“The Monster Walks” (1932)

The Monster Walks

Brief Description: 

The late Mr. Earlton’s monkey hates his daughter, Ruth, and Ruth is terrified of him. She has left home for a while, but due to her father’s sudden death she has returned with her fiancé to read her father’s will. Everything is left to her… but if she dies, who will get it? And is the monkey out to get her?

(possibly written by me, possibly taken from Tubi, IMDb, or Wikipedia and edited by me. I forget)

Date: 1932

Genre: American horror

Running time: 1 hour

Cast: 

Rex Lease (Ted)

Vera Reynolds (Ruth)

Sheldon Lewis (Robert)

Mischa Auer (Hanns)

Martha Mattox (Mrs. Krug)

Sidney Bracey (Wilkes)

Sleep’n’Eat a.k.a. Willie Best (Exodus)

Director: Frank R. Strayer

Production company: Action Pictures

Wikipedia page

Watch on Archive

(watched on Tubi)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 3/5

Good horror movie setting—a thunderous rainstorm and a draughty house. But it felt a little forced to me, since it was only focussed on in “scary” moments and ignored the rest of the time.

Characters: 2/5

I wasn’t fond of Mrs. Krug sometimes but overall she was sweet to Ruth. Ruth was a nice, brave girl if slightly flat and one-dimensional (clearly only meant to be the damsel in distress). The uncle was creepy, Wilkes was weird, Hans felt off, Exodus was the stereotypical “funny stupid black character.” The doctor [Ted] was a nice guy with some character though. 

Plot: 2/5

I thought this was supposed to be an exciting mystery with narrow escapes. Instead, it’s clear who the baddies are from the beginning and what they’re trying to do, and it takes the good guys what feels like an inordinate amount of time to figure it out. Also the ape was NOT scary so I don’t see why he even figured and I felt very cheated. I felt like the whole thing was supposed to be creepy but it just came off silly and weak and dirty. 

Romance: 4/5

Ruth & Ted had a sweet relationship, and I loved how careful he was of her and how he believed her and looked after her without belittling her. 

Content: 2/5 (high)

Illegitimacy; inter-family murdering and attempt to murder; perhaps adultery??

Violence: 3/5 (medium)

Animal mistreatment; two on-screen strangulations. 

Overall: 2/5

I was looking for something to “tickle my brains” and give me some suspenseful animation. Instead it just felt cheap and vulgar and flat. 

“Night of Terror” (1933)

Night of Terror

Also known as He Lived to Kill and Terror in the Night

Brief Description: 

A maniac is roving a countryside, murdering various people and leaving them with newspaper clippings about him pinned to their bodies. The police are at an absolute loss. Inside Professor Rinehart’s home, all attention is focussed on his nephew’s experiment: he has invented a solution to keep people alive without breathing and he will test it out by being buried alive the next day, before the critical eyes of other scientists. But tragedy strikes and murders within the home begin to mount… has the maniac decided to eliminate them all?

(possibly written by me, possibly taken from Tubi, IMDb, or Wikipedia and edited by me. I forget)

Date: 1933

Genre: American horror

Running time: 1 hour 2 minutes

Cast: 

Bela Lugosi (Degar)

Sally Blane (Mary)

Wallace Ford (Hartley)

Tully Marshall (Rinehart)

George Meeker (Arthur)

Gertrude Michael (Sarah)

Bryant Washburn (John)

Mary Frey (Sika)

Director: Benjamin Stoloff

Production company: Columbia Pictures

Wikipedia page

(IMBd page)

Watch on Archive

(watched on Tubi)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 1/5

I’ve watched several 1940s horror movies and became rather blasé about them because they were very mild. Well, this one was a horror movie and no mistake. The aesthetic was shadowy and dark and creepy. For a horror aesthetic, it was good, I suppose, if you like horror. I don’t. So personally, 1/5.

Characters: 1/5

No one was likeable in this film except for Degar and Sika, and she was in contact with demons, so not very nice in that respect, while he was a liar and was cast as the villain for half the movie, which drove me wild. I don’t like spooky guys. Also he didn’t look one bit Indian—he came across as a German wearing a turban and pretending to be a Ram Dass type of fellow. 

Mary was stupid and flirted with the journalist when she was engaged to Arthur. I did like how she stood up for Sika and Degar though. The journalist [Tom Hartley] was loud and rude and forced himself on Mary. The police sergeant [Rinehart] was obnoxious, stupid, and pigheaded. (Sharp-tongued, snappy men in uniform aren’t appealing.) Moses had some of the horrid “stupid-funny black character” stamp, although he wasn’t as bad as some I’ve seen. 

I hated Arthur. The aunt and uncle were racist. The scientists were the only indifferently okay ones. And the taxi driver was nice. And I suppose Prof. Rinehart was decent. 

Plot: 1/5

A insane serial killer is roving around a house, coming in and out, climbing all over it, killing about five people, and NO ONE does anything about it?! No locking doors and windows, setting guards, calling for a manhunt, NADA ZILCH ZERO?! I know horror movies exist on dumb characters, and I know in real life we’d not know it was horror and probably be dumb too, but Y’ALL. This is downright excessively dumb.

That plot point aside, the mystery was well done in that I couldn’t figure out who did what. However, I thought the whole buried dead alive thing was pretty ridiculous to focus on when people are dropping like flies thanks to a homicidal maniac. (Also that ending is hilarious cheap comedic fright stuff.) And I got tired how overdone the deaths were and how no one cared at the end, and I was really bugged by the first scene because I didn’t need to see a sweet romance being ended by both people being murdered—that scene was super creepy and also HOW DID THEY NOT NOTICE HIM? Maybe I’m just more paranoid than most folks…?!

I know, horror isn’t my thing, okay? 

Romance: 1/5 

Bleh. I don’t find guys of Hartley’s overconfident stamp appealing. He was straight up wrong in the way he treated Mary and it’s not romantic. I don’t care if “deep down she did love him,” right then she BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE and also KEPT TELLING HIM TO QUIT and he wouldn’t. Apparently no doesn’t mean “no,” it means “chase me harder.” I’m not a feminist but I do know a gentlemen should back off when asked to. Fitzwilliam Darcy, anyone? 

Theme/Message/Topics: 0/5

No theme. Except maybe that racism is wrong.

Content: 2/5 (high)

A few euphemisms (“d*rn,” etc); smoking; a seance; racist comments against Indians; mockery of a black man; 3 on-screen kisses, two unwanted by the girl. Hartley also gives Mary a bunch of compliments, one being slightly racy for the time. 

Violence: 3/5 (between low and medium...?)

No on-screen murders but plenty of “backed up in a corner screaming” shots and several off-screen murders. Plenty of horror. Lots of scary shots. 

Overall: 1/5

Yucky and dumb. I wasted an hour on this stuff? 

“Union Station” (1950)

 Union Station

Brief Description:

When a young secretary alerts police about two shady characters on her train, they discover the men have kidnapped her employer’s blind daughter. The father is convinced to reluctantly cooperate with police. But the ringleader will do anything to get his money and keep his freedom…

(probably written by me, possibly taken from Tubi, IMDb, or Wikipedia and edited by me)

Date: 1950

Genre: American mystery film noir crime drama romance thriller/suspense

Running time: 1 hour 20 minutes

Cast: 

William Holden (Calhoun)

Nancy Olson (Joyce)

Barry Fitzgerald (Donnelly)

Lyle Bettger (Beacom)

Jan Sterling (Marge)

Allene Roberts (Lorna)

Herbert Heyes (Murchison)

Director: Rudolph Maté

Production company: Paramount Pictures

Based on: Nightmare in Manhattan by Thomas Walsh

Wikipedia page 

Watch on Archive

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 5/5

The railway station setting was unique and very enjoyable as well as very realistic. I also appreciated the underground aspect! And the aesthetic was awesome—high heels, trench coats, soft hats, round curls… From the setting to the dialogue to the clothes to the actions, this had a very 1940s/1950s feel which I absolutely loved. 

Characters: 5/5

I really loved how although there were many characters, they all had their own personalities, even the many and hardly seen policeman! (And there were so many interesting, good-looking faces… ;P) I liked Fay, rough and gruff but stepping in to save Joyce. I hated Beacom, who struck me as the coldest villains I have ever seen on screen—not senselessly cruel, deliberately and uncaringly so. I loved the little Irish inspector, with his thick accent, his grandfatherly ways, and his enigmatic smile. I really liked how Joyce wasn’t exactly pretty, nor Calhoun handsome (unusual for this era, in my opinion) and how their personalities meshed—she, wearing her large heart on her sleeve and Calhoun hiding his deep beneath a rather indifferent and job-centred exterior. And although Marge was the stereotypical flippant, worldly-wise blonde, I liked how her script was flipped at the end.

Plot: 5/5

The plot kept me nailed to my computer screen. I felt like I had been transferred directly into the story and I was just as anxious to see if the bad guys were caught and the girl was okay. The storyline only covers about 2-4 days, but there’s a lot packed into there and it made the story seem that much more real (lots of films solve the mystery in 1-2 days or have a lot more incidents happen, while this one focussed solely on the kidnapping). 

Romance: 5/5

It was super cute, even if it was a tiny thread, and I loved that it was a sort of kind-enemies-to-lovers by which both improved the other and learned something good. And there was no stereotypical end kiss—just some sweet, funny words. 

Theme/Message/Topics: 5/5

Rather an unusual theme, but basically one about not letting your job consume you, and also about what it’s like for policemen—the cost of their job both for their families and for their hearts.

Content: 5/5 (low)

A few shots of drinking alcohol. 

Violence: 2/5 (high)

In two scenes, policemen knocked one of the bad guys around to elicit a confession and finally pretended to throw him under a moving train (which worked). Beacom gets physically aggressive with the kidnapped girl—shaking, dragging, and pushing, as well as slapping her off-screen; she does a lot of crying and screaming. A man is trampled to death by cows (non-graphic); two people are shot to death (non-graphic); a gunfight ends in a death (non-graphic).

Overall: 5/5

Besides all the on-screen violence, which I could have very well done without, this was all I ask for in a vintage mystery film—vibrant characters, a good storyline, lots of suspense, no content, sweet romance, and great vintage feels. I look forwards to watching it again!

“The Kennel Murder Case” (1933)

The Kennel Murder Case

Brief Description: 

A well-known and much hated man is murdered, and celebrated detective Phil Vance cuts off his vacation to investigate the crime. The more he finds, the more tangled things get, with no fewer than nine involved parties and possible suspects, several murder weapons, and a dog show.

(possibly written by me, possibly taken from Tubi, IMDb, or Wikipedia and edited by me. I forget)

Date: 1933 

Genre: American romance mystery drama crime

Running time: 1 hour 13 minutes

Cast: 

William Powell (Vance)

Mary Astor (Hilda)

Eugene Pallette (Heath)

Ralph Morgan (Raymond)

Robert McWade (Markham)

Robert Barrat (Archer)

Frank Conroy (Brisbane)

Etienne Girardot (Doremus)

Paul Cavanagh (Sir Thomas)

James Lee (Liang)

Arthur Hohl (Gamble)

Helen Vinson (Doris)

Jack La Rue (Grassi)

Director: Michael Curtiz

Production company: Warner Bros.

Based on: The Kennel Murder Case by S.S. Van Dine. 

Wikipedia page 

Watch on Archive

(watched on Tubi)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 3/5

The setting began in a dog show, but most of it ended up the murdered man’s and possible suspects’ homes, none of them very interesting, so setting was a bland 3/5. The aesthetic/feel was a rich, sporty, and citified, nothing unique—again an indifferent 3/5. I did appreciate the whiff of archaeology/collecting but it felt very undeveloped to me—just there for the plot, since the characters really had no interest in it at all. 

Characters: 3/5

I had a hard time telling who was who—everyone was so similar. Archer was decidedly unpleasant, but no one else was very nice, unless it was Liang. I did find him particularly interesting since he was not the usual Chinese cook of 1930s movies. 

Plot: 4/5

I found the movie beginning very bland and hard to follow, although that might just be that my version had rather bad sound. Once things started to happen, which they did fairly quickly, I was definitely invested in the mystery and couldn’t figure out “whodunit.” I had difficulty figuring out everyone’s arcs/plotlines, though… I felt like there was a lack of explanation; but again, it could simply be I didn’t understand everything said or didn’t pay enough attention. 

Romance: 2/5

A love triangle or three which didn’t make a lot of sense to me. Also, the detective had no romance, which I missed. Personal opinion. ;) 

Theme/Message/Topics: 0/5 

No message, except for a line about how collecting the artefacts of ancient China is not fair to the Chinese—excellent point. 

Content: 3/5 (medium)

It’s never explicitly stated but Coe has a lover who cheats on him. One “how the d**il.”

Violence: 4/5 (low)

2 murders, a dog killing, and an attempted murder—all off-screen. A sergeant threatens to beat someone up. 

Overall: 4/5

As a mystery, well done—it definitely kept me guessing up to the end. But it could have been done better, in my humble opinion.