Un cri dans la nuit

I have always been interested in Poverty Row films since I read the book Forgotten Horrors many years ago. While other reviewers say this is a standard mystery, I argue it is not the case. The standard is that usually a much hated man with many enemies is murdered. The twist here is that Richard Lang (Phillips Smalley) is successful and well liked. His problem are the women in his life. His wife has fallen for a phony mystic (Mischa Auer), while his daughter is enamored with a two bit gangster (Louis Natheaux). In fact every bum and crook in town seems to hang out at his estate because his wife and daughter are attracted to these types of men.

One evening Smalley announces at his home that the days of these parasites living off him has ended. Smalley is found murdered shortly thereafter. Police Detective Devlin (Jack Mulhall) arrives on the scene and quickly uncovers a couple more suspects. One curious aspect is that casting of Louis Natheaux as the gangster. He is suppose to be tough and handsome. The ladies can't resist him, yet he looks 40 years old, he is balding and very thin. Worst of all is his nasal, whiny voice. During a showdown with Smalley, Natheaux is suppose to be intimidating, but I suspect a fifth grader would find nothing to be afraid of.

There are some spooky, atmospheric parts during the swami's seances. The dialogue is quiet good and believable. I recommend this film to mystery lovers and poverty row aficionados like myself. This films isn't of the quality of the films at the major studios at the time, but by poverty row standards, a cut above average.

Sound and picture quality are pretty shaky, but this thing is already ninety years old, so i guess we're lucky to still have it in any form. Stars Jack Mulhall and Helen Foster. Opens with swami (Mischa Auer) seeing the future. Then we're watching the pool party, where Vivien invites everyone to a séance. The edits are all pretty awkward and choppy. The lights go out, and of course, someone is moidered at the millionaire's house. His wife and daughter have been hanging out with shady characters, and of course, everyone there is now a suspect. The acting is hokey, the directing is hokey, and the story itself is silly too. Looks like the whole thing was filmed at the director's own house, over a long weekend. More bodies start piling up. Something odd must have happened to actor James Burtis (Detective Watkins) .. he did mostly uncredited roles, died young at 46. It's showing on the Moonlight Movies Channel... meh. Directed by Armand Schaefer. Written by Norton Parker. Aint no thang...

"Sinister Hands" is all too familiar for fans of old movies. The plot is one of hte most overused ones of the 1930s and 40s....so it's easy to skip this one, believe me!

The film opens by introducing a millionaire and all the folks around him. One by one, you see that everyone has a potential reason to murder him. And, when it eventually occurs, you know that some smarty-pants detective will come and determine which of the guests offed the old man.

It's a familiar plot, as I've already said, and this low budget film has done NOTHING to improve upon the same basic plot I've seen 30,000 times already. The acting is stileted and there's simply nothing about it that demads to be seen. Overall, a bit dull and a cheapo film that is, at best, a time passer.

Getting old can surely help a movie's entertainment value, as this low-budget very traditional murder mystery offers ready-made camp content. I attended innumerable premieres of extreme flops over the decades, and it's a fact that people are often quite forgiving many years later when nothing (money) is on the line -I would cite "Heaven's Gate" which I saw in NYC at its disastrous first public showing as a prime example.

The almost constant array of cliches and corny elements (most notably attempted comic relief of the cop detective's sidekick insisting over and over and over "Don't call me Watson!" burlesque routine) are fun over 90 years after they were recorded. And what's wrong with having fun at the movies?

For me, the barrage of clues, a gimmick still very much in vogue (see: Daniel Craig in that new and popular series of "Knives Out" films, which by the way is the weapon of choice in "Sinister Hands") is fun, and I was able to use them to guess the killer correctly quite early on. And the lengthy list of suspects, played by nonenties (with the exception of the sinister swami played by the great Mischa Auer) was quite easy to follow via adequate stereotyping. Nothing could be cornier than the arrogant behavior of the police captain/detective (Jack Mulhall) and his gathering everyone in a room to confront them and explain everything leading up to fingering the killer!

It's a no-name cast in a thoroughly pedestrian whodunit. In fact, in my view the high point comes unscripted, at the beginning with the high-living crowd around the mansion's pool. They look like they're genuinely having fun, and given the swimsuit clinches, we know it's pre-Code. As the swami, I guess "mad Russian" Mischa Auer is supposed to supply the exotica. Trouble is he projects the height but not the gravitas to be really compelling. Of course, sleuth dramas of the 30's had to have a hare-brained assistant to supply the comic relief. Here it's Watson, oops, I mean Watkins supplying the silliness.

Probably the production didn't cost more than a buck eighty since it rarely leaves the drawing room or hallway. Then too, the whodunit part remains too underdeveloped by a crowd of suspects. Looks like the screenplay realized this in the reveal part. Also looks like the production company, Willis Kent, went later into cheap exploitation films. I guess that's not surprising. Anyway, I wish there were something to recommend here, but to me, the result rarely rises above the blandly forgettable.