Charlie Chan in Honolulu (1938)

Before I start I wanted to direct you to my thoughts about a white actor playing an Asian character. Here is the link. It has been a couple of years now that I’ve been covering these movies and while I understand and agree with many of the issues I still think they have value and shouldn’t be dismissed. But I don’t need to rehash things again. Check out the link if you are interested. Now onto the review.

Since this is set in Hawaii we get to see Charlie at home with his large family. The action starts off at a chaotic breakfast. Jimmy is asking his father to teach him to be a detective while his younger brother Tommy cracks wise at him. Charlie’s son in law enters to let them know that his wife is in labor with Chan’s first grandchild. They all head to the hospital but the phone rings and Tommy answers. There is a freighter in the harbor where a murder has taken place. Tommy convinces Jimmy this is his chance so off they go.

Eventually Charlie finds out about the crime and ends up on the ship where he finds his boys making a mess of things. Taking charge, he interviews suspects, finds out about a large pile of cash, meets up with a sketchy detective from California, finds a hold filled with exotic animals, and sure enough is there when another body drops. Who is the killer? What happened to the money? Why is there a lion roaming around? These are all questions that will be answered before the end credits roll.

Charlie Chan in Honolulu is notable for a couple of things. First off this is the first movie with Sidney Toler in the role as he was replacing Warner Oland who had gotten sick and would soon pass away. I may have already mentioned this but he is my favorite actor to play the character and is great in his first outing. There was also a change in his son with Victor Sen Yung playing son Jimmy taking over from Keye Luke’s Lee. It is also interesting that the attempts at humor are present here but without Mantan Mooreland they lean heavily into Jimmy and Tommy. Honestly this doesn’t work all that well and I can see why they eventually changed things up.

The strength of the movie is in the story. We don’t get the clues so the audience can’t play along and try to solve the crime which is a bummer. But the pacing is good moving along briskly setting up the characters quickly and then getting to the murders. Yeah, there is another killing which is fun because they set up on character to look guilty only for them to end up a victim. There is also a fun subplot that I won’t spoil as it serves as a bit of a red herring but itself is satisfying. There is a lot going on in the movie’s sixty seven minute long runtime which makes it a fun watch. As you would expect Charlie sets a clever plan to trap the criminal and wraps things up in a neat bow. Oh, and it was a boy… his grandchild that is.

These Chan movies are the gold standard for quick, inexpensive, and fun mystery flicks with some comedy mixed in. As much as I liked Warner Oland in the role his last few movies were a bit off as you could see his illness was sapping his energy. With Toler in the role things pick up and he also brings more of a mischievous vibe to the role. He is the smartest man in the room and knows this despite how much others might underestimate him. This one is worth a watch for sure.

 

© Copyright 2024 John Shatzer

Murder by Aristocrat (1936)

Here we have another Sally Keating mystery movie. Okay actually I suppose I need to explain that the character’s name was switched around from Sarah Keate to Sally Keating. Why? I don’t have a clue, but it is based on the same character that appeared in While the Patient Slept which I’ve already covered here. This one has our favorite crime solving nurse being called to take care of a patient who may or may not have accidentally shot himself while cleaning his gun. Spoilers… it wasn’t an accident.

The movie opens with the members of the Thatcher family sitting in the great room of their mansion. One of them, Bayard, is demanding that the others give him twenty five thousand dollars. If they don’t, he will reveal the family secrets including a very illegal bit of banking. The rest of the family doesn’t seem all that pleased with him, but he isn’t bothered by that. Though later in the night when someone takes a shot at him that might be a different matter.

The shot only winged him so the family calls a doctor who also brings along his nurse, Sally, to take care of their patient. She stays that night to keep an eye on him and watches as he continues to antagonize the family. He even lets her know that he wasn’t cleaning his gun, which is the story the family gave everyone, but was shot by someone else. The next morning Sally is sent to sit out in the yard and watches as folks come and go. This is important as she is able to collect some clues to help solve the mystery as to who shot Bayard (they didn’t miss this time) when is body is found. The rest of the movie is a belligerent District Attorney who is also a family friend not listening to her before finally realizing she has it all sorted out.

This is a very simple and entertaining movie. Clocking in right at an hour the story establishes the absolute heel that our victim Bayard is and sets the plot into action right away. The actor, William B. Davidson, chews up some scenery making no doubt to the fact that he will eventually die and how those responsible are sort of justified by that. This works well when we do finally see who the killer is as they should be sympathetic. No worries though since I’ll not be spoiling the good stuff here in this review.

Once he is shot and Sally shows up there is an appropriate amount of skulking around the old house at night with a thunderstorm blowing outside. I was enjoying the heck out of that, but then the next day when the killer succeeds it is a beautiful and sunny day. The atmosphere is a bit lacking, but I suppose it was clever to do it that way. Certainly not what I expected. The movie also does a wonderful job of giving us enough clues so that in hindsight I realized I could have guessed correctly at who the murderer was. Just in case you were wondering I was completely wrong. Though for me that is part of the fun of watching an old flick like this, getting fooled.

There isn’t much more I can say about this movie other than it is worth checking out. Being in the public domain it is easy to find online. I think I may have enjoyed this one even more than the previously mentioned While the Patient Slept. I recommend it if you are in the mood for a good murder.

 

© Copyright 2024 John Shatzer

Night of Terror (1933)

Time to dust off another oldie but maybe goodie? The movie opens with a couple in a convertible starring at the moon and stars. A creepy looking man sneaks up on them and then the camera pulls away as we hear a scream. What happened? Well, the newspaper headlines tell us that the Maniac, the name of the killer, has murdered another couple. Yeah, it didn’t end well for them at all. These is the latest murders in a spree that has been going on for a while.

We then see the Maniac sneak into an estate where the Rinehart family lives. Someone kills the patriarch, we are supposed to believe it was the Maniac, and later after the will is read we find out that the family is to spilt the inheritance evenly. The surviving members anyway… This leads to more death as there are less Rineharts left to split the cash as bodies keep popping up. There are also subplots about a friend of the family who is doing a weird experiment to prove you can live without breathing as well as a nosy reporter who is pursuing the beautiful young woman of the family, Mary. Mary is engaged to the doctor. All is revealed before the credits roll and that includes a couple fun twists.

Just a note before going any further. I enjoyed this movie despites some of the flaws I’ll mention below. I tried to write this review spoiler free, but it just didn’t work. I’m going to recommend checking it out so if you don’t want things ruined for you stop here. The movie is on YouTube as of the writing of this review so check it out.

Night of Terror is solid but not great. The story starts off with a bang but tapers off quickly with the family being introduced and time passing after the first murder in the house. I think moving time ahead a week breaks up the momentum created by the creepy opening. It does pick up towards the end but the pacing issues kick this down from being a great example of an Old Dark House style flick to being an okay one. For those unfamiliar with what I’m speaking about there was a whole subgenre of horror/mystery that involved murders, secret passages, killers hiding in the dark, and a beautiful heroine. The movie has all of these and plenty of it. The name comes from the first movie to do this but has it’s origins in some very popular and creepy stage plays from the twenties.

The cast is solid with the best performance coming from a very familiar face, Bela Lugosi, who plays the manservant and vaguely mystical Degar. He is used very well as a red herring. I mean of course Dracula guy had to be the killer, right? Nope. Though it a fun twist he does get to play the Maniac under piles of makeup. Another actor is credited with the role, but it is clearly Lugosi creeping around in the dark. I suppose he did get to be the killer though again maybe not. In another fun twist the Maniac is killing folks but here is used as cover for one of the family members who is knocking off the others to make his share of the inheritance even higher. There is a lot going on with Night of Terror and I’m all about it.

I should mention the other criticism I have about the movie is that we get zero chance of figuring out who the killer is. This leans more into the horror and less into the mystery, so I don’t think that is a dealbreaker for me. But it does need to be acknowledged. I almost included it in the mystery marathon but decided against it.

You already know that I’m recommending this one and that you can find it on YouTube. This is one of those public domain movies that are well worth spending an hour on. Lugosi was way more than just Dracula and this is one of the best examples of that fact. This is best watched in the dark without distractions (put the damn phone down!).

 

© Copyright 2023 John Shatzer

While the Patient Slept (1935)

While poking around looking for movies to cover here at the site I stumbled upon the Sarah Keate series. This movie was based on a book series from Mignon G. Eberhart, who was referred to as the American Agatha Christie. I had never heard of the character or the author before, so I was intrigued. Then I found out that they made six movies based on Eberhart’s writing and of course I tracked them all down. Well four of the five so far. This is the first of them brought to the screen, so it seemed like a good place to start.

Things kick off with the always fun setting of an old mansion at night with a storm raging outside. We meet Grandfather, who isn’t feeling so well. This has brought his family to his side waiting for him to die. Well at least he thinks they are just there for his money and it gives us a lot of suspects for what is to come later. When he collapses after receiving a telegram a nurse is called to take care of him. That of course is our main character, Sarah Keate. She arrives and starts caring for him while the rest of the family beds down for the night. Though it is brief as before morning a shot rings out and one of the family, Adolphe, is found dead on the stairs.

The police are called and the head detective starts to interrogate and yell at the suspects. Lt. Lance, the cop, also is sweet on Keate and has some sort of history with her that the movie doesn’t explain. There are also some other detectives that mostly serve as comic relief as they try to figure out who the killer is and why. Though this doesn’t happen before another body is found, this time the family butler. I suppose the butler didn’t do it. In the end everything is explained and the murderer is exposed.

While the Patient Slept has a lot of good things going for it. The setting of the old mansion is familiar and well executed. From the characters creeping around in the shadows, to the storm rattling the windows it is fun. We also get hands reaching from behind curtains to menace folks, hidden passages, and secret doors. Just about all you would expect from the movie. There is also a big twist that if you are paying attention to the dialogue was shared with us before it is revealed. Oh, and the dialogue is snappy with the sort of rapid fire delivery that is common in a lot of these early “talkie” movies. They were heavily influenced by the presentation of theatrical plays and that can make for a good time.

I was also impressed with the performance of Aline MacMahon as Sarah Keate. Her performance is good as she brings a lighthearted sense of fun to the proceedings If you haven’t figured it out yet this movie does lean into the humor a bit. That seems to be an issue with fans of the books, which I believe must be much more serious. Though much like the Charlie Chan series, which was also based on some novels, the movie adaptation was influenced by the popular murder mystery mixed with romance and comedy trend that was happening in popular entertainment at the time. I will need to check out the books at some point which may change my opinion here but for now I’d say it was fine.

The only negative that I can say about this movie is that we never get the clue to solve it. I’ve said it again and again but part of the fun with a story like this is trying to figure out the mystery along with the characters. Here there is a big cheat where the detective had information that we never get until he exposes the character who was doing all the killing. That was annoying, but that alone isn’t enough to spoil the fun. While the Patient Slept is a good time and well worth checking out. I can’t wait to watch the rest of the movies in this series.

 

© Copyright 2023 John Shatzer

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939)

Things open in a courtroom where the nefarious Professor Moriarty is on trial for murder, or at least he was. He has just been declared innocent, despite everyone knowing he was guilty. Sherlock Holmes shows up with the evidence that would have convicted him just as the case ends and is too late. The Professor declares to Holmes after the trial that he will commit the crime of the century under his nose proving once and for all that he is the greatest mind in all of England.

Not long after Holmes is visited by a young woman named Ann who is concerned for the well being of her brother Lloyd. He has received a strange letter in the mail one just like their father got before he was murdered. Despite being asked to keep an eye out on the transfer of the latest crown jewel, The Star of Delhi, Holmes spends his time helping her. When Lloyd is murdered this seems like a good choice. But is it? How does Ann’s problems tie in with Moriarty’s crime of the century? These questions are all answered in a great finale/chase at the Tower of London.

This is a very good movie so I’m trying to keep my synopsis as vague as possible to not spoil anything. There is a real mystery here that engages the audience and keeps them guessing from start to finish. There is a lot going on as Moriarty tosses clues, seemingly at random, at Holmes trying to confuse him and obfuscate his crimes. That said if you pay close attention the vital bits needed to sort things out are provided, which as I’ve said before is vital for a mystery story to work. I need to have a chance to figure it out for myself if you want me to enjoy what I’m watching. Here they do that very thing, and I was hooked.

The cast is great with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce returning as Holmes and Watson. This second entry is also the first time we get to see some of the comedic elements to Bruce’s portrayal as the good doctor. It isn’t slapstick, which wouldn’t have played with well with a story like this but is instead some good natured wordplay. It brings a levity that was a hallmark to later entries into the franchise. New to the cast are the legendary Ida Lupino as Ann and the great George Zucco as Moriarty. It shocks me that more genre fans don’t know Zucco by name, but if you have watched any classic horror from the thirties and forties you will recognize his face.

I believe that this is the last of the movies to take place in the late eighteen hundreds as they movie the action to “current” day of the forties as the franchise continued into the war years. I’ll speak more on that when we get to them. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is a good time and well worth checking out. You can find this online streaming for free so there is no reason not to give it a chance. I highly recommend it.

 

© Copyright 2023 John Shatzer

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939)

I don’t think that I’ve ever covered a Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movie ever. Not for this site nor for any other project that I’ve ever worked on. That sort of shocks me as I’ve always been a huge fan of these movies. Since I’m in the midst of my current mystery marathon I figured it was time to finally dive in. Unlike the Chan flicks I figured to do these in order so with that in mind lets look at the first cinematic adventure The Hound of the Baskervilles.

The movie opens with a man running thru the moors fleeting from some unseen terror. He collapses and dies, which we know since the next scene is the coroner’s inquest. They determine that it was natural causes, though his friend Dr. Mortimer insists he was murdered. I suppose I should also mention that the man was the current Sir Baskerville. This is important since Henry, the heir, has arrived in England to claim his inheritance. Dr. Mortimer is concerned for his safety and comes to see Holmes about it.

After some shenanigans in London Holmes sends Sir Henry off to his estate with Dr. Watson tagging along to keep an eye on him. He claims he needs to finish another case, but the truth is Sherlock wishes to sneak into the village to investigate without anyone knowing he is there. After we are introduced to some locals aka. suspects the mystery starts to take shape. What appears to be a spectral beast referenced in a family curse turns out to have a much more mundane origin. Someone is after Sir Henry, but it isn’t some spiritual entity or family curse. Nope this is all about good old human greed.

I’ve read this story many times and have seen this as well as all the other adaptations of it so there wasn’t much mystery involved for me. But even if I hadn’t gone into it with that knowledge, I would say that this isn’t your typical Holmes story. There is far less deduction and collection of clues in The Hound of the Baskervilles as it leans more into the action with them running around the moors chasing down the things that go bump or actually howl in the night. Not only do we have the mysterious beast mentioned in the title but there is also an escaped murdered/lunatic. And the latter doesn’t even have anything to do with the main story!

There is a lot going on. Ironically, this is also the story that doesn’t feature Holmes that much. He disappears for a large stretch as the action focuses on Sir Henry and Dr. Watson meeting the locals. There is a killer and their identity is eventually revealed but we don’t get a lot in the way of collecting clues and because of that you don’t get to play along with the characters trying to sort out the puzzle of who done it. The movie does make up for that with some excellent pacing clocking in at a tight eighty minutes there isn’t a wasted scene.

Oh and make sure that you are watching the version that is eighty minutes long. There are other cuts out there that were made for television as well as removing a particularly controversial line. For those not familiar with the classic stories of Conan Doyle he had his detective addicted to cocaine, which was the only way he could relax and allow his mind to go idle. The last line of the uncut movie reflects this. “Oh, Watson… the needle.” It doesn’t add anything to the movie but I always prefer the original vision of the filmmakers.

The cast is solid with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce appearing as Holmes and Watson respectively. They are great in this movie and have immediate chemistry. This is one of the main reasons that we ended up with another thirteen of these movies. That was despite of the mixed quality of the latter entries. There are also fun appearances from Lionel Atwill as Dr. Mortimer and John Carradine as Barryman the butler. Atwill would appear later in the series as Holmes’ nemesis Moriarty.

While not my favorite version of the character, that would be Jeremy Brett in the Granada television series, Rathbone was the first to really sink his teeth into the role. If you are new to the character this would be a nice place to start and is available to watch online for free. Of his movies this is probably the best. I highly recommend it.

One more thing before I go. The elaborate sets used for this movie were reused for the Charlie Chan flick Castle in the Desert which I’ve already covered here. It is always fun to find little connections like this while doing research on my reviews.

 

© Copyright 2023 John Shatzer

The House of Mystery (1934)

The movie opens in Asia where we see an archaeologist named Prendergast getting drunk in a bar and eventually getting tossed out. We next see him crashing a sacred ceremony and talking down at the priest. Angered they curse him with the vengeance of their god, Kali, and animate a stuffed gorilla to attack him. But there is a dancer who apparently loves him and she helps in his escape.

The action then moves to twenty years later when a lawyer reads a newspaper headline about some treasure being looted all those years ago. I guess that Prendergast made good on this plans and stole the temple’s loot. Though he disappeared until recently being spotted and now the investors in his expedition want their cut. To this end they hire a lawyer named Ellis who contacts Prendergast and they all plan to meet at his country home. When they arrive they find him crippled and in a wheelchair. He warns that with the treasure comes the terrible curse. They don’t believe him until the investors start to die one by one at the hands of a gorilla! The police are called and after some twists and turns the mystery is solved.

I’ve included The House of Mystery in my marathon here though it more likely fits in the horror category. Though there is a murder and a spooky old house full of suspects there isn’t really a detective collecting clues. The police inspector that shows up after the first killing is played more for laughs and in a running gag has no idea what the heck is going on. I will say that eventually we do find out that a proper detective from Scotland Yard has been on the case from the start, but he only shows up at the end to give the solution. There is zero chance at figuring out who the killer is because we don’t get any clues. So again, while there are some familiar elements this isn’t much of a mystery.

Nothing quite like a good old Gorilla suit

With that out of the way what is this movie? What we have here is an early entry into the old dark house subgenre of early horror. Named after the movie of the same name that means we get a healthy dose of the spooky stuff. The boxes checked here include a séance, a mysterious note (actually a couple of them), hints at mysticism, secret passages, and as is the case with many of the sillier entries a gorilla costume! After a bit of a slow start the pacing is solid with the last half hour filled with the characters running around finding bodies. This combined with some snappy dialogue and odd but effective attempts at humor this is a decent flick.

I suppose I need to warn folks new to these early movies that it can seem a bit talky at times. We get a lot of dialogue and exposition. The reason for that is most of these scripts were adapted from stage plays. Plays don’t have the option of cutting in scenes at different locations so they filled in the blanks with characters talking about what happened elsewhere. Also the camera is very static as if they were trying to recreate the experience of sitting in a theater watching the play. For viewers used to modern movie sensibilities this can be a bit off-putting. But once you get adjust it can be a fun ride.

If what I just mentioned above doesn’t scare you away then I think The House of Mystery might be something you want to check out. It comes in at around an hour and is available all over the internet as the movie has long since fallen into the public domain.

 

© Copyright 2023 John Shatzer

The Black Camel (1931)

I’m jumping all over the place with these Charlie Chan movies. This is one of the earlier entries and is maybe the second oldest surviving one around. As I’ve mentioned before there are older movies that are considered lost with the only copies having burned in a fire. As always when covering one of these if you have any questions to my thoughts on the casting of a white actor in an Asian role, please check this out. Now onto the review.

A film crew has arrived in Honolulu including the leading lady Shelah. On the way to the islands she met and fell madly in love with a fellow passenger, but before they can marry she insists on consulting her psychic Tarneverro. Here is where Chan enters the story as he intercepts Tarneverro and warns him not to practice his art. Basically he calls him out on being a faker, though Tarneverro implies that he and Chan only report on the subtle things that they observe. I think he basically outed himself as being a phony.

Chan also mentions the death or rather murder of an actor back on the mainland a couple of years earlier. This is important as when Tarneverro meets with Shelah he also brings it up. This leads to her admitting she knows who the murderer is and that later will reveal that to him. Before that happens, she turns up dead and the police are called. Now Chan is on the case for her murder, which connects to the one he was already looking into. Suspects are plentiful as the story plays out until in the end all is revealed.

This is an excellent movie and the only surviving one based on one of the four Earl Der Biggs novels which I think helps the story and plot a great deal. The other three were adapted but are among the lost films. They mystery is solid with the movie taking the time to give us many suspects who had both the motive and means. Then one by one they are either removed by the evidence or killed off by the real culprit. There is a lot going on and you must pay attention. Without spoiling anything I will let you know that The Black Camel does a wonderful job dropping clues that do point to the identity of the killer or killers. That is my number one must have for a mystery movie. It was also fun that my guess was totally wrong, but still plausible. The scriptwriting here is top notch.

This might be the best Warner Oland performance as Chan that I’ve seen, and I’ve watched most of these movies. It makes me sad that the missing films are his as if this any indication we are missing out on some great stuff. Unlike the jovial above it all portrayals from later in the series here Chan gets angry and frustrated at those around him. When he gets socked in the face he basically comes right out and lets the person responsible they will regret doing that. There is also a blink and you’ll miss it supporting appearance from Robert Young (Father Knows Best, Marcus Welby, M.D.) and an uncredited bit part played by Dwight Frye (Dracula, Frankenstein). Speaking of classic Universal horror, the legendary Bela Lugosi gets a rather meaty role as the psychic Tarneverro. Not only do we have a great story but an awesome cast as well!

Not sure what else I can say about this one to convince you to watch it. It is one of the best mystery movies that I’ve seen from the thirties. If you ever wanted to just dip your toes in to see if this sort of thing is for you then here is a good place to start. Personally, I will be revisiting it sooner rather than later. I highly recommend The Black Camel.

 

© Copyright 2023 John Shatzer

Charlie Chan in Paris (1935)

I’m back with another Charlie Chan movie. If this is the first of these that you are reading, I shared my thoughts on the obvious issues casting a white actor in the role of an Asian character here. I don’t want to keep rehashing when I review another of these flicks, and there are many of them. Now onto the review.

The movie opens with Chan arriving via an airplane in France. At the airport we see a beggar asking him for some change, which he happily gives. Chan then goes to the payphone and makes a call to a woman we later find out is named Nardi. They make plans to meet later as she has some important information for him. Right away the mystery is afoot! After some other characters are introduced he makes his way to a club where Nardi is a featured dancer. In front of the crowd she is murdered, but with her dying breath tells Charlie where he can find the clues she had collected for him.

After some twists and turns including Charlie avoiding the police (whom he nearly always works with on his cases) we find out that he was hired by a bank in London to investigate the how and why behind some fake bonds that have been passed off to their customers by a bank in France. The big secrecy is due to them not wanting to cause a panic or run on the banks. That is why Charlie keeps telling everyone that he is on vacation and not a case. He does eventually bring the criminals to justice but not before his son Lee shows up, an innocent woman is accused of murder, and another body hits the floor.

I’ve watched the movies in this series many times but had forgotten how great this one is. The mystery is full of twists and turns with many locations being used to heighten the who done it. This includes a neat sequence in a sewer system that is decently creepy. I always forget that the early entries in the Chan franchise were larger budgeted studio movies (later they became staples of the Poverty Row studios). The production values here are noticeably better at least for a thirties movie. We get clues spread throughout the story so that you can guess at who the killer or killers are. This leads to a quickly paced and entertaining flick that clocks in at seventy two minutes but feels like it is over before it started.

This was the first time in the franchise that one of Chan’s children shows up. Here it is his son Lee, played by Keye Luke. Later in the franchise the number “x” son is part of the comic relief but in these early appearances the character is competent and helps to solve the case. Luke does a fine job as always and is a huge asset to the movie. Warner Oland is Charlie Chan and again does a good job in the role. You can almost see the wheels turning as he weighs clues and sorts things out long before anyone else in the room knows what is going on. He plays him as the smartest man there and you believe it.

Charlie Chan in Paris also has the only acknowledgement that I remember of the Pidgeon English aka. the overly polite and mangled accent that triggers many viewers in the series. Basically, there is a drunken creep that speaks to Charlie in an over the top and insulting imitation of him. Charlie basically calls him on his bullshit in the politest way possible, but it is acknowledged nonetheless. I thought that was interesting.

This may be one of the better if not the best entries in the entire franchise. It has been years since I sat down and watched them all so as I go thru this process for the site it is nice to get a refresher and talk about these flicks. If you are looking for a good mystery movie with a dash of international intrigue, then Charlie Chan in Paris is the movie for you. I highly recommend it.

 

© Copyright 2023 John Shatzer

The House of Secrets (1936)

We meet a woman named Julie returning to England via ship from a trip to Paris. She is being bothered by another passenger when a man named Barry comes to her rescue. He is smitten with her, but she refuses to give him her name or even talk to him much beyond thanking him for getting rid of the other man. Frustrated he respects her wishes and when we next see him Barry is in his hotel room in London. A couple of things happen here. One his friend from America, Tom Starr, stops by to say hello. He is a detective on the trail of a murderer. The other is a call from a solicitor who asks he stop to see him the following day.

The remainder of the movie is Barry finding out that he has inherited a large estate from a previously unknown relative. That place, The Hawk’s Nest, is inhabited by some mysterious folks who keep driving him off. The authorities don’t seem to be in any hurry to help him make his claim. One of the people living in the house happens to be Julie, who also is smitten with him, but keeps trying to make him leave. There is a gang of hoodlums trying to sneak into the Hawk’s Nest looking for treasure. One of them happens to be the murderer that Barry was looking for. See how it all connects? There is a big reveal and by the end of the movie everyone is happy, the treasure if found, Barry is wealthy, and love is in the air.

I thought I’d dig deep into these mystery flicks by covering The House of Secrets. This isn’t one of the franchise movies like Sherlock Holmes or Charlie Chan. Instead it is based off a popular stage play which was a common occurrence in the early days of movies. This makes for a decently paced movie with rapid fire dialogue and many twists. These plays leaned heavily into the dialogue to tell the story and that translates to the screen as the script and in some cases the actors remained the same. All the boxes for a movie like this are checked with hidden passages, secret doors, and a random cackling lunatic/murderer.

The clue... that we don't get to see

The story is decent, though I was a little disappointed that instead of giving the audience the clues as to what is going on we eventually have it explained to us after many strange things have happened. The House of Secrets leans more into the skulking around being spooky stuff then it does the mystery that needs to be solved. Though at times it does seem to tease us with the mystery, and they do have secrets in the title. Part of the fun with a movie like this is trying to collect the clues and making your own guesses, which we aren’t given a chance to do.

I tried to find the best copy of the movie that I could for this review. I wasn’t terribly successful as what I tracked down was a very dark and beat up print. This makes many of the skulking around scenes hard to follow as the actors are almost completely swallowed up. Being an early movie, it also suffers from a lot of static camerawork with long shots of the characters delivering their dialogue. That said I’ve seen much worse and there are some attempts at closeups when they are seated or otherwise stationary. When folks watch an old movie like this, they always seem to say it was boring not realizing that much of what they are noticing is a lack of visual stimulation due to the stationary camera. This comes from filmmakers trying to recreate the feel of sitting in an audience watching a play before realizing what they could do differently with film.

This isn’t a great movie and there are far better contemporary examples of the genre. But I enjoyed this one well enough to give it a halfhearted recommendation. It is only seventy minutes long and is available online if you go looking.

 

© Copyright 2023 John Shatzer

Charlie Chan in Shanghai (1935)

The movie opens with our detective traveling to Shanghai. He is responding to a request from a friend of his named Sir Stanley. He is met at the docks by his son Lee, played by the always excellent Keye Luke, and soon is at a banquet being held in his honor. When Sir Stanley opens a box with a ceremonial scroll it is booby trapped and a small pistol goes off killing him. But why was he killed? Did it have anything to do with him telling Charlie he had discovered something that he wanted to discuss with him? Well… yeah of course it did.

Charlie is caught up in finding the killer of his friend. Along the way someone tries to kill him more than once, which means he must be closing in on them. He is kidnapped, there is secret messages in invisible ink, and we even get a case of stolen identity. But worry not as Charlie navigates the twists and turns making sure that the killer gets caught and punished. Along the way he also figures out what Sir Stanley’s concerns were and deals with them as well.

This is an earlier entry into the franchise but already has the formula down. Charlie shows up, we are introduced to the other characters, and then a murder happens. There are twists and turns as you never know who you can trust and who might be hiding secrets. Here we get a fun bit with a secret plan that makes you think one of the innocent parties is guilty, but it was all Charlie’s plan to root out the real killer. The clues are doled out, though I do feel like we aren’t given enough as an audience to play along and try to solve the crime. Then again Charlie Chan in Shanghai sort of plays out more like an action flick and less a straight up mystery. While this would normally be a deal breaker for me, I’ll cut the movie some slack.

Warner Oland plays the detective. As I’ve mentioned in my other reviews, I understand the problems that many viewers have with a white actor playing an Asian character, so I won’t rehash that here. You can check my thoughts on that here. If we ignore that obvious issue and just judge the performance of Oland, I have to say that he isn’t too bad. He brings an energy to the role that livens up every scene he appears in. Sadly, he only did these movies for a couple more years as he passed away in nineteen thirty eight, though between thirty one and thirty seven he did appear as the character sixteen times!

I’ve already mentioned Keye Luke appears as his son Lee. He played this character eleven times, including once in a Mr. Moto movie! Say what you want about typecasting Luke was a working actor and always brought his “A” game to whatever part he was given. Here he is more of the comic relief and foil for the much older and wiser Chan, but without the Lee character these movies don’t work. Luke also got to be the star of a similar series when he took over the role of Mr. Wong in Phantom of Chinatown, which I just covered and highly recommend you check out.

The story is fun, the performances good, and all the boxes are checked. This is a great example of a thirties murder mystery flick. If you have any desire to either rewatch or perhaps dip your toes into this genre Charlie Chan in Shanghai is a wonderful place to start.

 

© Copyright 2023 John Shatzer

Mr. Wong in Chinatown (1939)

As I have with all the other reviews of movies like this, I’m going to direct you to my thoughts on casting white actors in Asian roles. I don’t want to keep rehashing the same discussion so this review will mostly focus on the merits or perhaps lack of them as a piece of entertainment. With that out of the way lets jump into reviewing Mr. Wong in Chinatown.

The action kicks off with a mysterious woman coming to ask for Mr. Wong’s help. But before he can speak to her she is murdered in his living room. It turns out she was the victim of a poison dart from a sleeve gun. Wong calls the police and not long after they arrive a lady reporter shows up. She recognizes the woman as a Chinese princess that just arrived in San Francisco. This leads Wong to a twisted web of theft, lies, double crosses, and murder. You see she was in America looking to buy airplanes to smuggle out of the country to her brother’s army. This sketchy business attracted the attention of criminals who took advantage of her.

Does this sound familiar? Well damn it the Mr. Wong franchise got me again… sort of. If you remember my earlier review for The Mystery of Mr. Wong they had lifted that plot from an earlier movie, Murder at Midnight. A movie that I had just reviewed for the site! Here it is the other way around and this movie was remade as a Charlie Chan flick, The Chinese Ring, which I’ve also justcovered for the site! I hope this doesn’t keep happening, but with these quickie low budget movies it is a possibility.

I liked the story in the Chinese Ring and that was apparently almost a shot for shot remake of this one. There are a few differences that I appreciated about Mr. Wong in Chinatown. First is that instead of the villainous ships captain being Chinese here he is an American. It makes me wonder why the later Chan movie changed it. The idea of the Chinese trying to purchase war materials secretly makes a lot more sense in the world of thirty-nine then it does in forty-seven. For those that aren’t history nerds they were fighting the Japanese and by the time this was remade the war was over. Yeah, I notice things like that.

Karloff is a much better lead. His performance is subdued but interesting. He doesn’t need the comic relief and can carry the movie all on his own. It is also even more obvious with this being remade eight years later as a Chan flick that Karloff doesn’t attempt to use a stilted accent, nor does he spout off proverbs. Instead, you have a respectful portrayal with his normal voice and delivery. Not an excuse but I do want to acknowledge the attempt at not being as offensive. We also get a fun appearance from a familiar little person in the role as a mute witness who ends up on the wrong side of the criminals.

The killer’s identity, the double crosses, and Karloff’s performance makes this a movie worth tracking down. Like the other Mr. Wong flicks this is in the public domain and can be found easily both on DVD as well as the internet. I think it is worth checking out.

 

© Copyright 2022 John Shatzer

The Mystery of Mr. Wong (1939)

Before we begin, I wanted to direct you to my thoughts on the controversy of white actors being cast in the role of Asian characters and the issues that arise from it. I realized that I’m going to be covering a lot of movies like this one and the Charlie Chan franchise so instead of having each of those reviews dominated by that discussion it was better to hash it out once here instead. The below is just judging the movie as a movie and not delving too deeply into other obvious issues.

Karloff is back as Chinese detective Mr. Wong. This time he gets involved in the murder of an antiquities collector who has recently come into possession of The Eye of the Daughter of the Moon, a rare gem from China that is supposedly cursed. Wong is called in because the collector has had death threats, which come true when he is killed by a gun that was supposed to be loaded with blanks. They were playing charades, which I guess is different from what we know as charades today. Instead, they were acting out a play of sorts with a husband finding his wife cheating on him… hey wait a minute! Yeah, this is a loose remake of Murderat Midnight that I recently watched and covered for the site.

Wong must sort out who killed the collector, and later his maid. There are some twists and turns with a missing letter in which the man speculated at who was trying to kill him and why. There are also those trying to return the stolen gem back to China where it belongs, and finally a wife who was made rather miserable by the man. So many suspects and so little time. Though in the end Wong assembles them and reveals the killer.

This is another solid movie. Though I was a bit disappointed when I realized it was a remake and not an original story. That sort of spoiled the fun because while they made changes to adapt it to the Wong character, they didn’t change the mystery much itself. This includes the identity of the murderer, though his motives have changed. That took a lot of the fun out of the proceedings for me. That said the story is interesting, the action fast paced, and the motives/methods of the killer plausible. So, if you haven’t seen Murder at Midnight yet I think that this will be a fun flick that you will get a kick out of.

As before Karloff is very good in the role of Mr. Wong. Again, the idea of casting him as an Asian character is problematic but he does his best to avoid the pitfalls of speaking in the heavily accented and stereotypical Asian accent. That lessens the blow a bit. He commands every scene he is in and is surrounded by a decent supporting cast. This movie was from a “B” studio, so the budget was low again, but this sort of formulaic movie doesn’t require much in the way of sets and locations beyond the basics.

I’m going to recommend The Mystery of Mr. Wong. It is a straightforward and fun little murder mystery on a budget that knows what the audience wants and delivers the goods. Karloff is great and fun to see on the screen and if you pay close attention to what is transpiring on screen you have a decent chance to figure it out before the big reveal. I hoe the other four are originals or at least based on something that I’ve not already seen.

 

© Copyright 2022 John Shatzer

Mr. Wong Detective (1938)

With the success of the Charlie Chan movies, which I will be covering in this marathon, other studios went looking for their own Chinese detectives. Mr. Wong was one of those and is most notable for the actor cast in the main role, genre legend Boris Karloff! Before I continue if you haven’t already checked out my thoughts on this as well as the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan movies unfortunate use of “yellow face” then click this link. These reviews are only going to address the movie’s merits and whether it is worth checking out and not the political stuff. 

The action starts off at a dock where a ship is being loaded for a journey. We see some sketchy looking characters are watching this and we get some talk about if the shipment goes their cause is doomed. Later we find out that the ship is full of chemicals to make deadly nerve gas and is being sent to a government that will use it against their citizens. The man who co-owns the company with three partners, Mr. Dayton, comes to see our detective. He believes his life is in danger and asks for his help. Mr. Wong comes to see him the next day in the office to look at the threatening letter he received but Dayton is dead before he arrives. 

The rest of the movie is Wong trying to figure out who killed and is continuing to kill the men involved in the chemical company. In addition to the people trying to stop the shipment, we get the other partners, and a chemist whose formula was stolen by the company as suspects. Who did it and how was it managed? I’m not going to spoil the fun because I think you should check out Mr. Wong Detective yourself. 

This is an excellent movie with a mystery that is easy to follow but keeps you guessing until the end. The bit with the glass balls and poison gas is nifty and satisfying without being overly complicated. The way that the killings are executed feel realistic and clever. The movie gives you plenty of red herrings before dropping a twist that works well. I must keep this vague as to not spoil it but trust me if you like murder mysteries you will dig it. The movie is paced well and keeps the action moving until the final reveal. The dialogue is snappy and deliberate, which is a must if you are to follow the story and try to discover the clues. The filmmakers knew how to make a good mystery movie. 

The characters are likeable for the most part with Karloff being the highlight. Clearly there are issues with a white actor playing an Asian character, but he still is very good in the role. Though I found it interesting that instead of the accented and stereotypical speech present in the Charlie Chan movies he decides to use his normal British accent. There are a couple of points where the movies low budget is obvious, but that didn’t spoil the fun for me. A good example is that we only get a couple of sets that they keep returning to, but had I not pointed that out you probably wouldn’t have noticed. 

There are six movies in the Mr. Wong franchise, and I’ve only ever seen this one before. I plan on covering them all eventually and I hope that they all are as much fun as Mr. Wong Detective. I highly recommend checking this one out. 

© Copyright 2022 John Shatzer

The Bat Whispers (1930)

This is another mystery movie involving an old dark house. This time we get a master criminal, the Bat, hanging around for reasons that only he knows. Well, I guess we eventually do too. The story kicks off with the police surrounding a wealthy man’s home. He has just purchased a priceless necklace and famed thief/criminal the Bat has promised to steal it at midnight. How is he going to pull of a heist after telling everyone when and where it will happen? By doing it right under their noses after they relax due to some clock shenanigans. He leaves them a note telling them he is leaving for a while to give the police a break.

We then see that someone has stolen a bunch of money from a bank in a small town. The criminal takes the cash to an isolated old house in the middle of nowhere. He is followed by the bat, but is he an accomplice or is it for some other nefarious reason? The lady who is renting the home, her maid, and her daughter, or maybe it was her niece I’m not sure, aren’t aware of what is going on. Except for the fact that the young lady is secretly engaged to the bank clerk that is suspected of taking the money. She passes him off for the new gardener so that they can search the house for a secret room. Why? You know they never explain how she comes to think that the cash is at the house but that isn’t important I suppose. In the end all is explained, the Bat is unmasked, the money recovered, and everyone lives happily ever after. Except for the Bat who is tied to a tree.

I’ve seen the remake of The Bat Whispers starring Vincent Price but haven’t ever watched this version until now. I have to say it is outstanding. The story jumps around a bit, but eventually explains things. The characters are entertaining, and the acting is very good. Though not to sound like a broken record but with these older movies you need to understand that these are all stage actors, so they emote a bit which comes off to a modern audience as overacting. But remember they are used to playing to those sitting in the last row.

The story itself gives you everything you would want from a movie like this. We have lots of characters sneaking around doing potentially sketchy things like lurking in the shadows, unlocking doors, asking about misplaced revolvers, giving vague warnings, and looking for hidden rooms. It gets to the point that we the audience don’t know who to trust. The stream of people coming to the house that night all seem to have ulterior motives that may or may not be on the level. That makes for a fun time, and I was never bored by The Bat Whispers.

This is also one of the most creative movies that I’ve seen from the early “talkie” Hollywood years. The camera not only movies around the sets but we get some awesomely creative bits like when it sweeps up a building into an open window only to zoom in on a letter that the character is holding so we can read it. You just don’t see camerawork like that very often in the thirties or even forties. There are also some wonderful silhouette shots of the Bat moving around as he climbs all over the sets going about his nefarious business. This movie has a creative vibe that is unique to itself. It feels like an illustration from a pulp novel that inspired stories like this. I loved it from start to finish.

There are rumors that this was an “inspiration” for the Batman. If you are aware of Bob Kane’s history you would know that he was “inspired” by many things, so this is possible. If you want to know why I keep using quotes like that Google Bob Kane and it will all be explained. That said the movie does have that dark feel that many of the early Batman stories do. Though he is a good guy, and the Bat is a killer. This movie has a lot going for it and I recommend everyone check it out. I highly recommend The Bat Whispers.

 

© Copyright 2022 John Shatzer

Murder at Midnight (1931)

I stumbled over Murder at Midnight in a collection of public domain movies. It was from a studio that apparently lost most of its catalog in a fire with this being one of the few that has surviving copies. It doesn’t star anyone that I recognize but it has an interesting premise, so I thought I’d take a look.

The story takes place during a party in a mansion where some participants are playing charades. Though this isn’t the game that most of us think of and is instead a little drama where a man finds his wife cheating on him and shoots her lover. They are supposed to guess at a hidden word that is tied to the event. Of course, no one cares about that when they realize someone swapped the blanks out with real bullets and their host, Mr. Kennedy, killed the man!

Before they can figure out who did this Kennedy is murdered and despite it being made to look like suicide, the police see thru it. This is with the help of famed criminologist Phillip Montrose who was fortuitously at the party as a guest. The rest of the movie has a missing will, more murders, some twists, and turns until we finally get to the big reveal at the end. And what a reveal that is. Murder at Midnight has one of the best twists in any mystery flick that I’ve ever seen. Really, I did not see this ending coming.

I really do love the plot of Murder at Midnight. The writers lull us into a sense of complacency by giving us the characters we would expect from the genre. You get the private investigator in Phillip Montrose, the police officer, the innocent man, and lots of red herrings. There is also the elaborate trick, in this case a killer telephone, to explain some of the killings. Toss in the black gloved killer, figures moving around in the shadows, the mysterious missing will, and you get a decent way to kill an hour or so. For most of the movie I was very comfortable in thinking I knew what was happening and was shuffling thru the suspects trying to guess who the killer was and why. Then they pull the rug out from under me and give me a twist I don’t think I’ve seen before.

It is clear that I dig this movie. But I must warn anyone that is going to watch it that the only copy available is from a beat up sixteen-millimeter print. Again, this is from a small studio with most of its catalog being lost films. What that means is the audio and video are a bit rough. Now as a guy who grew up watching stuff like this it doesn’t bother me at all. But if you are used to HD picture and stereo audio then I could see it being an issue. There are a couple spots where the dialogue is almost lost in the static, and I feel like there is at least one splice where the picture jumps. But for me that is part of the fun, and better to have a bad copy of a movie then none whatsoever.

This is a must watch for anyone that wants to do a deep dive on old school movies, especially of the mystery variety. You can see how it is staged as if it was a play, while also seeing some early attempts at the multiple takes that would become standard later. Plus, there is that wonderful twist which plays with the audience’s expectations. This is a fun movie that shouldn’t be hard to find as it is out there on the internet for free. Murder at Midnight is certainly worth your time.

 

© Copyright 2022 John Shatzer