A Shot in the Dark

While at a party at his college campus Ken Harris gets a call from his dad saying that he's nearby and would like to see him. Ken goes that night to pick up his dad and bring him back to stay in his dorm room. Ken sends his dad up to the room while he parks the car. When Ken arrives at his room he finds that the door is locked and neither his dad nor his roommate will answer the knocks. Ken then crashes for the night in a downstairs friends room. In the morning Ken is awoken by a banging outside. It seems that Ken's roommate has committed suicide by hanging himself out the window. It quickly transpires that what appeared to be suicide was in fact murder and the murderer is still on the prowl.

This is a solid little mystery that unfolds in such away as to keep you glued to the screen wondering whats going to happen next. The investigation, nominally headed by Ken's dad moves along at a good clip and in a logical progression with events, including more murders, coming out of what is revealed in the story. Each clue leads to something else which leads to something else. This is one of the few times that you can feel the source novel actually working well with in the frame work of a 60 minute movie, and where the compression of the story doesn't lead to a moment or two where something seems to come completely out of left field. The film is also unique in that contrary to most mysteries of the period (or mysteries period) the local cops are not buffoons. While they admit that murder is beyond them (the deputy says about all they're used to is speeders) they do make a go of investigating the crime and acquit themselves nicely.

As good as the film is its not perfect. The pacing is a tad slow since the film is has a great deal of talk (though this is not a bad thing). There is one moment where the scenes seem to have been placed out of order with Ken's dad talking about working with the police and in the next scene has a conversation with the police about working with them. The film's main sin is that while we get all of the required information there are times where characters and situations get the short shrift. There are times when I felt we could have known a character more or that perhaps they could have added a scene that lead to something (the discovery of the murder weapon for example).

Still this is a great little flick. Worth a bag of popcorn and some soda on the couch with some friends.(Possibly as part of Murder on Campus which has some of the same cast and also set on a college campus)

The strength of this film is a pretty complex plot. There are a few layers we need to wade through and that's a good thing. Once that was established, the film becomes worthwhile. There are so many other things that are really hard for the modern viewer. First of all, most of the college students seem to be about thirty-five years old, fully mature, looking more like bank executives. We have the father who writes mystery novels who just moves in and takes over. The handling of evidence and the ignorance of the police force is all so contrived. We have the young woman who does nothing but sit in the shadows. We have a chance to solve the crime and they send her into a room where she is almost killed. There's no reason for this.

I did enjoy Everett Sloan, whom I remember as Van Helsing from the Lugosi Dracula. His voice is delightful. I also got a kick out of all the smoking that the self declared detective did. He was constantly blowing smoke in people's faces and couldn't seem to get through two minutes without lighting up. I wonder what the lung cancer rate was back then. This is worth a watch and has some surprises even with its rough edges.

Gasp! A student has died! And he appears to have been murdered! What a mystery!

It's not a very urgent mystery, mind you, as the course of events proceeds with a blandly flat tone. Very few people here speak with any major emotion in their voice, and one of the actors given the most dialogue (Robert Warwick) drones on with a near-complete monotone. Charles Lamont's direction generally results in blithely casual pacing and execution of even those moments that should be the most lively; some dialogue is somewhat senselessly grandiose both as it is written and as it is delivered. One might say that 'A shot in the dark' comes across as the type of dime-a-dozen mystery rushed out in paperbacks by the boatload, adapted to film. It's not bad, but it certainly doesn't make any real impression, either - nor does it try to.

Actors act, lights shine, four walls build a set, cameras move (a little bit), secrets are uncovered, and so on and so on. Except as it specifically serves to advance the plot, the dialogue and scene writing is frankly unimpressive, and the performances don't make much of a mark. Most troublesome of all is that while all the elements are here that could theoretically form a complete and compelling story, the plot development as we see it comes across as specious and arbitrary to the point that it feels like Movie Magic more than judicious storytelling. Oh, who am I kidding: this is kind of dull.

If you want to watch a mystery movie, and in particular one that won't cost you much more than an hour, then this just may fit the bill. Just don't expect anything more than that genre label portends on a rudimentary level, because you're quite unlikely to get it. 'A shot in the dark' is alright if you come across it, but definitely don't go out of your way.

The summary of this film isn't quite right. It is NOT about an old mansion but students at a college are killed--the first in the dorm, another at an assembly. Will there be a third?!

When a student is found hung outside his room, the coroner rules it's a murder--as the body was already dead before he was hung. It seems some sort of deadly needle was shot into the base of the victim's skull! Surely this is a VERY sophisticated murder, so it seems odd that they'd use the clumsy ruse of a hanging to hide the killing. It seems even odder that they'd ask one of the student's fathers to help investigate the crime--especially since he's not a detective but a corporate lawyer! Non-police investigating crimes was common in 1930s and 40s films, but usually they are amateur detectives or adventurers such as the Saint or Bulldog Drummond--here, he's just some lawyer who has had dreams of becoming a gumshoe! This weird plot isn't helped any by the crime itself. While it's supposed to be a mystery, I figured out who the murderer was about halfway through the film. It also was silly how complicated the murders were--they just weren't very practical or believable--more like a B-movie murder than one that could really happen. Overall, a somewhat competent movie that isn't completely bad---it just isn't all that good, either. And, I had to laugh at the old cliché where EVERY TIME A PERSON WAS ABOUT TO TALK, they were soon killed!! Gimme a break! You could do a lot better than this one by watching any of the Charlie Chan films!

A student's suicide turns out to be murder. Murder mystery in which the police are happy to sit back and let an amateur criminologist, played with authority by character actor Robert Warwick, lead the investigation. Passable entertainment despite the inevitable far-fetched resolve.