Reviews

Arthur Wontner started his onscreen career as Holmes in 1931 with The Sleeping Cardinal which was followed by The Missing Rembrandt (unfortunately a lost film) a year later and then this one, also in 1932. And compared to The Sleeping Cardinal it couldn't be more different. That one was a very simple, yet effective movie, obviously made with a rather moderate budget, filmed mostly indoors, while this one is a pretty high-scale and action packed production, with several scenes shot on location and actually it often closer to an action movie, than your average murder mystery. Especially during its showdown which features a high-speed boat chase and a fight scene in a warehouse with surprisingly liquid overhead shots.

But the bigger budget and it being a lot more action-packed does not necessarily mean that it is better as well. While it is certainly fun to watch, the movie kind of falls apart at places and I sometimes had the feeling that the production team was often more concerned with the action than the plot and while Holmes warns not to jump to conclusions, he does just that at some occasions.

Wontner's resemblance to the original depiction of Holmes is still uncanny, but due to the script's flaws he cannot shine as much as in the earlier film, however instead of a strong lead we have a strong villain this time with Graham Soutten stealing the show playing Jonathan Small a one-legged heavy who escaped from prison to track down a treasure, which ultimately brings him face to face with Holmes.

While musicals and murder mysteries were two of the most popular genres of the '30s there still aren't too many films that mix the two. While there might be more, besides Murder at the Vanities I only came across two so far: Forty Naughty Girls the sixth and last Hildegarde Withers movie, a nice, but mostly forgettable quickie released in 1937. And also from 1937, the excellent Premiere a film made in Austria, which actually is an (as far as I know) uncredited remake of this movie. But while Premiere has a more serious tone, including some actually rather convincing detective work, Murder at the Vanities focuses more on the musical and comedy elements and of course being as risque with the dance numbers and the show girls' outfits as possible, so it can go out with a bang just before the Hays Code made anything like that impossible.

The plot revolves around the murder happening backstage during the premiere of a stage musical and the efforts of the director and the rather incompetent police officer to solve the case without interrupting the show. Several people come under suspicion, but all of them are dismissed eventually until they finally manage to find the actual culprit just as the show ends. It is neither the best mystery, nor the best musical comedy of its time, but as a combination of two it is very entertaining and works extremely well.

Even though I have never seen it mentioned anywhere, this outstanding murder mystery / musical made in Austria definitely seems like a remake of the classic Hollywood musical Murder at the Vanities, released a few years earlier in 1934. The plot similarities are obvious: murder occurs during the premier night of a grand scale stage musical and, upon request of the director, the police officer in charge agrees to let the show go on, while they are investigating backstage, solving the case by the end of the show. There are several suspects accused and then dismissed, the possible motives include jealousy involving the main actor and his past and present love affairs and I will not spoil that, but even the motivation and the identity of the culprit is very similar. These are definitely not just accidental similarities as there are just way too many of them.

However there are many differences as well: the background of the main characters is different (ironically in Murder at the Vanities one of the characters is from Austria, where Premiere was made), in the Hollywood version the director does some of the actual detective work instead of the annoying and incapable police officer, while in Premiere the officer does a very good and actually very lifelike detective job, unlike all those amateur sleuths that we usually see at murder mysteries (no wonder the Vienna Police is actually credited for assistance). And the basic tone of the movie is very different as well. Premiere, while still a lighthearted film, has a much more serious tone, while in Vanities the comedy is stronger and it is also know for its extremely risque costumes and dance numbers (being the very last pre-Code musical they really gave it all they could), while here there is nothing like that. The music and the theme of the dance numbers is more typically European / Austrian here and interestingly it is actually Premiere that has better choreography as they did a pretty good job at imitating Busby Berkeley's style, featuring lavish sets and a huge ensemble of dancers.

Both films are great in their own ways, but if I had to pick which one is better... I would probably pick Premiere as it is a very solid effort all-around and also, while clearly based on not just Murder at the Vanities, but also on the popular Hollywood musicals and mysteries of the period in general, it is still distinctively different in approach and tone, making it a very unique film. But on the other hand, Vanities is also unique for its pre-Code role and other reasons... so I would definitely recommend anyone who love either mysteries of musicals of that era to track down both and maybe even watch them as a double feature.

The film's premise is pretty good, with some surprise twist and unusual ideas along the way and one of these unusual things about it is that this is basically a murder mystery without an actual murder. Right when his famous inspector friend comes to pay him a visit, a doctor staying in a fancy hotel gets shot through the window. He survives with the bullet only scratching his face, but the inspector takes the case with the doctor playing sidekick and they soon discover, that there is something really fishy going on at the hotel. A gorgeous blonde and his boyfriend gets involved later on and there are some unexpected twists and a rather spooky scene at a morgue to keep us intrigued.

It is not a great movie by any means, but it could be a fun little time-passer with good pacing and some interesting characters, but... then we get to the ending, that just ruins it all. The explanation just does not make any sense whatsoever, instead of wrapping up loose ends it reveals gaping plot holes and the inspector and doctor's reaction is just unrealistic and unbelievably irresponsible. Too bad.

Most of the earlier reviewers obviously did not like this one much, but I think it was actually a rather enjoyable movie, which mixed three very popular genres of that era: murder mystery, musical theater story and screwball comedy. No, of course it is far from being great, but it is an entertaining little whodunit.

The murder mystery part of the plot is nothing special, but it is fine, definitely better than the earlier Hildegarde Withers outing, Murder on the Blackboard, which, during the book-to-screenplay transfer lost all that made it originally good. The musical numbers never get center stage (and honestly, aren't very good either), but the comedy works fine and the fast moving plot easily holds it all together.

As always, James Gleason is great as the grumpy detective and I actually like ZaSu Pitts' Hildegarde quite a bit. While Edna May Oliver seems to be everyone's favorite Hildegarde Withers she was always too much for me and I like both Helen Broderick and Ms. Pitts a lot more in the role. As for the rest of the cast: they are doing OK, but they are nothing noteworthy, except maybe Tom Kennedy, who plays a bumbling police officer that hauntingly similar to his role in all those Torchy Blane movies. Obviously it wasn't much of a success in its time either as it was the last of the series, which is too bad as I would definitely love to watch a few more films with witty ZaSu as the elderly hobby detective who solves the crimes instead of the grumpy inspector.

Edited: One of the reviewers stated that this is a remake of the "German language film named Premiere". Since writing my original review I managed to track down and watch that movie and the reviewer is clearly wrong. Besides both being about murders happening during a musical show there aren't many similarities with the script, the culprit, the motives and pretty much everything being totally different. Not to mention this movie is based on a 1934 short story while Premiere was released in 1937.

However it turns out that Premiere (which is a truly excellent film by the way) is clearly a remake of 1934's Hollywood movie, Murder At The Vanities.

While there are so many actors that portrayed Sherlock Holmes over the years and the discussion about the most faithful one could go on forever, one thing is certain: nobody looked more similar to the original Holmes illustrations than Arthur Wontner. His resemblance to Sidney Paget's illustrations is truly uncanny, it is as if he was actually modelling for those... which is impossible of course as those were made some 30 years before this film. Of course that similarity alone would not be enough to make him a good Holmes, but fortunately his portrayal of the famous detective is also excellent and very close to the novels.

Ian Fleming gives a sometimes bit wooden, but otherwise also very good portrayal of Watson and even thought at points the film does make fun of him not being able to keep up with Holmes, he definitely is not reduced to being a comic relief (as it happened to Nigel Bruce way too often) and is portrayed as a trustworthy friend and helping hand for Holmes. The rest of the cast is also fine, except maybe Norman McKinnel, whose overacting gets a bit annoying at times.

And while several of the Rathbone movies wandered off very far from the source material, this movie, even though it is not flawless, stays true to Doyle's spirit. It is based on two shorts, The Final Problem and The Empty House (which were actually the last before and the first after the detective's The Great Hiatus), borrowing from both's plot, but it also adds new elements to the mix and the result is a bit messy at points. It stars with a bank watchman getting killed during what appears to be a robbery, but we soon learn that apparently no money was stolen. As we go on a young man who likes to cheat during card games gets involved in the story along with her sister (played by the beautiful Jane Welsh), we have Moriarty giving orders while hiding behind the painting of a sleeping cardinal (hence the film's title), a shoemaker who is not what he seems to be and Inspector Lestrade, played by Philip Hewland, being completely unable to follow Holmes' thinking. So, we have a lot going on, but the story is somewhat strained at times, however it isn't much of a problem really, and the good performances, along with the witty dialogue more than make up for it.

The Sleeping Cardinal eventually spawned four sequels and while unfortunately one of those, The Missing Rembrandt is lost, all the others are in public domain now, so they are very easy to come across. This was also considered a lost film for a long while, but now there are obviously at least two copies available and the version I came across was pierced together from those. The majority of the film came from a copy with quite OK sound and picture quality, while a few short scenes (about 5% or less of the film) that were probably missing from that print are from another copy with way inferior picture quality. But overall this version is very watchable, unlike some of the copies described in older reviews. The film was also released in the US (screed under the somewhat sensationalist title, Sherlock Holmes' Fatal Hour) where it proved to be a surprise hit and I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the series' (that run from 1931 till 1937) success was an inspiration for 20th Century-Fox to try their hands on a Holmes movie in 1939.

One of the several adaptation of the Edgar Wallace play is a typical, but unfortunately quite imperfect old dark house mystery about the last members of the once wealthy and prestigious Lebanon family. The family's head is Lady Lebanon, who rules the house with an iron fist and her sinister looking servants follow all her orders, that include keeping and eye on everyone, especially her only son, who is the last bearer of the name. She wants him to marry Isla Crane, her secretary, who also happens to be his cousin, but that seems to be no problem for Lady Lebanon, on the contrary actually, as we learn that it's been an on-going habit to marry family members.. which somewhat foreshadows the later turn of events.

A young lad called Richard Ferraby arrives to the house to discuss renovation plans and him and Isla, who is not too keen on the marriage idea anyways are immediately attracted to each other. Soon, the family's chauffeur gets killed, strangled with a scarf and Lady Lebanon's plan start to fall apart even further. It becomes obvious that she has many things to hide, including a locked room upstairs, some secrets with the family's doctor called Amersham and also, a scarf, that she tries to burn when police starts to investigate. While Lady Lebanon does everything to stop the investigation or at least make it as difficult as possible, both Ferraby and Lord Lebanon (who is clearly more interested in composing music than in the future of the family) try to help the rather incompetent police officers, but they can not prevent another murder from happening.

The film has everything that could make it a good old dark house mystery: family secrets, an old mansion, locked rooms, sinister butlers, secret passages and more-or-less likeable heroes, but it just does not work out at the end. The story has potential but it is heavily handled, dialogues are often awkwardly badly written, the acting isn't much better for the most part and director George King does not do a very good job either. He is well-known for his horror movies starring Tod Slaughter, so he should know a thing or two about scares and how to create a threatening atmosphere, but still, this movie completely lacks suspense.

And a friendly warning: if you watch this on Odeon Entertainment's Best of British DVD (that was actually the first time the film was made available for the public since its initial theatrical run), do not look at the photos on the cover unless you don't mind spoilers, as they give away both the movie's final plot twist and ending.

It is definitely not the actor's fault that this little B-movie from Paramount does not work. The two leads, Lew Ayres and classic Hollywood diva Gail Patrick are both giving good performances, just like most of the supporting cast, especially Onslow Stevens and the ever wonderful Joyce Compton, who is playing yet another lovable blonde. Director Charles Barton does a routine, but OK job, the production values are fine for a B-movie and the story itself also have potential. It all starts with a gangster named Girard (Stevens) receiving a "not guilty" verdict in a murder trial where he was obviously guilty. He throws a party to celebrate, inviting the press, including a brash newspaperman called Kent Murdock, portrayed by Ayres and some acquaintances, like Meg Archer (Gail Patrick).

Murdock leaves the party early to return to his apartment in the same building and just a bit later Girard's lawyer Redfield gets murdered. Meg fleds the scene, thus becoming suspect #1 and somehow ends up in Murdock's room, who decides to hide her and help her clear her name. And that's the point where the movie gets derailed. What ruins it completely is a very poorly written script which isn't just simply weak, but thanks to a couple of inexplicable decisions from either the screenwriter's or the director's part, it will often leave you scratchig your head in confusion and disbelief. These ranges from minor things like a really weird scenes where Lew Ayres takes a shower... with his pants on, to major annoyances, like having the film's climax happen completely off screen. And the whole story gets overcomplicated with unnecessary subplots, too many characters and just too many things going on, while some important elements are simply missing.

Honestly I am not even sure if it really qualifies as a true murder mystery. The viewer knows who the murderer is from the very beginning, so there is no mystery and the screenwriter does not seem to be concerned with the killer's motives either. There is a subplot about the hunt for a photo plate that was taken at the moment the lawyer was murdered, that could reveal the killer's identity and it could be interesting, but it gets lost amongst all the other subplots with some key twists happening off screen yet again. The movie is in public domain, with some fairly good copies online, but it is not really worth the time unless you are a big fan of one of the actors.

This is the kind of film, where you will really have a hard time deciding if you like it or not. Basically it is nothing more than a very, very clichéd murder mystery, but it is fully aware of that and make no secret about it. And that is what almost saves this one. But only almost.

There is nothing here that we haven't seen dozens, hundreds of times: old rich lady with greedy relatives, who are all sweet and lovely with her in one minute and try to put her in an asylum the next. We have the ambitious, but pretty much clueless local sheriff, the clever reporter (Wallace Ford), who does all the job the police should, his pretty assistant and all those other stock characters that pop up at all the similar films. Did I mention the old house, filled with hidden corridors? And that the old lady decides the invite all the would-be heirs to her house at midnight? Sounds familiar? Sure it does.

But what makes this one stand out is that it is not just completely aware of its clichéd nature, but actually makes fun of itself all the time. And these in-jokes provide easily the best moments of the movie. The scene where Ford states, that he can't die, as he is the handsome young hero or when they even go as far as mentioning their most obvious inspiration, The Cat and the Canary (which had a hugely successful remake two years before this came out), referring to its similar invited-at-midnight theme...? Priceless! But my personal favorite is probably when Ford states that "There comes a time in every murder mystery, when all the corpus delicti are missing and it generally happens just past the middle of the picture." Guess what happens in the movie and when. But we even know who's going to be the first victim, way before the actual murder takes place. This self-reflection really works fine.

The problem is that beside this the film has nearly nothing to offer. The screenplay is pretty badly written: the opening scene at the court already puts our expectations pretty low (the wisecracking lady is pretty funny, but the lawyer's complete lack of evidence make the whole scene very awkward), no surprises, no suspense, the characters are mostly very shallow (after they get killed, you will have a hard time remembering who some of the victims were) and even the motives are rather pointless. And while the actors are OK, there aren't any memorable performances.

Too bad. With a bit more effort, it could be a little gem, like the rather similar, but far superior One Frightened Night (1935 - also starring Wallace Ford), which worked wonders with its similarly minimal budget. But this way, this hardly passes as a time-passer.

This is definitely still a worth-to-watch film if you are into the comedies from this era, but while the first Topper movie was a true classic, this is not much more than a lovely little time-passer. But what makes it really different from the first two Topper films is that, instead of doing another romantic comedy, this time they ventured into murder mystery territories. With mixed results.

The plot is simple: Carole Landis, a girl in her early twenties returns from the Far East where she grew up, to meet his father for the first time and to inherit the family fortune. Which, of course makes her a target for a mysterious killer, who, after two failed attempts finally kills... her friend Gail (Joan Blondell) who accompanied her on the trip and switched rooms with her for the night. After this, her ghost approaches Mr. Topper, whom they met on their way to the mansion and they team up to figure out who the killer is. And then the usual madness ensues, which just gets even crazier when the police and Mrs. Topper shows up at the scene as well.

But by this time the story is already a mess and it isn't getting any better later. We don't even really know why Gail goes to Mr. Topper's house right after she was murdered and that's just the first of the many things that doesn't get explained properly (or at all). Including the end. Which has a great, really unexpected twist, which could easily save the movie if played out well, but instead it just disappoints and actually leaves more questions open than what it solves.

But despite all these gaping plot holes and the very routine and seemingly very rushed mystery script, there are several things that still makes this fun to watch. First of these are the great effects, that sometime really makes you wonder about who they managed to do them. And then, there is the great set of character actors: Joan Blondell as the lively American city girl (who, obviously doesn't seem to care much that she was just killed and remains almost disturbingly cheerful), George Zucco as the suspicious friend-of-the-family, Donald MacBride doing a great job as usual as the dumb police sergeant, and Eddie Anderson (as the Toppers' chauffeur) doing the Mantan Moreland part, getting scared and trying to run away all the time, but eventually taking an active part in solving the case. And the best of all, Billie Burke as Mrs. Topper, who, while a total airhead, is still by far the most lovable character of all and serves some of the best jokes as well. And that's the other thing that saves the movie: the great jokes and the comedy parts.

And actually that is why I think, that (while I just love murder mysteries) the Topper series should stayed what it was: pure comedy. As the movie shines when we get to the fun parts, but the mystery part of he story is so half assed that it does not add anything to the whole, just distracts and annoys the viewer.

Even though this early talkie has its flaws it is still an above average little mystery, where the strong points are the interesting supporting characters and the great script. The story opens with a bang... and a pretty interesting gimmick: a well-dressed gentleman in a top hat is shot to death on the street, right at front of his hotel, but we quickly learn that he is just an actor and it all happened on-set. However just as the director asks for a retake, telling the actor to die in a less theatrical way, they realize to their horror that he is really dead.

So, the story kicks in pretty quick and keeps up the pace all the way. The police gets on the scene fast, but of course it is not them who really takes the case in their hands, but one of the writers working for the studio, who also happens to be the boyfriend of the lead actress, who in turn happens to be one of the main suspects.

At first they have to figure out if it was just an accident or the actor was deliberately murdered (guess which one!) and then the hunt for the killer begins with a lot of suspects, action, misleading clues scattered around and with one plot twist after the other. The film keeps you guessing until the end, the murders are committed in pretty clever ways and the overall great story is only marred a bit by the totally careless handling of important evidence both by the police and our hero.

Who is also a bit of a problem: his character is quite antipathetic, together with the lead actress, however the supporting cast makes up for their shortcomings. The producer who keeps on complaining about the loss the whole case causes him, the sullen police inspector and the studio's own clumsy little officer are probably the highlights, but the rest of the characters are quite great as well, while the film's movie studio background gives us a pretty interesting behind-the-scenes look. And at last, even if just as a minor character, we can see Bela Lugosi, back in his days when he was still getting roles in non-horror movies.

I only picked this movie randomly from a big stack of old mysteries I got from archive.org recently (as this one is in public domain), but it turned out to be a quite pleasant surprise and a film that can be recommended for anyone, not just die hard murder mystery fans.

B-movie star Frankie Darro and everyone's favorite bug-eyed comic relief Mantan Moreland made several murder mystery comedies together around 1940 (with some other more-or-less recurring cast members, including Tristram Coffin) for Monogram Pictures. In this one, the guys work at a radio station (Frankie as a bell-boy as usual) when they get mixed up in the murder of the station's popular, but problematic singing star, Rita Wilson (played by Lorna Gray) who is shot during a rehearsal. As usual, the police detective who handles the case is quite arrogant and incompetent, but he ends up working together quite fine with Frankie. And Mantan. Who, while doing his regular scared-of-everything act, is definitely much more than a mandatory comic relief here: he gets top billing, proves again that he is an excellent comedian and also takes part in the detective work quite effectively and in general, his role is more similar to what we usually see from Lou Abbott. So even the people who are extra-sensitive about the racial stereotypes of classic Hollywood are safe with this one. And talking about Abbott and Costello: they actually did their own version of the "murder mystery at the radio station" theme two years later in Who Done It? (1942), while Monogram remade the story in 1945 as There Goes Kelly.

Up In The Air has a little bit of everything: mystery, action, comedy, musical and the mixture works pretty well, but as the hour-long entry has several musical numbers, comedy acts and even a dance performance by Mantan, you can imagine how thin the plot is. But it is actually nothing more than a tool to keep the story going and to hold the movie together and at that, it does a pretty fine job and makes this a rather enjoyable little time-passer, complete with car chase, Frankie and Mantan's black face comedy act and a mysterious singing cowboy.

While One Frightened Night is definitely not the kind of movie that you would call a classic or the kind that introduced new ideas or added new twists to the murder mystery genre, still it is a perfect little B movie in its own simple way.

Really, there is nothing new here: we have the usual set of characters (the cute blonde, the dumb police guy, the grumpy but wise old man, the maid and a clumsy magician as comic-relief), the usual settings (old dark house, complete with hidden corridors) and a somewhat loose plot concerning the old guy's fortune that he plans to give away either to his relatives and employees OR to his long lost daughter. But still, everything works so fine, the characters are played out so well, the dialogues are excellently written and the film moves at such a fast pace that you will just have to sit back an enjoy the fun.

The amusing title sequence already sets the mood for the spooky, but fun atmosphere and the story kicks into high gear when the aforementioned daughter shows up... and not one, but two of them! And from that moment it just does not let down, we have great plot twists, witty dialogue, lots of action and even a masked killer, hiding in the shadows. If you like murder mysteries OR old dark house movies OR comedies OR just the typical, well made '30s B-movies then you simply can not go wrong with this little gem.

While many of the era's murder mysteries incorporated elements of other genres, such as comedy, action or those beloved old dark house kind of horror movies to shake things up a bit (or to make you forget about plot holes), this one uses no such things, which results in a quite serious tone and a very plot centered script. Which could be a good thing, but unfortunately the movie (which is now in public domain) fails in so many ways.

The budget was pretty low (the movie was produced by Chesterfield, shortly before it was merged into Republic, to avoid closure due to their debts), which would not be a problem itself, but the whole film is way too talkie, while the confusing plot drags around quite slow, with not much going on: the incompetent, but unfunny police officer admits that they don't know much about murder and do not really wish to be in charge (just what!?) and the son-and-father duo that ends up handling the case does not do much detective work either, as they often simply run into important evidence accidentally.

The acting is also pretty weak with people reacting to events in totally unlikely ways. For example when they discover the body of Byron, the first victim or when later others are told about his death, they are all like "Oh, really?" with almost zero emotion shown. Even when his mother learns about his death, we see her smiling, showing childhood pictures of the boy just moments later. The way the other murders are committed is rather unrealistic, the actors that are supposed to play collage boys are quite obviously much older than they should be and the plot, which revolves around some complicated family matters and a lot of money is just too muddled and uninteresting to keep up your attention for 70 minutes. Still, it is not a complete waste of time, but not really recommended either.