The Dark Hour

If you enjoy old mystery movies and like your mystery with a little light humor, this film will please you. There are plenty of unusual characters and twists to the story that will keep you amused if not confused. The characters are well played and the story is quite intriguing. Unlike most of today's movies that rely on special effects, this film lets the story and characters set up the mood for the film, and by doing so sets up some unexpected situations such as two detectives trying to solve the mystery. One is an older fellow, the other younger. Instead of teaming together, they work independently for the most part and compare notes, each feeling the other out. There is the usual romantic interests as well, and all ingredients are made to blend pretty well. There is indeed a lot going on in this old film , as you will see.

"But I didn't do it." "What! Then who the heck did?" The Dark Hour keeps viewers—and detectives—guessing until the final moment. A truly puzzling mystery combined with some juicy performances make this quite a nifty little hour of fun.

Berton Churchill as the retired detective—respectfully requested by his younger counterpart Ray Walker to assist on the case—is wonderfully nimble-minded and yet perhaps suspicious. Irene Ware is earnest and intelligent as the niece of rich old uncles in whose house the mystery develops—but she's obviously hiding something. Hedda Hopper bustles in occasionally with energy and smarts as an aunt who seems to know plenty but isn't saying just what.

Not a fancy movie, but one that's paced just about right: The action certainly moves along quickly, but care is taken to allow us time to notice which characters are thinking a bit more than they're saying. Irene Ware's character, for example, is given an extra moment of screen time here and there—just enough of an extra glance for us in the audience to see quite clearly that she's holding something back. Again, it's not fancy or subtle—but it does show that director Charles Lamont was paying attention.

The dialog is crisp enough; the actors move with energy. Hopper and Churchill, in particular, appear to enjoy themselves immensely in their roles.

My only complaint is that the sound is badly chopped up in the version I saw. Lines are dropped and cut into pieces (including in a couple of key moments!). I can only assume that the print from which this came had been shown about a hundred times and broken and been spliced in about that many places. Oh, well—I can live with that. Otherwise: a top-notch B mystery.

Chesterfield does it again--a tidy whodunit that, surprisingly, holds up pretty well despite its age. The race between the two detectives is quite droll and interesting; it shows, once again, that the fundamental lesson of integration between the old and the new still applies--regardless of decade and/or century. Of course, as the film was lensed nearly 70 years ago, some of the technical aspects of the plot do not age well. And, unless I missed something, I would have preferred a little more detail into the motive for the crime. Despite these minor quibbles, it was a relatively enjoyable 71 minutes, especially when Hedda Hopper was chewing up the scenery.l

Henry Carson is found dead slumped over his desk in the library. Because of the slightness of the wound and the lack of bleeding there is a mystery about the way he has been murdered. Henry had been a curmudgeon and it's only his brother Charles who shows any real signs of grief over his death. And he seems to be concerned that he may be next to die in such a way.

There are two investigators on the case. The old experienced hand who is actually retired and the young one who shows how green he is or at least that's how the elder one thinks of him. Both have an interest in the Carson household chiefly through their associations with Elsa who is heir and niece to the Carson brothers. Landis the younger investigator is engaged to her. The older investigator Bernard has also an interest in George Carson and his new butler Foot as he has been investigating them both for years.

I don't think I've ever been confronted by so many clues as I was in this whodunit. It was puzzling when trying to piece all of them together into one cohesive idea of how and why the murders were committed. The suspects include a chemist who is experimenting on poison gas and an intruder who turns out to have a pathetic tale to tell and just about everybody else in the story. There is an impression that some characters are covering up for other characters. And there is an air of a slightly unusual grayness to the humor and the ending is certainly unconventional.

This mystery film is unusual is that there are two quite different (old & retired vs. young & active on the police force) detectives on the case, & they are both competent & work well together. Usually, Hollywood would be expected to have at least one of them take the comic element, but here they are both serious & both effective! Aside from trying to guess "who done it?," the viewer also finds him/herself wondering which of the two detectives will solve the case first, & this aspect adds to the excitement. There are plenty of suspects here, & the film moves along briskly. Berton Churchill is especially good as the older detective, & reminds me of a smaller version of the great Sydney Greenstreet. I rate this 8/10.