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

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1942)

Back to another classic Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce movie where they star as Holmes and Watson. The action kicks of in Switzerland where a disguised Holmes is trying to smuggle a scientist and his new bombsite back to England before the Nazis can take them both to Germany. Yep, this is another one set during World War II. The scientist, Dr. Tobel, is successfully brought back to London, but the Germans haven’t given up yet. The good doctor also seems to be up to no good as he sneaks out of 221 B. Baker Street to visit a beautiful woman named Charlotte.

When he disappears she gives Holmes a strange cipher/code involving a bunch of dancing men. This is how they connect this movie to the classic story The Dancing Men. There are some clues to decipher that eventually lead our hero to his arch enemy Moriarty, who is working with the spies to recover Tobel and his bombsite for Berlin. Though that doesn’t work out too well as the movie ends with British bombers headed there with the sights installed and ready to drop their payloads.

I do really like these movies, but this is yet another that leans more into the adventure and has almost no mystery. In fact the only thing that needs to be solved is the code of the dancing men, which the audience has zero chance of guessing at as we are given no clues. There is no mystery to the identity of the… well I guess the bad guys. I mean there isn’t any killing until the very end where the bad guys get what is coming to them. This is less a Sherlock Holmes mystery and more so just an opportunity to beat up and out smart the Nazis. Don’t get me wrong as they do that very well and this movie is a great example of wartime Hollywood’s efforts. There just isn’t any mystery to solve here.

What we do get is a car chase, an escape by airplane, some creeping around dark streets, and some bad guys doing bad things. Holmes doesn’t solve his issues with fisticuffs, which most of the detective movies from the forties have the protagonist doing, but instead outsmarts his opponents at every step of the way. Here is where having Moriarty as the main antagonist is a bad idea. Holmesian lore has him as an intellectual equal to the great consulting detective so seeing him fall for obvious manipulation is a bit too far for me.

Rathbone and Bruce are good as always. Though I feel as if Bruce’s Dr. Watson isn’t given much to do and goes MIA for much of the movie. Lionel Atwill is back as Moriarty and is solid as well, though again isn’t given much to sink his acting chops into. Honestly the writing here is a bit lacking and unlike other entries this feels tossed together in a rush without much thought. Look out for a very young Whit Bissel (Creature from the Black Lagoon, I Was a Teenage Frankenstein) in an early and uncredited role.

For a quickie formula flick it works just fine. Though had it been any longer than the sixty eight minutes I feel as if this would have been a drag. But it didn’t’ and isn’t. While far from the best of this version of Holmes and nowhere near as fun as other adaptations closer to the original stories Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon isn’t a horrible way to kill an hour. It is available online for free so is just a Google search away

 

© Copyright 2024 John Shatzer

The Shanghai Cobra (1945)

Big surprise that I covered yet another Charlie Chan flick in this mystery movie marathon. But I do love these, and they fit the theme so what can I do? As always if you haven’t already read my thoughts on a white actor playing a Chinese character, please click this link. With that out of the way lets talk about The Shanghai Cobra. 

The movie kicks off with some folks lurking around a dark street in a rainstorm. Three of them, including Mr. Black, end up going into a diner to get a cup of coffee. The only woman in the group, Paula, is followed outside by Mr. Black who starts to talk to her before dropping dead on the street. When the police arrive they discover he is the most recent victim of the cobra killings. It seems that someone is using cobra venom to murder people and the police are stumped. Lucky for them they have access to Charlie Chan. Doubly so when he lets them know this is the same method used in a previous crime he investigated in Shanghai. The remainder of the movie is Chan interviewing suspects while protecting a valuable government resource kept in a nearby bank. When he figures out that all of the murder victims were connected to the bank, he starts to connect some dots. Eventually the murderer is exposed and all is well before the end credits roll. 

This might be one of the few later entries into the franchise that I really don’t like. I mean the movie isn’t horrible it is just that the tried and true formula isn’t followed successfully. The mystery is almost nonexistent as we know the mysterious killer is there for a bank heist. We even get to see the gang planning the robbery. So, the motives behind the murders are obvious. They try to give the story a last minute twist, but it is obvious that who we are supposed to think is the killer is in fact innocent. There isn’t much meat on the bone here if you are looking for a solid mystery to follow along with and try to solve. 

I’ve had this same observation with other Chan movies, but they normally can hang their hat on some fun comedy. Especially when Mantan Mooreland and Benson Fong are along for the ride. I was shocked at how little screentime is given to the pair in this one. When they are on screen it is just them creeping around in the dark, mostly in a sewer, with little to no gags. Moreland is normally always good for a few laughs but here none of his normal quips hit the mark. It almost feels like the director, Phil Karlson, didn’t know how to use the comedy. But then again, he did Dark Alibi which has some really good Mooreland moments in it. I was also shocked to see that he directed both Ben as well as Walking Tall towards the end of his career. Those are some good flicks! 

The Shanghai Cobra is at best mediocre with neither the mystery nor comedy elements working for me. I’d say this is for the completist only and should be skipped by casual fans. There are much better Chan movies to watch. 

© Copyright 2024 John Shatzer

A Haunting in Venice (2023)

I’ve been loving these Kenneth Branagh adaptations of my favorite Belgian Detective. I’ve already covered Death on the Nile and need to get around to covering his first crack at Poirot in Murder on the Orient Express. Though this time around things are a bit different since A Haunting in Venice is a bit spookier with ghosts and a haunted house. Should be a good time. 

Set not long after the end of World War II we find the detective retired and living in Venice. He has a former police detective as a bodyguard who spends most of his time keeping potential clients away. After establishing his routine, we then see an old friend, author Ariadne Oliver, show up. She wants his help in disproving a medium who she hasn’t been able to debunk. This leads them to being invited to a Halloween party to be followed by a séance. The place is cursed and the current owner, Rowena Drake, lost her daughter to the supposed ghosts. She threw herself off of the balcony and into the canal below. 

After some spooky fun with children attending a Halloween party which allows us to meet all of the characters and establish their history with one another. The medium arrives, played by the always awesome Michelle Yeoh, and things get rolling. I suppose this isn’t too much of a spoiler, but Poirot quickly exposes her as a phony but not before something very weird happens. She speaks in the dead girl’s voice and says something that makes one of the other guests nervous. How do we know that? Well, she ends up dead, skewered on a statue in the Piazza’s courtyard. The rest of the movie is another murder, interviewing suspects, collecting clues, and trying to figure out what is going bump in the night. 

This is my second time watching this movie. My wife and I were able to catch it in the theater while on vacation a few months ago and right from the start I knew it was deserving of another watch. The story is solid and moves along quickly introducing characters and setting up the mystery right away. On this second viewing I was able to see the subtle clues that are provided to the audience to help them solve the case before Poirot does. I’ll not lie and say that I picked them up in the theater as I was surprised by the solution. I’ve even read the book this is based on, Hallowe’en Party, though to be fair this is a very loose adaptation. In fact, it is barely recognizable. But that isn’t a bad thing here as the story we do get is clever and keeps the audience guessing. 

Excellent Cast

If you haven’t figured it out yet from the title as well as the setting of the party but this movie leans into the spooky stuff. I was wondering how they were going to manage this as the character of Poirot is normally grounded in logic and reality so how does one introduce supernatural killers to that world without is seeming forced. I’ll not spoil it here. What I can say is that there is a logical explanation for everything that Poirot sees as well as a supernatural one. It is left up to the audience to decide and that was neatly done. 

The cast is wonderful. I’ve already mentioned Michelle Yeoh but there is also a surprising performance from Tina Fey as Ariadne Oliver. She is excellent in the role, and I think that the writing and direction (from star Kenneth Branagh) leans into her skills and personality. Branagh is great again in his third outing portraying the mercurial character with just the right amount of anger bubbling under the surface with some sadness as well. He doesn’t suffer fools but will forgive quickly and we see both here. Though I still consider the great David Suchet my favorite in the role Branagh is growing on me. 

Murder on the Orient Express had some amazing visuals while Death on the Nile not so much. This time around the filmmakers outdo themselves. From a digital camera following Poirot around while he runs thru the halls trying to discover the cause for a loud disturbing noise to some excellently framed shows that are tilted at a slightly off-putting angles this is a visually interesting watch. The lighting as well as the setting of the old house in the middle of a thunderstorm makes for a creepy vibe. What is so clever though is that the story plays into both possible explanations for the supposed supernatural happenings. Are there ghosts or is there another more mundane explanation for the goings on? I love it when the production and screenplay work together like this. 

Not sure I can say much more without giving away spoilers. I loved A Haunting in Venice, so I don’t want to do that. This is a wonderful mystery that will engage the audience. Be warned this is the sort of movie that is going to make you pay attention if you want to get the full enjoyment out of it. So put down your phone and keep both your eyes as well as ears open. I highly recommend this one. 

© Copyright 2024 John Shatzer

Dangerous Money (1946)

note: I always start off these reviews with a link to my thoughts on the issue of a white actor playing an Asian role. If you are interested in what I think about that please check this link out. 

I’m back with another old Charlie Chan flick. This time around the famous detective is traveling aboard a ship in the Pacific. He is approached by a treasury officer named Pearson. He is on the trail of some counterfeit money but has had his life threatened so asks Chan for some help. Before much can be done Pearson is murdered by a thrown knife. But who threw it and does it have anything to do with the investigation or is it a coincidence? 

From here we are introduced to the other nefarious characters traveling on the ship. The suspect pool is further muddied when they stop off at an island which leads to talk of stolen art, crooked dice games, and other such shenanigans. We even get a bit of blackmail mixed in for some added fun! In the end Chan figures out who done it and why. But not before more bodies are found and attempts are made on the detective’s life. 

This might be one of my least favorite of the later Chan movies. While the movie gets right to the point with an early murder and the counterfeit ring we get way too many suspects. This isn’t my first watch of this one (I’ve seen all these movies many times over the years) and even I got a bit overwhelmed with the sheer volume of suspects. Plus there are subplots piled upon subplots to further confuse the proceedings. The mystery gets lost in the mix and honestly that is one of the main reasons you sit down to watch a Charlie Chan flick. The other, at least by the time we get to this stage of the franchise, is the comedy. I have an issue with that as well. 

The always reliable Mantan Mooreland is replaced this time around with another Hollywood staple Willie Best playing Chattanooga Brown. I’ll admit that I’m a big fan of Mooreland and never liked Best all that much, though he was excellent in Ghostbreakers. I really do need to get around to covering that one for the site. His performance here isn’t terrible, but it lacks the chemistry that the former had with Victor Sen Yung has as Jimmy Chan. The pair end up with a lot of screentime as again Sidney Toler in the role of Chan was very ill and frail. While Mooreland and Yung can carry parts of the movie, I don’t think that the pairing of Best and Yung can. 

Now I don’t think that Dangerous Money is a terrible movie. I’ve seen much worse attempts at these murder mystery with a dash of comedy movies. Really check out some of my other reviews. But when it comes to this franchise, I’ve got some higher standards and judged against the other movies come before and after this one just doesn’t measure up. As much as it pains me to say unless you are a completist I’d recommend skipping this one. 

© Copyright 2024 John Shatzer

The Monster of Blackwood Castle (1968)

If you haven’t figured it out yet I’m a huge fan of mystery movies. I mean you are here for my third annual review marathon so it should be obvious by now. That said I’ve never understood the appeal of these West German productions of Edgar Wallace novels. Something about them just doesn’t connect. That said I’ve been told that The Monster of Blackwood Castle is the best of the series, so I figured it was worth a shot.

The movie opens with a guy walking in the fog thru what looks like a marsh or perhaps a forest. There is some howling and then the groovy sixties chase music kicks in. He is cornered by a “beast” (actually just a Doberman) who attacks him. Later we see a man with an eye patch dumping the body in the water, which turns out to be the moat of Blackwood Castle. This is all witnessed by another man who doesn’t intervene but seems interested in what is happening. That is all before the main story even kicks in!

Jane arrives at Blackwood Castle to make her inheritance official. Her father had just passed so the whole place is hers know. Though the solicitor tries to get her to sell the place right away for a tidy sum. Then another man shows up and offers twice that tidy sum to buy the castle immediately. Sensing something might be up Jane refuses to sell and is immediately set upon by all sorts of shenanigans. Plastic skeletons, impromptu power outages, snakes slithering between the sheets. Someone really wants her to sell the place! More people come to town and many more die to the “monster”, which is again just a Doberman, before the big mystery is revealed.

This next bit is a spoiler so be warned. Her dead father was the leader of a gang that stole a pile of gems and jewelry. He is dead, the other members of the gang is looking for it, and someone is killing them off. Toss in a couple more twists that I’m not going to share here and you have yourself a movie.

So, what did I think? Well first off someone has read A. Conan Doyle’s Hound of the Baskervilles as this movie clearly took some inspiration from that novel. The setting of the spooky estate, the nearby moors aka. marsh, and of course the canine killer all are lifted directly from that. The pacing isn’t great. It kicks off with a murder but then bogs down as characters are introduced and then killed off without a great deal of explanation as to what is going on. There is zero chance of following along or figuring out what the hell is going on. That was annoying and I found myself bored with what I was watching.

There are also a couple gags that didn’t work. Did I forget to mention that there are attempts at comedy? This is one of those flicks that tries to mix genres and fails to successfully pull it off. The lead investigator, Sir John of Scotland Yard, eventually shows up and bumbles around before accidentally stumbling onto what is happening due to the efforts of his helpful assistant Miss Finley. Before Sir John the movie isn’t serious but also doesn’t try to be slapstick. We also get the comic relief from the local Innkeeper who was formerly lady of the castle before selling it. Again, none of these attempts at humor worked for me and didn’t feel like they fit with the rest of the flick.

If this is the best of the Edgar Wallace adaptations, then I’m thinking that these movies just aren’t for me. I know that they have a rabid fanbase and if you are one of those folks then more power to you. I like a lot of stuff that other people hate on, so I get it. Sadly, I can’t recommend anyone waste their time on The Monster of Blackwood Castle.

 

© Copyright 2024 John Shatzer

The Trap (1946)

note: If you want to hear my thoughts on casting a white actor in an Asian role you can follow this link.

I’m back with another Charlie Chan movie review. This time it is set in his hometown of Honolulu but was shot in California so don’t expect any exotic locations. Here we see a car full of showgirls being driven to the beach by their producer and crew. They are taking a small vacation to relax and get ready for the next season. Right away we see that Marcia, one of the girls, is a real pain. By that I mean she manipulates the others to get whatever she wants by threatening to expose their secrets.

A bit of blackmail never ends well in murder mystery movies. Though it is one of the other girls, Lois, who is found strangled while Marcia just goes missing. This leads to Charlie being called and getting involved in the case. Soon after Marcia is also found murdered which leads to some wandering around in the dark, accusations, clues, and other sorts of shenanigans. Eventually the killer and their motives are revealed.

This movie is based on one of what I think are only four actual Chan novels. When I read them I was shocked at how minor of a character he is in those stories. He is basically the inscrutable plot device that shows up to solve everything while the victims and suspects are the main characters. Obviously, this isn’t what happened when they became movies and since there are almost fifty of these damn things most of the scripts are original ideas. The only reason that I mention this is that in The Trap the character of Charlie Chan comes and goes but the movie spends most of the time on other characters. This was done for practical reasons as Sidney Toler, who played Chan, was terminally ill with cancer. This was his last outing as the character. He passed away the following year.

That said the movie still has a solid mystery with plenty of clues being given to the audience. The suspects are interviewed, folks creep around up to no good, and if you pay attention, you can figure it out. Though unlike many of the other entries into the franchise this mystery has a neat twist that most folks, including myself on first watch, never guessed. I figure that is because it was based on the novel by Earl Der Biggs, which is quite good. The Trap is a very cleaver murder mystery in both book and film.

There is also a healthy dose of son Jimmy and chauffer Birmingham Brown as the comic relief. Mantan Mooreland, who plays Birmingham, gets to do several gags including his classic knocking knees as well as a fun bit with a phone ringing. I understand that much like the casting of a white actor in the Chan role that Mooreland’s performance is frowned upon today, but he was an excellent comedian who deserves to be remembered and appreciated. The rest of the cast does a fine job for being assembled by a poverty row studio like Monogram. While not stars these were working actors with some decent skills.

This is another entertaining flick in the Charlie Chan filmography. I get that these old mystery movies are not for everyone, but I love them, and this is one of the best. Give it a chance. You might just find yourself a fan as well.

 

© Copyright 2024 John Shatzer