There is nothing super-special about this ensemble murder mystery -- a rich man is killed and everyone is a suspect -- but it is notable as one of a number of detective films of its era to feature mid 20th century depictions of mystics, seances, seers, fortune tellers, fake physics, and the like. Misha Auer has a nice turn as Swami Yomurda, and therefore the movie joins my collection of B-Movies with occultism themes. There is something intriguing to me about this sort of exoticism -- it is rarely respectful of the occult, but it always spices up the proceedings and can also provide an excuse for some nifty set dressing and costuming.
16 Reviews
Formula Works, Sort Of, Watson (Watkins)
Hitchcoc25 October 2007
Apparently this was an early "talky" and that might account for the long pauses between speeches and the stilted acting. It's a typical who done it, with the long list of suspects. There are two points where the head detective stops the show and explains who each of them is and what they did. It has the last drawing room thing which is kind of fun, actually. I wouldn't want this on a regular basis, but it's kind of cool. The plot involves a murder during a séance (which the detective pronounces "see ons." There is a swami and a silly detective who is continuously being called Watson instead of Watkins. He is incompetent and no help. It's as if the police trained in a guy for his comedy relief. There are a couple gangsters (one named Lefty Louie), and a bunch of other saps, including a virginal secretary with horn rimmed glasses and a prissy suit. Anyway, they are all kept in place so one has to have done it. It has a somewhat satisfying conclusion. As with most of these stories or books, we need to keep rethinking things. It's an OK film with an interesting cast.
Okay run of the mill mystery done in by the passage of time which makes the pacing a bit tough to take
dbborroughs24 January 2006
If you like murder mysteries the you've seen this movie before, probably at least a hundred times. The plot is the typical a group of people are staying at the home of a rich man who turns up dead. The police arrive to flush out the killer and its quickly revealed that everyone wanted the guy dead. Its an early sound version of the plot line you've come to know and love. Spicing things up is the addition of an Oriental fortune teller played by Misha Auer. The introductions to most of the characters come during a reading he is doing for one of the people staying at the house. Its a unique twist to the proceedings. Auer himself ends up at the house and it is during a gathering for a séance that the murder occurs.
Despite my low rating this is not a bad movie. The cast is good the mystery serviceable. The problem is that time has not been particularly kind to this movie. Its pacing is now rather slack and it seems to just go on and on. The action is a bit static. The film being a relatively early sound film is very talky at times. The detective once he appears is capable of chattering on and on a good deal. The flaws are not fatal, but since this is a path I had been down before numerous times I found that I wasn't enjoying it as much as I would if I wasn't a mystery fan.
If you're curious try it, though be warned its the type of thing you've seen before.
Despite my low rating this is not a bad movie. The cast is good the mystery serviceable. The problem is that time has not been particularly kind to this movie. Its pacing is now rather slack and it seems to just go on and on. The action is a bit static. The film being a relatively early sound film is very talky at times. The detective once he appears is capable of chattering on and on a good deal. The flaws are not fatal, but since this is a path I had been down before numerous times I found that I wasn't enjoying it as much as I would if I wasn't a mystery fan.
If you're curious try it, though be warned its the type of thing you've seen before.
Pure camp
lor_24 December 2023
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!
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!
Talk about having a familiar plot!
planktonrules29 September 2018
"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.
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.
Subpar Murder Mystery
boblipton30 December 2018
The lights are turned out during a seance, When the lights come back on, Phillips Smalley is dead with a knife in his back. Detective Captain Jack Mulhall comes to investigate and soon discovers that almost all present had motives to kill him and, given the dark, had opportunity. So who did it?
It's a typical cheap mystery directed by Armand Schaefer and not, alas, a well constructed one. Although I figured out whodunnit before it was revealed, vital clues were not shown to the audience until Mulhall begins his summation -- with all the suspects in the room, natch -- which is not playing fair with the mystery aspect of the movie. Also, despite some good lighting by William Nobles -- his first movie was a Mary Pickford vehicle, but he soon sank into the ranks of B cameramen and never recovered -- is there much in the way of interesting action. Instead, it's a nearly constant stream of talk, pausing only to show a clue to the mystery.
It's a typical cheap mystery directed by Armand Schaefer and not, alas, a well constructed one. Although I figured out whodunnit before it was revealed, vital clues were not shown to the audience until Mulhall begins his summation -- with all the suspects in the room, natch -- which is not playing fair with the mystery aspect of the movie. Also, despite some good lighting by William Nobles -- his first movie was a Mary Pickford vehicle, but he soon sank into the ranks of B cameramen and never recovered -- is there much in the way of interesting action. Instead, it's a nearly constant stream of talk, pausing only to show a clue to the mystery.
"Material demonstration is the only evidence of complete faith".
classicsoncall31 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Given the timing right out of the silent era, this one might be forgiven for it's plodding dialog and long pauses during conversations between characters. Then again, if you're not in a forgiving mood, this might just be one of the most boring flicks you'll ever force yourself to sit through. The set up is reasonable enough, one of those self contained, lights out murder mysteries where just about everyone present had reason enough to kill the victim. I think the film writers went a little overboard peppering the suspects with a couple of ex-cons from the North Side Clan, but at least they kept investigator Devlin (Jack Mulhall) on his toes.
One unique twist to the story had to do with that 'magic slate' that the Swami used to write a cryptic message about the murder victim. By use of a magnet, he was able to manipulate a piece of steel core chalk sandwiched between two blackboards. Interesting concept, but why didn't the chalk produce a mirror image message on the alternate blackboard?
Even though the picture proceeds at a snail's pace, there are a couple of genuine laugh out loud moments to relieve the agony. How about when Detective Devlin grabs Lefty Louie by his lapels to question him about the murder - that was so over the top I had to howl. Then there was Nick Genna's defense, uttered twice, why he couldn't be the killer - he never uses a knife! Like that would have stopped him if he really meant to kill somebody. The Watkins/Watson gimmick would have worked out just fine if it hadn't been so overdone.
I got a kick out of Mischa Auer as the phony Swami Yomurda (with slight change in pronunciation, it would sound like yo-murda!). The following year, Auer portrayed another Swami in the picture "Sucker Money", but in that one he was a truly evil and scary character. That film had more to do with exposing the fake psychic racket, and of the two is the stronger picture. Another decent recommendation if you like stuff like this would be one of the Charlie Chan flicks from 1944 entitled "Black Magic". It's got everything this one does, but moves along at a quicker pace with the help of Sidney Toler and Mantan Moreland.
One unique twist to the story had to do with that 'magic slate' that the Swami used to write a cryptic message about the murder victim. By use of a magnet, he was able to manipulate a piece of steel core chalk sandwiched between two blackboards. Interesting concept, but why didn't the chalk produce a mirror image message on the alternate blackboard?
Even though the picture proceeds at a snail's pace, there are a couple of genuine laugh out loud moments to relieve the agony. How about when Detective Devlin grabs Lefty Louie by his lapels to question him about the murder - that was so over the top I had to howl. Then there was Nick Genna's defense, uttered twice, why he couldn't be the killer - he never uses a knife! Like that would have stopped him if he really meant to kill somebody. The Watkins/Watson gimmick would have worked out just fine if it hadn't been so overdone.
I got a kick out of Mischa Auer as the phony Swami Yomurda (with slight change in pronunciation, it would sound like yo-murda!). The following year, Auer portrayed another Swami in the picture "Sucker Money", but in that one he was a truly evil and scary character. That film had more to do with exposing the fake psychic racket, and of the two is the stronger picture. Another decent recommendation if you like stuff like this would be one of the Charlie Chan flicks from 1944 entitled "Black Magic". It's got everything this one does, but moves along at a quicker pace with the help of Sidney Toler and Mantan Moreland.
Amusing Little Murder Mystery Well Done for 1932
jayraskin117 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This was directed by Armand Schaefer. He only directed about two dozen movies in the thirties, mainly Westerns, but they included "The Three Musketeers" with John Wayne and "The Miracle Ryder" which was the last movie of Tom Mix. Schaefer shows a nice, simple clean style and gets good production values out of this obviously low-budget film. He went on to produce the popular "Annie Oakley" and "Gene Autry" television series in the 1950's.
I spotted two recognizable actors with long careers, the lead detective, Jack Mulhall, and the Hindu Swami, Mischa Auer. Jack Mulhall was a major silent film star starting in 1914. He starred in over 150 movies from 1914 to 1933. After 1933, he hit 50, and good roles disappeared. He hung around in Hollywood doing bit parts and uncredited extra roles for the next 25 years. Mischa Auer usually played a mad Russian. He was the first to die in the Rene Clair version of Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None". Both give nice, professional performances here.
The gimmick in this murder mystery is that the victim appears to solve his own murder by recording an argument on a Dictaphone, one of the first primitive home recording instruments. Then again the killer just might be that creepy future seeing Swami faker that his wife likes so much. Or maybe its his oddly manly looking Lesbian assistant that does him in. There are three or four more good suspects along the way. Suspicion is thrown nicely on each suspect in turn.
The best line, "Don't call me, Watson, My name is Watkins," gets delivered several times with amateur gusto by the lead detective's assistant.
Altogether this is a rather classic and nifty one hour murder mystery story. The minor technical glitches, common for low budget films of the period, like moments of silence on the sound-track, can easily be overlooked and forgiven.
I spotted two recognizable actors with long careers, the lead detective, Jack Mulhall, and the Hindu Swami, Mischa Auer. Jack Mulhall was a major silent film star starting in 1914. He starred in over 150 movies from 1914 to 1933. After 1933, he hit 50, and good roles disappeared. He hung around in Hollywood doing bit parts and uncredited extra roles for the next 25 years. Mischa Auer usually played a mad Russian. He was the first to die in the Rene Clair version of Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None". Both give nice, professional performances here.
The gimmick in this murder mystery is that the victim appears to solve his own murder by recording an argument on a Dictaphone, one of the first primitive home recording instruments. Then again the killer just might be that creepy future seeing Swami faker that his wife likes so much. Or maybe its his oddly manly looking Lesbian assistant that does him in. There are three or four more good suspects along the way. Suspicion is thrown nicely on each suspect in turn.
The best line, "Don't call me, Watson, My name is Watkins," gets delivered several times with amateur gusto by the lead detective's assistant.
Altogether this is a rather classic and nifty one hour murder mystery story. The minor technical glitches, common for low budget films of the period, like moments of silence on the sound-track, can easily be overlooked and forgiven.
Swami, how I loved you...How I love you...
mark.waltz26 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Just as cold as the cobras of his native India. And just as deadly. This is what the law indicates about alleged mind reader Mischa Auer, psychic to a wacky socialite whose husband is suddenly murdered at a séance she organized to introduce him. The detectives of a rather dumb nature cone running in, and it's up to a smarter detective to put all the pieces together to solve this crime.
Creaky but amusing, this thriller has moments of deafening silence that makes for a few tedious moments. An entertaining performance by Mischa Auer as the mysterious swami who seems to be the most obvious choice for the killer, although there are plenty of others including the victim's daughter's boyfriend who is involved in the mob. A butler with a criminal past is also among the suspects as is the daffy wife. Slow moving at times with little musical soundtrack to hide the statically soundtrack. But ultimately, it's a fun programmer with good art direction and a wild sense of fun. And remember, "Don't call me Watson."
Creaky but amusing, this thriller has moments of deafening silence that makes for a few tedious moments. An entertaining performance by Mischa Auer as the mysterious swami who seems to be the most obvious choice for the killer, although there are plenty of others including the victim's daughter's boyfriend who is involved in the mob. A butler with a criminal past is also among the suspects as is the daffy wife. Slow moving at times with little musical soundtrack to hide the statically soundtrack. But ultimately, it's a fun programmer with good art direction and a wild sense of fun. And remember, "Don't call me Watson."
Excellent Poverty Row Mystery
magicshadows-9009817 January 2017
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.
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.
You can skip this one - unless you're an ardent Mulhall fan!
JohnHowardReid20 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Jack Mulhall (Detective Devlin), Phyllis Barrington (Ruth Frazer), Crauford Kent (Judge McLeod), Mischa Auer (Swami), Jimmy Burtis (Watkins), Phillips Smalley (Richard Lang), Louis Natheaux (Nick Genna), Fletcher Norton (Lefty Lewis), Gertrude Messenger (Betty Lang), Lillian West (Mrs Lang), Lloyd Ingraham (Frazer), Helen Foster (Vivian Rogers), Bess Flowers (Mary Browne), Russell Collar (Tommy Lang), Henry Hall (chief of police), Jack Cheatham (Kennedy), Allan Cavan (coroner).
Director: ARMAND SCHAEFER. Screenplay: Norton Parker. Adapted by Oliver Drake from a novel The Séance Mystery by Norton Parker. Photography: William Nobles. Film editor: Ethel Davey. Assistant director: William O'Connor. Sound recording: Earl Crain. Producer: Willis Kent. Produced at Talisman Studios.
Not copyrighted by Willis Kent Productions. No recorded New York opening. U.S. release: 22 February 1932. 65 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: Unpopular husband/father/businessman is murdered during a séance.
COMMENT: Despite a surprisingly fair quantity of good production values in the first half of this thriller, plus some admirable attempts by director Schaefer to add interest to the proceedings with some rather shaky dolly and pan shots, this turns out to be a rather humdrum mystery. (I almost wrote "mystery thriller", but the mystery is nowhere near "mysterious" and it is also decidedly light on "thrills'!)
Yes, action is not only decidedly minimal, but most fans will have no trouble arriving at the identity of the killer.
As usual, Mulhall makes a dull detective, while Miss Barrington has little to do.
In the support cast, only the lovely young siren so appealingly portrayed by Gertrude Messenger and the butler-in-disguise rendered by comparatively charismatic Fletcher Norton, really shine.
Director: ARMAND SCHAEFER. Screenplay: Norton Parker. Adapted by Oliver Drake from a novel The Séance Mystery by Norton Parker. Photography: William Nobles. Film editor: Ethel Davey. Assistant director: William O'Connor. Sound recording: Earl Crain. Producer: Willis Kent. Produced at Talisman Studios.
Not copyrighted by Willis Kent Productions. No recorded New York opening. U.S. release: 22 February 1932. 65 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: Unpopular husband/father/businessman is murdered during a séance.
COMMENT: Despite a surprisingly fair quantity of good production values in the first half of this thriller, plus some admirable attempts by director Schaefer to add interest to the proceedings with some rather shaky dolly and pan shots, this turns out to be a rather humdrum mystery. (I almost wrote "mystery thriller", but the mystery is nowhere near "mysterious" and it is also decidedly light on "thrills'!)
Yes, action is not only decidedly minimal, but most fans will have no trouble arriving at the identity of the killer.
As usual, Mulhall makes a dull detective, while Miss Barrington has little to do.
In the support cast, only the lovely young siren so appealingly portrayed by Gertrude Messenger and the butler-in-disguise rendered by comparatively charismatic Fletcher Norton, really shine.
Had All the Familiar Markings
view_and_review13 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
"Sinister Hands" is a murder mystery that had all the familiar markings of a 1930's murder mystery. It took place on a large estate, there were a number of potential suspects, and the lights went out (which is my least favorite trope).
A bunch of people were at Richard Lang's home for a gathering. During that time we were introduced to several people and they all had some type of issue: jealousy, greed, or spite. Their issues weren't all with the same person as happens in some murder mysteries, but Richard Lang (Phillips Smalley) was the one who got the knife in the back.
In the room at the time of the stab in the dark (which is funny because "stab in the dark" indicates a good chance of missing/losing, but in old movies killers were frequently able to accurately stab in the dark) were ten guests. Just about every guest had at least a modicum of a motive.
Where "Sinister Hands" messed up is with the interrogation. The detective, Capt. Herbert Devlin (Jack Mulhall) grilled everyone but Judge David McLeod (Crauford Kent) which was a dead give away.
In the 30's if a person was grilled hard enough they would crack. Everyone Devlin interrogated adamantly pronounced their innocence which meant they were innocent. Back then anyone who was adamant about a thing was always telling the truth. So, all the likely suspects he interviewed were dismissed, which left the person he did not interrogate: Judge McLeod. Had "Sinister Hands" been a little less obvious the movie would've been much better.
"Sinister Hands" also didn't do itself any favors with the mandatory dumb cop who thinks they know who the criminal is with every clue ala Eugene Pallette in all of the Philo Vance movies.
A bunch of people were at Richard Lang's home for a gathering. During that time we were introduced to several people and they all had some type of issue: jealousy, greed, or spite. Their issues weren't all with the same person as happens in some murder mysteries, but Richard Lang (Phillips Smalley) was the one who got the knife in the back.
In the room at the time of the stab in the dark (which is funny because "stab in the dark" indicates a good chance of missing/losing, but in old movies killers were frequently able to accurately stab in the dark) were ten guests. Just about every guest had at least a modicum of a motive.
Where "Sinister Hands" messed up is with the interrogation. The detective, Capt. Herbert Devlin (Jack Mulhall) grilled everyone but Judge David McLeod (Crauford Kent) which was a dead give away.
In the 30's if a person was grilled hard enough they would crack. Everyone Devlin interrogated adamantly pronounced their innocence which meant they were innocent. Back then anyone who was adamant about a thing was always telling the truth. So, all the likely suspects he interviewed were dismissed, which left the person he did not interrogate: Judge McLeod. Had "Sinister Hands" been a little less obvious the movie would've been much better.
"Sinister Hands" also didn't do itself any favors with the mandatory dumb cop who thinks they know who the criminal is with every clue ala Eugene Pallette in all of the Philo Vance movies.
very (silly) typical film from the early 1930s
ksf-23 July 2018
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...
Thoroughly Pedestrian
dougdoepke24 October 2015
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.
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.
"Don't Call Me Watson"!!!
kidboots4 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
When movies began to talk, seance mysteries were all the rage - they were gripping and had the advantage of only needing one indoor sound stage. Willis Kent Prod. was an outdoor quickie outfit specialising in westerns who turned it's hand to this oddball thriller that made much use of Mischa Auer's exoticism. The director, Armand Schaefer, had worked for Mack Sennett and Mary Pickford as well as bottom of the barrell Action Pictures before finding himself at Willis Kent where he was assigned to Lane Chandler westerns.
Mr Lang (Phillips Smalley) has many enemies - Mrs. Lang is sending him broke handing over 1,000's of dollars to a charlatan fortune teller, Swami Yormurda (Auer), his daughter, Betty, (Gertrude Messinger from Fox Kid pictures) is involved with a gangster, a neighbour has threatened Lang because of Lang's interest in his wife, Lang's secretary (the perennial Bess Flowers) has been stealing from him and even his loyal butler is an ex-con called Lefty Lewis. And they all just happened to be gathered for a seance that night so when Lang is found dead, everyone is a suspect.
Jack Mulhall really lifts the film with his breezy and glib portrayal of Detective Devlin, who along with his dumb-bell associate Watkins ("don't call me Watson") establishes that the murderer is not only a male but also left handed. Phyllis Barrington is the female star but in this sea of bleached blondes she doesn't really stand out. Another actress playing a flirtatious neighbour was Helen Foster who only a couple of years before had been one of the stars in "The Gold Diggers of Broadway" but, like Barrington, in this movie didn't get a chance to shine.
Audiences at the time would have no doubt about who the killer was - being used to these sort of cheap mysteries. Suspecting the only person with no motive and as Devlin observed a couple of times through the movie he was an athletic man "above suspicion"!!!
Mr Lang (Phillips Smalley) has many enemies - Mrs. Lang is sending him broke handing over 1,000's of dollars to a charlatan fortune teller, Swami Yormurda (Auer), his daughter, Betty, (Gertrude Messinger from Fox Kid pictures) is involved with a gangster, a neighbour has threatened Lang because of Lang's interest in his wife, Lang's secretary (the perennial Bess Flowers) has been stealing from him and even his loyal butler is an ex-con called Lefty Lewis. And they all just happened to be gathered for a seance that night so when Lang is found dead, everyone is a suspect.
Jack Mulhall really lifts the film with his breezy and glib portrayal of Detective Devlin, who along with his dumb-bell associate Watkins ("don't call me Watson") establishes that the murderer is not only a male but also left handed. Phyllis Barrington is the female star but in this sea of bleached blondes she doesn't really stand out. Another actress playing a flirtatious neighbour was Helen Foster who only a couple of years before had been one of the stars in "The Gold Diggers of Broadway" but, like Barrington, in this movie didn't get a chance to shine.
Audiences at the time would have no doubt about who the killer was - being used to these sort of cheap mysteries. Suspecting the only person with no motive and as Devlin observed a couple of times through the movie he was an athletic man "above suspicion"!!!
"Just As Cold As The Cobras Of His Native India!"...
azathothpwiggins30 August 2021
A group of zillionaires is gathered in a mansion to witness Swami Yomurda (Mischa Auer) demonstrate his mystical powers. Two minutes into the seance the lights go out, and when they come back on someone lies dead on the floor!
Almost everyone in the room has a motive for killing the victim.
SINISTER HANDS has the standard "old dark house" plot, set up, and rogue's gallery of suspects. There's even a tough-talking detective and his goofy sidekick!
Fans of this sub-genre won't find anything groundbreaking here, but it's nonetheless entertaining...
Almost everyone in the room has a motive for killing the victim.
SINISTER HANDS has the standard "old dark house" plot, set up, and rogue's gallery of suspects. There's even a tough-talking detective and his goofy sidekick!
Fans of this sub-genre won't find anything groundbreaking here, but it's nonetheless entertaining...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
