उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Based on the play by Adam Shirk, 'House of Mystery' tells the tale of John Prendergast (Clay Clement), an archaeologist sent from his home country to seek the wisdom of the Hindu religion. While in Asia, John "accidentally" (read as "drunkenly") kills a sacred monkey at a Hindu temple and is soon exposed as a thief (in the future). His fate is then cursed, along with the fates of his descendants. Twenty years pass and the Curse of Kahli still follows him. The investors of his expedition have gathered together at his mansion to seek their share of the fortune that he earned, with the only demand being that the inheritors must remain in the old mansion long enough to claim their money. Unfortunately for all, anangry killer that may be a result of the curse is loose and out for blood.

Like many "dark house" horrors of the early twentieth century, 'House of Mystery' isn't a very complicated film. While it does have a deeper background to it than similar films (many of which feature a lost couple who stumble upon a decrepit manor without much more), the overall feel and style still remains in line with the others of its subgenre. In fact, there isn't much to separate 'House of Mystery' as being very special at all. That's not totally a bad thing, however. It's just one of those decades-old films that have been mostly forgotten because, well, it's fairly forgettable.

The story is entertaining enough (which is really what matters most in a film like this). I liked the backstory set in Asia and the progression to the "present" (i.e. the early 1930s). However, once it gets to the present, it loses the originality that was being built by the introduction and fades into the standard fare of this style of film. Nevertheless, it does remain quite enjoyable with a funny cast of characters and some interesting plot turns. Also, the old mansion is one of the better "dark house" settings I've seen and director William Nigh (who had an astounding 120 directorial credits to his name over his 34-year career including another "killer monkey"-themed film 'The Ape' starring Boris Karloff). Other than that, there isn't a whole lot more to say. The film comes in at a lightning-fast 62 minute runtime, making it worth the short investment for the entertainment value. Overall, fans of the "dark house" subgenre should give it a look as they'll find more enjoyment in it than others, but it's still a fun time regardless for anyone who wants to give it a go.

Final Verdict: 6.5/10.

-AP3-

House of Mystery is ok as a 1934 mystery movie with a respectful dose of comedy thrown in. I was hoping for something a little scarier but that never came about. As a mystery, I thought it was below average but the strange and often comedic characters did keep things interesting. The movie doesn't drag or bog down, but that may be in large part to the fact that the film is only 62 minutes long. It never really met my expectations but had enough going for it that it managed to keep my interest. My impression of this movie is that it was just an ok movie, nothing special, but certainly not bad. If you see it, I think you might get some enjoyment out of it, but if you don't see it, you're really not missing too much. A respectable but forgettable 30s mystery movie.

In the 1930's there seemed to be three types of poverty row films that were made over and over again: (1) mystery films, (2) old dark house movies, (3) films featuring men in gorilla suits. The makers of House of Mystery evidently came to the natural conclusion that all of these elements should be combined together. In fact, along with films such as The Gorilla and Son of Ingagi, this film was part of a very specific sub-genre that can best be described as 'Gorilla Hiding in a House' movies.

Comedian Harry Enfield did a funny sketch once where the Arsenal football team of the 1990's played the one from the 1930's. The latter team's tactics were to kick the ball and then chase after it in a large group. Funnily enough, this is exactly what happens in these old dark house mysteries from the 30's. In them a large group of people move from room to room en mass trying to get to the bottom of some mystery or other. From a 21st century stand-point I don't think we will ever truly understand why so many films were made involving large groups of people moving from room to room in houses with hidden passageways, moving paintings and, well, men in gorilla suits. But, they sure made a lot of them in the 30's, so audiences must've liked them I guess.

In this one an immoral adventurer kills a sacred monkey in India. Once back in the USA, he gathers a group of investors together to give them the chance to obtain a fortune in gems from the Hindu temple. But naturally, things are not what they seem.

Like pretty much all of these types of movies this one is nothing great. It's creaky and obvious most of the time with only the killer gorilla providing anything in the way of thrills. I can't really recommend it exactly but if you've seem a few of these types of movies, well, this one is more of the same I suppose.

The movie begins in Asia (India) in 1913, where the main character (a Mr. Prendergast) kills a monkey, & then moves ahead to 1932-33 in the US, where the Curse of Kahli follows him. This is a solid old dark house kind of movie that has comic elements & a seance. It's a treat for fans of the Hopalong Cassidy B western series to see a 47 year young beardless George Hayes in a small role. There are lots of murders, several surprises, & the mandatory man in the gorilla suit. Chanda (played by Laya Joy, AKA Joyzelle Joyner), after an early stint in the movie as an exotic dancer (she's does a good job at that) walks around the rest of the movie zombie-like, almost speechless. Fans of the old dark house genre will certainly enjoy this one.

From the time I was a small child, watching our first TV set, I was intrigued by the movies of the 30's and 40's featuring men in gorilla suits. We were to take them seriously (my favorite was the one in the Laurel and Hardy movie in Switzerland). Here we have the standard mystery with the central character a boorish man who supposedly has a curse on him. He has done shameless things in a foreign country in the past, and now decides to meet his investors a mansion to pay them their rightful earnings from their investments. It is a cast of the usual buffoons where several are murdered. Still it is quite a bit of fun.

An obnoxious archaeologist insults the locals in Asia and has to flee, but not before grabbing a hoard of Asian treasures as he scurries back to the U.S. His investors back home want part of the fortune that he brings back with him. So he invites them all to his two-story mansion, but informs them that an Asian "curse" befalls those in possession of the fortune. His proposition is that the investors stay in his house for awhile and see for themselves what happens.

It's a silly story concept. But it does offer a neat little puzzle for whodunit fans to solve. The plot involves a séance, some incense, and tom-tom drums. There are multiple plot holes, at least one of which is revealed by means of dialogue. The solution to the puzzle includes a psychological concept called "conditioned response". But the application of it to this story is not very credible.

Characters are poorly developed, which is not surprising, given the short runtime. There are eight or so suspects, none very interesting, apart from a grouchy old woman lording over her henpecked husband. The insurance salesman is a bit annoying. The cops are rather nondescript and bumbling. I could have wished for a Charlie Chan.

In the version I watched, sound quality was not very good, and neither was the B&W cinematography. The visuals tended to be unnecessarily dark and somewhat blurry, probably a result of inferior technology in the 1930s. Casting is okay. But acting is exaggerated, also likely resulting from an era just emerging from silent films.

Aside from poor visuals and sound, which we might expect for that era, the main problem is a not very credible story premise, compounded by poor characterization. Even so, the film might still appeal to viewers who like animated puzzles, which is what a whodunit film really is.

"The mansion of a retired adventurer is the scene of some mysterious happenings, all apparently caused by the 'Curse of Kali'. The authorities and the adventurer's relatives all end up caught in the middle of these bizarre events, with plenty of suspicious characters to choose from. It's going to take some clever detective work to uncover the truth and bring those responsible to justice," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. The film begins in 1913 Asia, where the Hindu curse begins. Twenty years later, this connects with a group of investors gathering at a spooky old mansion, to collect their share of the Hindi's treasure. Supposedly, the Hindu curse resurfaces, claiming the lives of greedy treasure-seekers. The curse manifests itself as a stuffed gorilla (first seen in 1913 Asia) seems to come alive, and kill people. "Pocahontas" is somehow involved. Honest Injun.

*** House of Mystery (3/30/34) William Nigh ~ Clay Clement, Ed Lowry, Verna Hillie

An archaeologist (Clement) offends the Hindu spirit of Khali whilst on the Sub-Continent, then returns to England with his ill-gotten gains peddling a ruse that the fortune he's amassed is tainted by debilitating visions of apes crushing his windpipe, in an attempt to put off suspicion and the investors in his expedition who've come to collect their dues.

Comedy-thriller is nothing more than a haunted house romp, with Clement starring as the charlatan John Prendergast (aka Pren), fond of the liquor and the ladies, particularly his nubile house nurse Hillie which upsets his faithful Indian servant-woman Joy. Irving Bacon is quite amusing as the detective without a clue, while Sheehan does a pretty good Groucho Marx impersonation as Scotland Yard incognito.

Mild slapstick and witty dialogue couple with some innovative camera angles and dolly tracking, unusual for 1934 cinematography leave an impression, but otherwise, there's little to entertain even at barely 62 minutes brief.

Years ago fortune hunter ran a foul of an Indian cult. Now years later he calls together the backers of his trip to try and make amends and to make right what happened.

Or so he says.

Actually there's more going on here than meets the eye, not to mention a potentially murderous gorilla.

This is a very good, completely unremarkable and completely forgettable movie that is probably destined to end up lost in your memory. I know I have a hell of a hard time remembering which movie this is every time I run across it in my movie collection. I have to put it on to see what it is and more times than not I'll leave it on. Its not one that I actively search out to watch, even though I've seen it numerous times.

Should you get the chance, you might want to give it a try, just don't expect to remember it in the morning.

Asia, 1913: archaeologist John Prendergast (Clay Clement) is cursed after he kills a sacred monkey and absconds with a fortune in Indian national treasures and a Hindu woman, Chanda (Joyzelle Joyner). After two decades, the now wheelchair-bound Prendergast returns to the U.S. with Chanda to finally divide his wealth between the shareholders of his expedition. Inviting them to his home, he informs the investors of the fortune that awaits them, but warns them that in accepting their cut of the money they too will be cursed.

An 'old dark house' thriller, House of Mystery aims for giggles as much as it does scares, but fails to deliver much of either. Prendergast's house lacks the creepy atmosphere necessary to raise goosebumps (it's far too well lit and hasn't nearly enough cobwebs or secret corridors), the instrument of death is a silly gorilla (unconvincingly played by a man in a crap ape costume), the attempts at frivolity are more irritating than amusing, and most of the characters are so obnoxious you'll be longing for them to fall foul of the curse.

Even at just over an hour, the film quickly outstays its welcome. 3/10.

The theme is nice and supernatural, nearly but it's a murder mystery. I didn't expect there to be comedy too. I found the film in the first half hour interesting but the second was silly. The policemen were comics and it became too over the top daft. I like old films but this one was just not my kind of thing. The ending felt rushed and I wanted to see a bit more to round it off.

THE HOUSE OF MYSTERY begins with an archaeologist named Prendergast (Clay Clement), who goes missing after profaning a Hindu temple. After his investors locate him, they are invited to Prendergast's mansion, where he tells them of his travails, and that he has been cursed. It's also revealed that a fortune is hidden somewhere in the vast house. Not-too surprisingly, everyone spends the night, and terror unfolds.

Another "old dark house"-type movie, complete with a seance, a killer go-rilla, cryptic messages, befuddled cops, mumbo jumbo, and the inscrutable mystic, Chandra (Joyzelle Joyner). This movie is one of the more comedic of its sub-genre, along the lines of ONE BODY TOO MANY. An entertaining romp...

House of Mystery (1934)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

An adventurer kills a sacred monkey and soon a curse is put on him. He returns to America and his share holders want their money but before he returns it they must stay a week in his mansion where all sorts of strange things are going on. This is yet another "old dark house" film with another mystery and another deadly gorilla. As I've said countless times before, I'm really not sure why everyone of these films had to have a gorilla in it but I guess people in the 30s were terrified of them. The cast of characters are pretty varied and fun including a nerdy professor and his pushy wife. There's some light comedy thrown in that works as well but the film mainly tries to work its mystery and it does so to a nice effect. I think the screenplay is rather good and I enjoyed how they added in the curse of the monkey. The gorilla outfit doesn't look too bad but then again I might be saying this because I've seen some really bad ones out there. Clay Clement does a very good job in the lead and the supporting cast is fine.