Clevercell
Very disappointing...
Moustroll
Good movie but grossly overrated
Bumpy Chip
It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
Spuzzlightyear
Another fun Charlie Chan Movie! This time, he's in Monte Carlo, and yes, another poor soul is murdered. He's assisted by the great Harold Huber as Monte Carlo's chief of police while they try to solve the murder. I liked this one more than others, because at least they TRIED for my authenticity this time, a lot of people speak French, which IS what they do in French- Language speaking countries right? Not like his adventure in Shanghai, where everyone Chan encountered spoke perfect English. So there was a bit of fun language barrier comedy. The mystery is pretty easy to guess, all in all, a great addition to the Orland Chan series.
r-c-s
This movie offers a lot of 'comic' distraction that is not always welcome (the 'son n.1' bit is annoying, with the character being hyper and befuddled like he had drunk five liters of black coffee spiked with crack ), but in the end turns out better than other Chan movies in this respect. The plot follows the usual path of rounding up several suspects...but this time the real murderer isn't among the suspects. The general plot contrivance is good and provides good entertainment. Not the best Chan movie but not the worst by far; of course one has to love the cliché these movies follow. This one really offers interesting plot twists.
bensonmum2
Traveling from Monte Carlo to Nice, Charlie Chan and No.1 son Lee discover and abandoned car. Inside the car, they find the dead body of a bank messenger who was transporting $1 million in bonds belonging to a wealthy industrialist named Victor Karnoff. There is no shortage of suspects: Paul Savarin – Karnoff's business rival; Joan Karnoff – Victor's wife who was being blackmailed; Al Rogers – a shady bartender; Evelyn Gray – a woman living above her means; or Karnoff himself for the insurance money. It's up to Charlie Chan to discover the truth. Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo would be Warner Oland's last performance as the venerable detective. Unfortunately, it's one of the weakest Chan films Oland would make. It's not his fault – instead the blame can be placed on a weak script and a couple of other factors. Chan films notoriously cheat the viewer in that the solution to the mystery too often relies on facts not available to the audience. Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo is especially guilty of this. Key clues that help trap the killer are known only to Chan and the French Police Inspector. As for the other factors I mentioned, one of these would be Harold Huber. Huber, who appeared in two other Chan films, really lays it on thick here with his over-the-top acting and ridiculous French accent. It gets annoying rather quickly.Still, this is Charlie Chan I'm talking about so it's not all bad. In fact, even a weak Chan film is still an enjoyable experience. It's just a shame that Oland couldn't have gone out on a higher note.
Jim Tritten
Charlie Chan (Warner Oland) and Chief of Police Jules Joubert (Harold Huber) track down theft of metallurgic bonds and murder in Monaco. Huber has a great deal of time on screen and he plays his character with the comedy that mars his department. Supporting character actor Louise Mercier does a great job as a taxi driver whose conveyance gets the best of him and son Lee Chan's misuse of French gets him into trouble.Early theme in movie is repeated use of number `25.' Lee points out that their hotel room is 125, he is 25 years old, this is the 25th of August, this is the Chinese Year 9325 - and therefore the number 25 will be lucky at the roulette wheel. Chan point out that Lee had borrowed $25 the week before. Later we learn that the value of the missing bonds is $25,000, one of the suspects borrows an amount equal to $25,000, and heretofore there had not been a murder in Monaco for 25 years. Poor writing fails to capitalize on this theme and the storyline sounds better in movie reviews than as portrayed on the screen.Lots of misdirection and suspicion but in the end, Chan and the police trap (`Questions are keys to door of truth') the guilty party using knowledge that was known only to police and not the viewer. One clue might have been picked up on by an observant viewer, but the other part of the explanation at the end goes beyond what we could have known. When confronted, the guilty party makes a final error in revealing yet another fact known only to police and murderer (again not to viewer). Not one the best of the Chan series.This is the final appearance of Oland live in a produced film - he died the following year. In this movie, as Chan, he says: `Humble presence of no more importance than one drop of rain in cloudburst.' On the contrary - although the Chan series is not high art, this viewer thinks that we are better for Oland having played the role.
