MikeMagi
The real mystery here is how -- and why -- this movie got made. At a mythical college where most of the students have apparently been flunking for years -- since they're all in their thirties -- a body is found hanging outside a dorm window. Suicide? Nah! That'd only be a short subject. The poor lad was bumped off, a murder followed by two more. And if you haven't figured out who the culprit is about five minutes in, it's time to brush up on your 1930s grade-C thrillers. Charles Starrett in the days before he rode the range, can obviously act. His girl friend (whose name I'll omit out of respect) struggles to say a few lines. Hopefully, she moved on to a more suitable career. One last question. Can anyone who's seen the movie tell me why the killings were committed? If so, you're way ahead of the screenwriter.
csteidler
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.
Red-Barracuda
One night in a college campus a man commits suicide. Or rather he is murdered and left for dead as if he had. From here on in his friends try to piece together the mystery and discover who the killer is.A Shot in the Dark is yet another 30's mystery film. These types of films were ten a penny in the decade for some reason. I can't say I thought too much of this one though unfortunately. While it does move through its plot-line fairly methodically and logically, and while it also mercifully does not have an annoying comedy relief character I just found myself somewhat bored to tell you the absolute truth. It was slow and quite uneventful, relying on detective staples rather than thriller ones. Although one thing is for sure, college students have certainly changed a lot in the past 75 years.
Hitchcoc
The strength of this film is a pretty complex plot. There are a few layers we need to wade through and that's a good thing. Once that was established, the film becomes worthwhile. There are so many other things that are really hard for the modern viewer. First of all, most of the college students seem to be about thirty-five years old, fully mature, looking more like bank executives. We have the father who writes mystery novels who just moves in and takes over. The handling of evidence and the ignorance of the police force is all so contrived. We have the young woman who does nothing but sit in the shadows. We have a chance to solve the crime and they send her into a room where she is almost killed. There's no reason for this. I did enjoy Everett Sloan, whom I remember as Van Helsing from the Lugosi Dracula. His voice is delightful. I also got a kick out of all the smoking that the self declared detective did. He was constantly blowing smoke in people's faces and couldn't seem to get through two minutes without lighting up. I wonder what the lung cancer rate was back then. This is worth a watch and has some surprises even with its rough edges.
AD
