Avaliações de usuários

Opening scene: Jean Parker walks into the death chamber to be electrocuted…and the action cuts to Lionel Atwill and a roomful of reporters apparently congratulating him on cracking the case. He tells them the tale of how he met Parker, how she came to be convicted of killing a blackmailer by whacking him over the head, and how Atwill himself grew convinced of her innocence and set about investigating.

Atwill is quite smooth as Charles Finch, a well knows criminologist who says, "I keep insisting I'm a psychologist." Lionel Atwill didn't get to play the good guy every day, and he does well as the insightful and wise but also quick-thinking detective capable of decisive action.

Jean Parker is sympathetic as the earnest young woman who has a family secret from which it's hard to hide. The role doesn't offer a lot of opportunities for showing her character's fun side, but Parker does a capable job of playing it smart and attractive….She is also the responsible one in a family that includes a wild younger sister (Marcia Mae Jones) who is obviously concealing information vital to solving the mystery.

Douglas Fowley is the other lead, a young doctor ("I prefer to think of myself as a scientist") who has some bold ideas (he is developing a method to revive dead things) but is obliged to raise research money doing a job he hates down at the prison—he throws the switch when a convict is put in the electric chair. He's a rather gloomy fellow; I'm not sure what Parker is supposed to see in him, but of course they fall in love…which causes Fowley an unusual conflict between personal and professional obligations when Parker is sentenced to the chair.

It all builds somewhat predictably but manages to entertain despite the lack of surprises.

Fun to see Atwill in a central good guy role….In the early scene where Fowley tells him his mad-scientist-type idea, I was half expecting Atwill to say something like, "Yes, I've tried that in one or two of my other films"…. Alas, he played it straight.

Poverty row cheapie starring Lionel Atwill as a criminologist who tries to stop an innocent girl from being executed in the electric chair. Told through flashback, the story begins with Atwill befriending Doug Fowley's character, a scientist who's going to do big things someday but until then he has to make ends meet as the executioner at the state pen! He wants to marry Jean Parker but she refuses, having pretty strong opinions on capital punishment on account of her dearly departed dad being a criminal. Things get even more melodramatic when a guy who was blackmailing Jean winds up murdered and she's tried and convicted for the crime. If you guess that Fowley's job as executioner figures back into things, congratulations. On top of all this, Jean's sister is acting shady and doesn't seem all that broken up about Jean being fried extra crispy. Leave it to Lionel Atwill to solve everything, albeit taking his sweet time to do so. It's not a bad little B movie. Very cheap as you would expect from something made by PRC. But it's perfectly watchable and even curiously entertaining at points. Bonus points for excessive "wipes." A sure sign of a top-notch production.

This tautly constructed little movie should serve as a model for those modern film authors who cannot unfold the simplest story line in less than two hours.

The movie opens with Mary Kirk being led from her cell to walk to the death chamber. She leaves a letter for Charles Finch, a psychologist and criminologist. In it she has outlined the events which led to her situation. We then see Finch reading the letter to a small group of reporters, supplementing it with an account of his own involvement in the affair. His first person narrative alternates with flashback depiction of the events. Half way into the movie he has reached the point at which Mary was convicted and sentenced to death. The next 20 minutes cover his subsequent efforts to find the evidence which will clear her. He still has not succeeded by the time we have caught up to the opening of the movie and see Mary finish her walk to the electric chair. The remaining few minutes are a desperate race against the clock played more or less in real time.

The movie does not waste an inch of film. Every scene conveys information and advances the action, with smooth and skillful links. Particularly effective is the way in which the character of Mary's younger sister, Suzy, is handled. Her appearances are almost always incidental to the main action, but as the movie progresses it becomes clear that she is somehow central to the solution.

The nature of the plot means that the title character plays a passive rather than an active role. Jean Parker is persuasive in the part, wisely forgoing the opportunities for melodramatics. Marcia Mae Jones' porcelain-doll prettiness frequently led to her being cast as a vain and foolish little madam, and her role here as Suzy suits her talents. Lionel Atwill makes a convincing sleuth, neatly conveying a blend of scientific detachment, humanitarian concern, and an occasional twinkle of humour.

Anybody who thinks that "first class B movie" is an oxymoron should study this film and learn better.

Jean Parker is on death row, with hours left until her execution, with fiance Douglas Fowley the man who pulls the switch. Criminologist Lionel Atwill thinks she's innocent and that Marcia Mae Jones (who always wears a hat; where's she going?) know who committed the murder actually is.

It certainly is an interesting idea, even if the 'only hours to prove the condemned is innocent' plot is ancient. It's effective, though, and it's nice to see Atwill in a good-guy role. He played them occasionally over the years, but was always more in demand, especially among the cheaper productions, for player some sort of monster in human form. However, I dislike his constantly interrupting the flow of the story to tell us what is going on. This looks like a money-saving device on the part of the producers. All director Steve Sekely had to do was continue the camera set-up of him and a couple of other players at a table, narrating. It may have been cheap, but it interrupts the story flow, distances the audience from the action, and ultimately reduces the movie to about ten minutes of Marcia Mae Jones telling Atwill she'll tell him about the guy he thinks did it tomorrow (after her sister is dead) and Sam Flint as the governor in a diner eating hamburgers, not knowing about the confession that will stop them from shooting lightning bolts through Jean Parker.

Jean Parker is blackmailed because of a secret from her past. But when the blackmailer ends up dead on the floor, and some people saw this unfold through the window, Parker is arrested and ends up on death row. Shortly before all this happened, she met scientist researcher Douglas Fowley and criminologist Lionel Atwill, and Fowley fell in love with her. He also moonlights as the state executioner however. Atwill doesn't believe Parker is guilty, and thinks Parker's sister Marcia Mae Jones, whom he caught lying on the night of the murder, holds the key to finding the real killer.

The movie is told in flashback by Atwill as he recounts the story to some of his colleagues, using a letter Parker wrote shortly before walking to the chair. The actors do a decent job, altho Fowley is surprisingly stiff here.

Director Steve Sekely ('Hollow Triumph') and DoP Gus Peterson (ine one of his last movies, his credits go back to 1914!) knew how to quickly and effectively make movies, and it shows. It is told & shot in the typical fashion employed by the low-budget studios, PRC in this case, where pace and economics mattered more than logic (that is: if you have time to think about a plot hole while watching a movie, the movie needs more trimming). It doesn't have a lot of noir visuals, and the movie works better as a mystery, but it's a decent effort that does tick a few boxes.

It's not a movie that really demands multiple viewings, but as a quick time-waster, it holds up decently well. 6/10

This PRC production and of course it's a cheapie has Jean Parker in the title role of The Lady In The Death House. Parker is a woman who works in a bank but has a shady past as her dad went to jail. She travels under aliases.

Veteran western heavy Dick Curtis is our blackmailer. He's been bleeding Parker for years and when he's killed she's accused. There even witnesses who saw a silhouette of the two fighting.

Two people believe her innocent. Dr. Douglas Fowley who is the executioner at Sing Sing prison and criminologist Lionel Atwill. Atwill narrates the film as these two try to beat the clock on the death watch.

As you can imagine this is one highly melodramatic picture. A few production values this might have been a lot better.

Lady in the Death House I'm sure is a movie publicist's wet dream. Get this: A woman is condemned to die.. The executioner? Her BOYFRIEND! It's up to a criminologist, er, psychologist to figure out who really killed the shady friend of the prisoner's sister, AND has to get a hold of the Governor somehow Before It's Too Late! This movie is somewhat fun, but fairly predictable, Jean Parker as the lady in question and Lionel Atwill are good here, but nothing really remarkable. The most fun is watching the little bit of suspense at the end with the governor and all. I mean, shouldn't he be AVAILIBLE for last minute clemency phone calls and what have you instead of ordering Denver Sandwiches ("smothered in onions!"). They should have had a shot of the onions frying, THAT would have been clever.

Okay B noirish film starring Lionel Atwill and Jean Parker.

Told primarily in flashbacks as she heads for the chair, Jean Parker is given a death sentence after being found guilty of murdering her blackmailer - supposedly in front of witnesses. She claims she is innocent, and indeed, the people who claim to have seen her only saw a silhouette behind a shade.

A criminologist (Lionel Atwill) attempts to find out the truth before it's too late. One other aspect - her boyfriend is the one who is supposed to pull the switch.

Nothing special but absorbing all the same.

One tip-off that this is basic poverty row is that when Lionel Atwill messes up his lines, there are no retakes.

Mary (Jean Parker) is due to die on the electric chair. She makes the walk towards her fate but there is still hope for a reprieve. The story is told by Charles Finch (Lionel Atwill) in flashback. Will Mary be saved for a crime that she didn't commit...?...

While Atwill is quite good, the acting is all rather forgettable. As is the story. I only watched it yesterday and there are already some gaps in my memory. The cast are uninspiring to watch with Marcia Mae Jones's character as Suzi, Parker's sister, being the standout performance. Not because she is any good, but because she is mad. The fadeout techniques between scenes are interesting to begin with but endless repetition cheapens the device. The film also seems rushed. It's not a particularly bad film but it's nothing great.

I gave up after 10 mins. Given that it's a short film you would think they would a bit of pace to it.

The flick's a PRC programmer that manages some suspense. So, will an eager Fowley and Atwill get to the warden before an innocent Parker is executed. It's certainly one of the lengthiest suspenseful countdowns on white-knuckle record. The story's told in flashback as Parker walks the last mile, so things look bad for her from the outset. Then too, it's two of moviedom's traditional bad guys Fowley and Atwill playing good guys, so seeing them as heroes takes some getting used to. Though the exposition gets a little difficult at times, there's a standout nightclub scene where Parker's dress catches afire with a romantic aftermath that solidifies a relationship. The acting is good, except for the wild-eyed Jones whose expressions at times are almost clownish. All in all, it's a decent little programmer that, with a few changes, might have fit into the old Perry Mason TV series.

This movie begins with a young woman by the name of "Mary Kirk Logan" (Jean Parker) writing a letter in prison minutes before she is supposed to be executed for murder. The scene then shifts to a criminologist named "Charles Finch" (Lionel Atwill) as he is reading a portion of the letter to a small group of men who are interested in the story he has to tell. It's at this point that the movie backtracks to the day that the murder occurred. However, rather than reveal any more of this movie I will just say that it contained an adequate amount of mystery and suspense but it was too short (only 56 minutes) and compact to be as effective as it could have been. Of course, a number of movies produced during this particular time were rather abbreviated due to budget constraints so this particular film isn't necessarily an anomaly. Even so the movie suffered as a result and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.

An interesting whodunit that suffers mainly from flaws in motivational logic for the characters, as well as unbelievable legal procedures, but that is part of the sense of disbelief that has to be suspended for many B-movie crime dramas of the era.

Lionel Atwill is the state executioner, who needs his job to finance his research which is ironically, brining the dead back to life. He gives a brief explanation of his process theory, though it isn't important to the story. He feels he has to keep his job though because of the importance of it to his work, particularly financing it, despite the fact that his fiancée finds the job abhorrent and refuses to marry him when she finds out what he does.

In the opening scene you have seen her walking to the death chamber, with the story told in flashbacks by the detective played by Cy Kendall. Lionel Atwill's character you figure out early is in the unenviable position of being required to pull the switch on his girlfriend. As time is running out, Kendall tries to gather evidence to clear her.

Since it is told in flashbacks, some things that are to happen you learn early on, but the film telegraphs too much that it doesn't intend you to know, at least not for sure. There is never even the slightest doubt about who is innocent or hiding something, and the movie would have benefited from a little more ambiguity in the beginning, which could have been easily accomplished. With a little work on the script, this could have been a much better movie.

All in all not bad, and with a runtime of 56 minutes doesn't have time for you to grow weary waiting for the solution.

One aspect that seems amusingly dated today though is the crime Mary's father was convicted of when she was a child: Pinball racketeering. Largely forgotten now, but there was a time when pinball machines were a dreaded, evil scourge that many cities tried to stamp out with bans. Her father was railroaded by an aggressive district attorney, and for the purposes of the movie, it provided a "criminal" father who actually wasn't too bad, and was perhaps unfairly persecuted.

With a title like Lady in the Death House, as a Noir film and clocking in at 56 minutes, I figured it was worth checking out. I think I may have miscalculated. There just wasn't much suspense here, ir really even that much drama either. The film quality of the print I saw was of poor quality and it lacked the shading and shadows often representative of the noir genre. There was no driving force present, it just kind of strolled along. The cast was fine, but no one really brought anything distinct to the production, except maybe for Atwill as the criminologist. I think another big culprit if the unsatisfying result is the direction. Even at 56 minutes Lady in the Death House was too long.

Storywise it was okay; just the total picture was so incredibly boring, yes, even for it's short running time. And that's a pity, for the premise was intruiging enough... Unfortunately the acting performances were just not that great. I laughed once, but i forgotten what for. Haha.

This turkey has every cliche one can think of within a death row movie; and some you would never dream of. Some of the dialogue is laughable, and other lines are badly dated. The real problem with the film is that it so corny and predictable, that you will be asleep after twenty minutes of watching this movie. We all know an hour in advance that there will be an inevitable Hollywood ending for this unfortunate attempt at suspense. This foreknowledge tears down any attempt of the director and the actors to create sustained suspense in the film. Don't waste your time on this one; there are several hundred film noir pieces that are far superior to it.