Reseñas de usuarios

"From Nine to Nine" was shot in Montréal, Québec, yet it is anything but a "classic". In fact, it may rival "Plan 9 from Outer Space" as one of the single worst films ever produced in English! "From Nine to Nine" (1936) - aka "The Man with the Umbrella" and "Death Strikes Again" - stars Ruth Roland, Roland Drew, Doris Covert, Kenne Duncan, Eugene Sigaloff, Miriam Battista, and others of lesser and lesser and lesser note, and was directed by the inexorable and indefatigable and sometimes inhospitably cheap Edgar G. Ulmer. Ulmer and his prospective wife (after she would divorce Carl Laemmle's nephew, Max Alexander, the year this film was made) wrote the film's script, too, along with actor Kenne Duncan. The film was mostly shot in the Mount Royal Hotel in Montréal. One thing about the film: it possibly has the single most art deco décor ever used in a film, even the police inspector's office. I wouldn't be surprised if closets and bathrooms were strikingly art deco. In fact, the most watchable part of the film is the use of "art works" in decorating the scenery. One such piece is a large monkey holding a man's scull, no doubt the symbol of the Darwinian mysticism proving that monkeys can produce films, too - as well as humans.

Now, for the film. Some of the lines are very, very witty, sharp, even funny, but placed amid dialogue so pedestrian and singularly un-urbane that they sound arguably ridiculous in context. The film stars Ruth Roland, who, along with Pearl White, was considered "Queen of the Serials" (of course, this forgets Helen Holmes altogether, which is sinful). Roland only made two sound films before comfortably retiring after this film. She easily out-acts, out classes, out everythings the other participants in this film. However, because of it, she so overacts as to seem utterly out of place. Roland Drew has "Roland" in his name, so Ulmer must have been looking for "Roland"s. Drew, usually a suitable character actor in small parts, is certainly no Bogart, Powell, or mystery solver in the vein of notable film crime detectives or policemen. In fact, he, with the rest of the cast, would barely make a passable pass at a finished high school play, many which must be better than this tripe. Absolutely laughably bad. The fact that my wife and I finished watching it is due to the fact that it was so bad it was good. Some of the acting is incalculably awful. On a mathematical scale of 1-100%, it reaches into the minuses, an impossibility, but this one finds a way.

Every director intends to make a good film but sometimes budget, script and casting can fight against him. I don't know what the problems behind the scenes were, but what ended up on screen is a confusing mess. The plot is overly contrived and the performances are amateurish. With so many things wrong I can only recommend this film to die hard fans, those who have to see everything Ulmer made. On the positive side thank goodness for film festivals like CINESATION in Massillon, Ohio that played it this past October, 2005 so I could see it for myself. So see it if you must, but I cannot recommend it. And sorry my review seems to run on but the IMDb requires 10 lines.