A Shot in the Dark

"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings.

**** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush

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!

This is an entertaining murder mystery of the mid-1930s made on a budget so small it would fit in a child's pocket. The lack of production values and largely unknown cast do not however detract from the appeal of this unpretentious offering, for those who like creaky old mystery films and enjoy seeing the manners and mores of a bygone era. The only performance which really stands out is by Robert Warwick, who was a cut above the rest and does superbly well, old trooper and charmer that he was. The plot outline given for this film at the moment is entirely wrong, is obviously that of another film, and should be replaced, as this film is not about people in a room being murdered. It is set on a university campus, though no classrooms come into it, and it is all about someone inheriting when he turns 21 and whether he hangs himself or not. Some novel twists are introduced, an unusual murder weapon appears, and there are some far-fetched solutions. But it is all good fun for those who are not fussy. in other words, people who just like a good mystery film and do not demand modern stars, big budgets, car chases, and exploding buildings.

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.

Midway through this Chesterfield mystery, I found myself wondering: Is this plot awfully complex, or just awfully muddled? A suicide that is a murder; a stolen letter; an old photo in an album; odd family relations and relationships….Various characters guard strange secrets of the past and present. But I'm still not sure how much sense it makes.

Three male leads are at the center of the story. Charles Starrett is of course the rather upright and dashing young student whose roommate is bumped off in the film's opening moments. Starrett immediately calls for assistance from his criminologist father, played by Robert Warwick in the best Holmesian style. It seems like a promising setup—a father-son team parsing clues, nabbing bad guys. But, for me at least, Starrett's character came across as overly deferential and Warwick's as annoyingly smug. Third-billed is the great Edward Van Sloan as a professor (naturally) interested in the parties involved; his character is darkly appealing but, alas, not on screen often enough.

Overall, it's not a bad film, exactly, but I just couldn't feel it gain any momentum. The comic relief supplied by the moronic sheriff and his deputy is rather lame, and the rest of the cast seem to take things altogether too seriously. And there's one large red herring that would have added intrigue had it been a "real" clue....Anyway, early practice, I guess, for director Charles Lamont, who would go on to bigger and better and less serious things.