House of Mystery

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.