Strangers of the Evening

The presence of Eugene Pallette flags a movie as worth a try for me, but not only are the goings-on in this film mechanically presented, the poor quality of the print I saw made the viewing even more tedious. The intended comedic elements should have made this a sure-fire entertainment, but my mind was caught drifting off more than once. Nothing here to remember.

I honestly don't know if this was meant to be comedy. It did have plenty of goofy little moments, but considering that the film isn't the least bit funny, I have my doubts.

This film begins with a man having an argument with a young lady's father. He wants to marry her, but her father is adamantly against it. You see them arguing and a few moments later, the father's body is found in the alley behind a mortuary. You assume the young man did this--and so do the police. Oddly, when the corpse is discovered, the bystanders drop it off at the funeral home and their reactions are very weird--not at all what you'd expect. In fact, many times throughout the film, weirdos (as well as corpses) appear and disappear regularly--but none of this is funny or helps much with the film--or has much to do with the mystery. This makes the film quirky--but not altogether satisfying. And, with this relatively dull script and most indifferent acting and directing, it's only a weak time-passer at best.

Strangers in the Evening (1932)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Really bad and really confusing murder/mystery has a body come up missing at the local morgue but one of the workers claims the dead man moved himself. At the same time there's a murder investigation going on for the morgue worker who got into an argument with a girl's father when he disapproved of their relationship. Mean while the local detective (Eugene Palette) is dealing with a man who can't remember anything except for one woman (Zasu Pitts).

STRANGERS IN THE EVENING is a pretty bad movie on many levels but it's almost worth watching due to how bizarre and confusing it is. The film clocks in less than 65 minutes yet it headlining star Pitts doesn't show up until nearly thirty minutes into the movie. What makes matters even worse is that there are characters who come into the film and then disappear without any reason why and then reappear later. There are way too many characters in this short film and obviously something got lost in the writing because a lot happens that makes very little sense.

At the very end a few of the characters take the cheap route and explain what we've just watched but that's really no help. Pitts really isn't given too much to do so I'm going to guess the low-budget meant they only had her for a few days. Palette is fun as the detective but he too is pretty much wasted with the bad screenplay. Harold Waldridge deserves special mention as he plays a sissy morgue worker who is constantly scared. To say the character is annoying would be an understatement.

STRANGERS IN THE EVENING doesn't work as a mystery, a comedy or anything else for that matter.

WHO KILLED FRANK DANIELS? is an odd, stagy little film from the early days of talkie cinema. It plays out as a murder mystery with the emphasis on some very tame, almost unrecognisable comedy which no doubt delighted contemporary audiences, although modern viewers will be baffled rather than amused by the jokes and pratfalls evinced here. It's certainly not a timeless comedy like the works of Laurel and Hardy or Harold Lloyd.

The film is very short but manages to fit quite a lot of plotting into its running time, half of which turns out to be rather irrelevant. The body of a man is discovered on a street and two suspects are sought by the exasperated cops; most of the action centres around a morgue allowing for plenty of ghoulish jokes surrounding corpses and the like. Lucien Littlefield's bizarro goof 'Snookie' is probably the best reason to watch this, although comedienne Zasu Pitts shows up late on in the proceedings to add some more humour to the thing.

Strangers of the Evening features switched corpses, an amnesia victim, estranged family members, and strange doings in the funeral parlor back room. It also contains a hard-to-follow plot involving too many characters, none of whom we get to know well. Even top-billed Zasu Pitts doesn't appear until about the halfway mark, and then in a role that is as minor—yet as important—as everyone else's. Overall, it's an uneven mix of oddities and clichés that leaves one off balance yet with a vague impression of having enjoyed it quite a lot.

The dialog is certainly not the star of this picture. Whew! there is some silly stuff here. Take this exchange between Theodore von Eltz as young Dr. Everett and Miriam Seegar as Ruth, the daughter of a murder victim: Dr. Everette: "Please, dear." Ruth: "Oh, don't!" Everette: "Why, Ruth…you believe that I killed him?" Ruth: "Oh, I don't know what to believe." Everette: "Oh, Ruth, dear, you've got to have faith in me." Ruth: "Well, you quarreled." Everette: "But you can't believe that I did it! I don't know what happened, but you must trust me…." And so on.

However, that blend of the predictable and the weird is somehow difficult to turn off. Von Eltz is actually quite good in his limited role. Lucien Littlefield is appropriately bizarre as "Snooky," as he's called by Zasu Pitts' Sybil, a sweet loony herself who found Snooky wandering in the street wearing only a raincoat and so took him home and fell in love with him.

Zasu sums it up at the end about as well as anyone could: "Oh, Snooky!"