Murder at Midnight

The opening shots of this film are blurry with undefined shapes and objects, however suddenly a light is switched on and the change in lighting brings about sharper and more detailed images. The lighting techniques in the opening sequence are an indication of things to come in the film. It is an early experiment with lighting and varying the contrast levels from shot to shot. In some shots there are plenty of grey hues and details are easy to make out, while in other shots the faces and clothes of the characters are blown out to white. The blowing out to white is used most effectively when Aileen Pringle is interrogated by investigations - as her facial features can hardly be made out, it is hard for us as viewers to tell whether or not she is lying.

However, other than interesting lighting and camera techniques, the rest of the film is pretty flat. The mystery at the heart of the film is intriguing, but it is never really involving since the film lacks strong character development. Robert Elliott plays his hard-boiled detective as a one-dimensional stereotype too, which makes it hard to want to root for him and his desire to solve the mystery at hand. As an early sound film, the audio quality is not too great, with a bit too much atmospheric sound and perhaps some music could have helped. However, the timing of when a character says "and he fired" followed by a bang, and the timing between dialling for the police and a sudden siren sound, show that some thought was indeed put into what the film was going to sound like it. It is a flawed film, but other than a blatantly contrived ending it makes quite satisfactory viewing, and the lighting work is simply fascinating.

This one is a bit fun to watch - some likable characters, fun little mystery to try to solve while watching.

You have a huge mansion, several party guests, a game of charades turns deadly and a few murders! Police arrive almost early or a little too late to the scene of the crime/crimes and can be bungling idiots at times - which adds some comedic elements to the story unfolding.

This one is your typical, average whodunit of the 1930s but still quite a but fun to watch. This film was remade into The Mystery of Mr. Wong starring Boris Karloff - and I'll admit that I like the Karloff/Wong version better than this original - but the original is fun, as I already mentioned.

6.5/10

Frank R. Strayer directs this well acted 1931 who-done-it. What people won't do to have fun at a party. Accidental murder probably is a party pooper every time...but you can't say it isn't interesting. Way back when...a good party starter was a tame little game of charades. One particular night a staged murder in a game of charades turns to the real thing. The bullets weren't blank...leaving a man dead. The mood of the party guests takes on disbelief and a little paranoia. Inspector Taylor(Robert Elliott)puts the gathering of friends and lovers through their paces in search of the murderer's identity. Is it Lawrence, the butler(Brandon Hurst); Colton, the lawyer(William Humphrey); the maid(Alice White)or Aunt Julia(Clara Blandick)? Put disputed inheritance and infidelity in the mix...why wouldn't murder be the result? A long, heavy rainstorm could have made for better atmosphere; but all- in-all the 67 minutes running time is not wasted.

Occasionally clever little early 30s multiple-murder mystery, with a killer stalking the Kennedy household and knocking off a half dozen victims. The cops don't seem especially perturbed by the continual corpses lying around and aren't very good at getting to the bottom of the mystery. Lots of telephone cord cutting and such; good example of how the telephone became the mystery writer's best friend.

The plot concerns a letter fingering the killer, which comes to light after a game of charades goes bad (after seeing this and The Death Kiss, I have some advice: do not agree to be shot by a gun filled with blanks during the 1930s). The head of the household, maid, the butler, and who-knows-who-else also fall victim to the clever murderer bent on getting his hands on the letter.

The acting is stagy and old-fashioned, but occasionally sharp and witty, and Alice White as the house maid Millie is a doe-eye peach. An absence of music makes this seem rather duller than it should be. It's okay if you like the genre and era, but it's not something to seek out.

This is prototypical whodunit. It has atmosphere, interesting characters with personality flying all over the place, hard nut police detectives, most of whom aren't very smart, and that air of snobbery. The film begins with a shooting during a game of charades, where a gun, supposedly holding blanks, proves the undoing of one of the characters, a man who changed his will at the last moment because he sensed danger. A loudmouth detective shows up on the scene and treats everyone like dirt. He shouts in their faces and tries to intimidate. The people at the mansion are upper crust and resent his invasions. Mixed in are a nervous wreck, a cute maid, a stodgy butler, a matriarch, and several other figures who could have participated. There are also some interesting dealings with the telephone (which I won't reveal). The pacing is pretty good and the ending is acceptable. One character who cracked me up was a policeman who spent the whole movie guarding people and eating peanuts in the shell. There's a great scene where the butler brings him a large bowl because he has been tossing the shells on the floor. The cop, puts the peanuts that were in his pocket, into the bowl, then continues to throw the peanut shells on the floor. It's a nice little story and worth watching.