The Phantom

When a dangerous killer escapes from the local gaol, police suspect he may come after the DA as retribution for his incarceration. Assigned to protect the DA (Lucas), bull-nose detective (O'Brien) settles in for a long night that ends up turning into a fracas when "The Phantom" enters the house via a secret labyrinth of ducts and concealed passages, threatening the DA's daughter (Ray) before disappearing into the night. Fortunately, novice reporter (Williams) has a hunch "The Phantom" might be heading for a local mental sanitarium leading to a terrifying encounter with the residents of the local loony-bin.

There's some mild chuckles and feint thrills in his uneven comedy-thriller, but the acting seems quite stilted at times and the tension seems to be constantly nobbled by ill-timed humour. Williams is the strongest performer as the young, assertive reporter keen to solve the mystery to earn a pay increase that will fund his ensuing matrimonials with the DA's daughter.

I found the jittery housekeeper (Knights) a tad over-bearing, her incessant shrills and dramatics becoming old very quickly, while combined with her vertically challenged boyfriend, the Chauffeur Shorty (Dunn) the pair added a touch of farce to the proceedings that I felt were unnecessary diversions (perhaps padding). Nevertheless, it's coherent and at barely one hour in duration, nothing if not efficient.

I really enjoy classic horror, even the poverty row productions. This one, though,was tough to get through.

I agree with others who have said the acting is poor. They're also not well-rehearsed; especially at the beginning the actors are stepping on each others' lines.

I also have a problem with the editing. As the movie starts, it feels like we're cutting between three movies: a prison, the top of a train, and a helicopter. It becomes clear in a few how they connect, but the disjointed editing continues throughout the movie, making for jarring changes between scenes... sometimes lingering too long, sometimes not giving us enough setup or wrap-up.

I knew I was taking a risk when I started it. The description made it sound more like a murder mystery / police drama, and I should have trusted my gut on this one. It's played for laughs almost all the way through which is frustrating, and even when it's not intentional the laughs occasionally come anyway: when the phantom enters a room, it's truly laughable. (Watch carefully as no one makes any attempt to get away.)

You can watch it for free on Archive Dot Org, or on Tubi... but if you're looking for another Dracula or Frankenstein... this ain't it. It doesn't compare well to the. Basil Rathbone / Nigel Bruce mysteries about a decade later, either.

For completists only!

A prisoner named the Phantom is moments away from going to the chair when he climbs over the wall, jumps on top of a passing train and makes a get away when a plane flies down and picks him up. He then threatens the DA, even though he's not the DA who sent him up the river...and then things get complicated.

This is a movie from the early days of sound. Using silent footage with sound effects it broadens what could be done at reasonable expense with the then bulky sound equipment. As a result this film does things that many similar movies from the period couldn't, it goes outside the drawing room, the best example is the jail break at the beginning.

But while it goes places that other films didn't, and it has more twists than a pretzel factory, this film suffers from the same problem that countless other lower budget films did, and that is its limited by sound itself. There is no music and many scenes are staged simply to have people talk, a sequence at the beginning in the newspaper editor's office for example, goes on way too long just so we can hear the characters talking on the phone.

The movie itself is interesting up to a point, but at times it seems to want to get as many of the mystery conventions into the movie as possible so things keep spinning out for no real reason other than to make the film reach a reasonable length. The problem is that as interesting as the plot is, the film's age hinders full enjoyment of it.

If you're in the mood for an antique give it a try, otherwise steer clear.

It starts with a prison break with a man about to be electrocuted jumping over the wall onto a moving train and then being picked up by a plane dangling a rope ladder! And that is just the first 5 minutes! Most of this is an "old dark house" style thriller about a mad killer called The Phantom who is out to kill a local district attorney (former D.W. Griffith regular Wilfred Lucas). The D.A.'s daughter (Allene Ray) and her reporter boyfriend (Guinn WIlliams) team up to catch the cloaked maniac and, in the tradition of movies like this, do a much better job than the cops who have surrounded the house. They trail the madman to an insane asylum where nobody, and I mean NOBODY! is playing with a full deck. For a one hour film the plot gets complicated with things like insanity, kidnapping, revenge and even brain transplants. The only thing missing was a gorilla, and if the plot had run another 10 minutes I'll one would have popped up! It all makes sense (well, sort of) at the end when the prison warden shows up to identify the mad killer. (You don't expect ME to reveal who it is, do you?) Also in the cast is The Clutching Hand himself, Sheldon Lewis. In a cap, tall hat and fright wig he is still playing the character he created for the 1916 serial THE EXPLOITS OF ELAINE and doing it rather well. Lweis was also the only actor to ever play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde twice. Once in 1920 in the version filmed on location in New York to compete against the John Barrymore and again in 1929 in a one reel talkie short. Art? No way. Fun? You bet! See this one.

I would think that for the people of 1931, this would be quite a movie. The beginning (as many have already stated), was quite exciting - even by today's standards. Then the movie drags a bit.

But my reason for writing this review is only to add that the eclectic cast is worth watching. You can see the obvious influence of the silent era in their expressions and actions/reactions.

But to me, Lucy (played by Violet Knights) almost steals the show. She seems to me a very funny actress. I hope to get to see her in something else some time. However, I suspect this is probably her crowning achievement as an actress, as she made less than ten talking pictures, and was only credited in two of them. I know her acting is overboard, but her expressions and manners are worth the watching of this movie to me. Without her, I would probably give this movie only one or two stars.

The strange Swede (William Jackie?) is also a great comic in this, his only credited role (according to IMDb).

If you like unusual characters, I think this is definitely a movie worth a watch. Don't expect a great story - as others have mentioned, the plot is a bit over-used. But the cast to me is not a disappointment.