Dark House" or "The Bat Whispers"!
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Seconds are the Firsts
pensman5 March 2023
There is only one reason to watch this film: Eddie Boland as Freddie. And possibly for Gertrude (Marjorie Beebe), Freddie's wise cracking wife.

I caught this on YouTube (Hastings Mystery Theater) and watched out of curiosity as the host Randall Scheafer discussed Big Four Productions. The major studios had bought up most theaters in insure their pictures would be seen. But the independent theater owners still needed films. Small production produced films on the cheap: spend a lot less on sets and extras and anything else you could cut. That's how a picture like Murder at Dawn gets made. And if you watch, you can "clearly" see the result.

There is an amusing exchange between the four stars and George Reed ( a fine African-American actor) that relies on stereotypes, but you can't deny Reed's comedic timing.

The plot is as silly as the opening screen credits: a "mad" scientist creates a power source that could provide free electricity to the "wage slaves," but faces a foe bent on stealing his invention. The twist is the heroine, her fiancé, and friends are going to see the scientist because he is the heroine's father and she wants his blessing. Forget the plot, everything will eventually work out. But the banter between Freddie and Gertrude is blistering. And Freddie solo screens as he tipples his way along provide some terrific laughs, or at least chuckles.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed