Monte Carlo Nights

For an hour-long programmer, the flick's not bad. The plot's pretty familiar. A guy gets accused of a murder he didn't commit and now has to track down the real killer, using a roulette-wheel combination as a clue. Good thing others want to help.

For former Saturday matinee kids, like this now geezer, the real magnet is Gabby Hayes with his teeth in and no whiskers and playing a big-time cop, no less. I was fascinated, to say the least, after so many years laughing at his goofy sidekick to Roy Rogers, Hopalong Cassidy, et al. Here, he shows a versatility I would never have expected. Also, it's an excellent cast for a cheapo, with a bevy of lovely ladies, along with a leading man, Darrow, who bears a strong facial resemblance to Marlon Brando - see what you think.

All in all, the minor flick holds interest though doesn't generate much suspense, the identity of the real killer being a rather minor point. At the same time, actress Bryan does make the romantic angle work pretty well. And catch those head-hugging cloche hats fashionable ladies wore at the time. I'd like to see them make a comeback. Anyway, give the flick a try. It's a good way to pass a leisurely hour.

Not more though, not more. It is kind of comedy, thriller, hesitating between several tendancies in the script, as so many features from the thirties. It is not a bad, lousy movie but on the contrary worth seeing. One part takes place in the South Of France, French Riviera, which brings a specific touch, charm to which many audiences can't be insensitive. The topic itself is predictable, nothing, so don't expect much from this side. William Nigh was a important director during the silent period and a bit less when the talkies emerged. He was a prolific film maker and for gem diggers his filmography is interesting, no matter the stories.

This movie is not that bad, a decent time waster if you don't mind watching old black and white movies. I think most of the negative comments are coming from people who just don't like old black and white movies or they are expecting them all to be as good as Hitchcock, to that reviewer I say you are right it's not as good as any Hitchcock film but it is still a decent enough way to spend a couple hours.

It's a mystery film noir type movie where the main character is accused of murder but escapes and strives to hunt down the real killer on his own to get revenge but also obviously to prove that he is innocent of the crime he has been accused of. The actor playing the main character gives a good performance and so does the actress in the main female role.

A man found guilty of a murder he didn't commit, a daring escape by leaping off a train crossing a bridge, a shooting in a café and a scrap of paper that leads to a denouement in Monte Carlo --- these are the plot points that tell you you're watching a great Hitchcockian thriller. Only it isn't a Hitchcock picture, it's directed by William Nigh for Monogram and it is pretty poor -- especially as we've seen Hitchcock do it right, starting a year later with THE 39 STEPS. Really, the main reason to see this movie is to serve as counterpoint to Hitchcock.

Even the sound system seems off. Everyone speaks their lines with great emphasis as if every article is of great importance. There are some good actors lurking here, including gorgeous Mary Bryan, Astrid Allwyn and George 'Gabby' Hayes, clean-shaven, hair neatly combed and his teeth in. But really, you'd do yourself a favor by giving this one a miss.

A reviewer needs to give really old movies a lot of latitude. That is particularly true regarding visuals and sound, but also to a lesser extent the story. Hitchcock was perhaps an exception. But a lot of latitude still allows one to critique on points that any filmmaker should have been aware of, even in those days.

The most significant problem here is a plot that is rushed. I can accept that 1930s Hollywood is responsible for the conspicuous absence of pauses between lines of dialogue. This is typical of films back then; it conveys the impression that the runtime is being clocked with a stopwatch.

But in this film some scenes don't connect well, and I'm left with the impression that connecting scenes may have been cut out. How else are we to explain Inspector Gunby's assumption that Larry is innocent? Then there's that scene where Larry appears at the window at Mary's home; how did he get there from his escape location? How did he manage to get from Mary's home to Monte Carlo? None of these actions are explained. Were connecting scenes edited out? If yes, why? If, on the other hand, this is the way the scriptwriter wanted the plot to play, then it's a poorly written script. Either way, the film, at barely sixty minutes, appears forced into a runtime straight-jacket.

Production values are acceptable for the era. B&W photography is about what one would expect, grainy, and with the use of static camera shots. Casting could have had more diverse looking females. Acting was a bit exaggerated at times, not unusual for early talkies.

I suppose one could say that "Monte Carlo Nights" is a suspense film; there's a little, not much. The ending contains a slight story twist, but one that is not satisfying. The overall whodunit resolution here is disappointing. Other whodunit films from the same era are better.