Un cri dans la nuit

The lights are turned out during a seance, When the lights come back on, Phillips Smalley is dead with a knife in his back. Detective Captain Jack Mulhall comes to investigate and soon discovers that almost all present had motives to kill him and, given the dark, had opportunity. So who did it?

It's a typical cheap mystery directed by Armand Schaefer and not, alas, a well constructed one. Although I figured out whodunnit before it was revealed, vital clues were not shown to the audience until Mulhall begins his summation -- with all the suspects in the room, natch -- which is not playing fair with the mystery aspect of the movie. Also, despite some good lighting by William Nobles -- his first movie was a Mary Pickford vehicle, but he soon sank into the ranks of B cameramen and never recovered -- is there much in the way of interesting action. Instead, it's a nearly constant stream of talk, pausing only to show a clue to the mystery.

It's a no-name cast in a thoroughly pedestrian whodunit. In fact, in my view the high point comes unscripted, at the beginning with the high-living crowd around the mansion's pool. They look like they're genuinely having fun, and given the swimsuit clinches, we know it's pre-Code. As the swami, I guess "mad Russian" Mischa Auer is supposed to supply the exotica. Trouble is he projects the height but not the gravitas to be really compelling. Of course, sleuth dramas of the 30's had to have a hare-brained assistant to supply the comic relief. Here it's Watson, oops, I mean Watkins supplying the silliness.

Probably the production didn't cost more than a buck eighty since it rarely leaves the drawing room or hallway. Then too, the whodunit part remains too underdeveloped by a crowd of suspects. Looks like the screenplay realized this in the reveal part. Also looks like the production company, Willis Kent, went later into cheap exploitation films. I guess that's not surprising. Anyway, I wish there were something to recommend here, but to me, the result rarely rises above the blandly forgettable.

"Sinister Hands" is all too familiar for fans of old movies. The plot is one of hte most overused ones of the 1930s and 40s....so it's easy to skip this one, believe me!

The film opens by introducing a millionaire and all the folks around him. One by one, you see that everyone has a potential reason to murder him. And, when it eventually occurs, you know that some smarty-pants detective will come and determine which of the guests offed the old man.

It's a familiar plot, as I've already said, and this low budget film has done NOTHING to improve upon the same basic plot I've seen 30,000 times already. The acting is stileted and there's simply nothing about it that demads to be seen. Overall, a bit dull and a cheapo film that is, at best, a time passer.

I have always been interested in Poverty Row films since I read the book Forgotten Horrors many years ago. While other reviewers say this is a standard mystery, I argue it is not the case. The standard is that usually a much hated man with many enemies is murdered. The twist here is that Richard Lang (Phillips Smalley) is successful and well liked. His problem are the women in his life. His wife has fallen for a phony mystic (Mischa Auer), while his daughter is enamored with a two bit gangster (Louis Natheaux). In fact every bum and crook in town seems to hang out at his estate because his wife and daughter are attracted to these types of men.

One evening Smalley announces at his home that the days of these parasites living off him has ended. Smalley is found murdered shortly thereafter. Police Detective Devlin (Jack Mulhall) arrives on the scene and quickly uncovers a couple more suspects. One curious aspect is that casting of Louis Natheaux as the gangster. He is suppose to be tough and handsome. The ladies can't resist him, yet he looks 40 years old, he is balding and very thin. Worst of all is his nasal, whiny voice. During a showdown with Smalley, Natheaux is suppose to be intimidating, but I suspect a fifth grader would find nothing to be afraid of.

There are some spooky, atmospheric parts during the swami's seances. The dialogue is quiet good and believable. I recommend this film to mystery lovers and poverty row aficionados like myself. This films isn't of the quality of the films at the major studios at the time, but by poverty row standards, a cut above average.

Apparently this was an early "talky" and that might account for the long pauses between speeches and the stilted acting. It's a typical who done it, with the long list of suspects. There are two points where the head detective stops the show and explains who each of them is and what they did. It has the last drawing room thing which is kind of fun, actually. I wouldn't want this on a regular basis, but it's kind of cool. The plot involves a murder during a séance (which the detective pronounces "see ons." There is a swami and a silly detective who is continuously being called Watson instead of Watkins. He is incompetent and no help. It's as if the police trained in a guy for his comedy relief. There are a couple gangsters (one named Lefty Louie), and a bunch of other saps, including a virginal secretary with horn rimmed glasses and a prissy suit. Anyway, they are all kept in place so one has to have done it. It has a somewhat satisfying conclusion. As with most of these stories or books, we need to keep rethinking things. It's an OK film with an interesting cast.