BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 15 May 1934 by Monogram Pictures Corp. A Paul Malvern Production. No recorded New York opening. U.S. release: 30 March 1934. 62 minutes. NOTES: Only film appearance of bandleader and radio personality, Ed Lowry. COMMENT: Here's an odd one. This version follows the stage play fairly closely, despite a quarter-hour of opening out with a Prologue in a Poverty Row India and a scene in a lawyer's office. The name of the play, however, has been changed. On the other hand, when Monogram re-made the property under its original title, The Ape, in 1940, the story was altered beyond recognition. Both versions were directed in a fairly humdrum style by William Nigh. Despite this lack of creativity, the original play retains a moderate amount of interest here, thanks largely to a few thrills in the plot and a lot of fairly amusing comedy relief. The players also rise to the occasion, particularly Harry Bradley as a wonderfully dotty professor of Egyptology and Mary Foy as his sharp-tongued harridan of a wife. I also enjoyed the gloriously exotic Joyzelle Joyner, who has at least two wonderful scenes and two superb changes of costume. Ed Lowry does okay by the brash insurance salesman hero, though way outclassed by lovely Verna Hillie's attractive feminine lead. Alas, Clay Clement overdoes the villain and Brandon Hurst disappoints as the chief priest. Irving Bacon's flamboyantly dumb detective also fails to distinguish himself, as does "Gabby" Hayes as a surprisingly dull gambler. As for the ape, this creature is no clone of Kong, but an obvious stunt man in a moldy gorilla suit.

Lechuguilla An obnoxious archaeologist insults the locals in Asia and has to flee, but not before grabbing a hoard of Asian treasures as he scurries back to the U.S. His investors back home want part of the fortune that he brings back with him. So he invites them all to his two-story mansion, but informs them that an Asian "curse" befalls those in possession of the fortune. His proposition is that the investors stay in his house for awhile and see for themselves what happens.It's a silly story concept. But it does offer a neat little puzzle for whodunit fans to solve. The plot involves a séance, some incense, and tom-tom drums. There are multiple plot holes, at least one of which is revealed by means of dialogue. The solution to the puzzle includes a psychological concept called "conditioned response". But the application of it to this story is not very credible.Characters are poorly developed, which is not surprising, given the short runtime. There are eight or so suspects, none very interesting, apart from a grouchy old woman lording over her henpecked husband. The insurance salesman is a bit annoying. The cops are rather nondescript and bumbling. I could have wished for a Charlie Chan.In the version I watched, sound quality was not very good, and neither was the B&W cinematography. The visuals tended to be unnecessarily dark and somewhat blurry, probably a result of inferior technology in the 1930s. Casting is okay. But acting is exaggerated, also likely resulting from an era just emerging from silent films.Aside from poor visuals and sound, which we might expect for that era, the main problem is a not very credible story premise, compounded by poor characterization. Even so, the film might still appeal to viewers who like animated puzzles, which is what a whodunit film really is.

Michael_Elliott House of Mystery (1934) ** 1/2 (out of 4) An adventurer kills a sacred monkey and soon a curse is put on him. He returns to America and his share holders want their money but before he returns it they must stay a week in his mansion where all sorts of strange things are going on. This is yet another "old dark house" film with another mystery and another deadly gorilla. As I've said countless times before, I'm really not sure why everyone of these films had to have a gorilla in it but I guess people in the 30s were terrified of them. The cast of characters are pretty varied and fun including a nerdy professor and his pushy wife. There's some light comedy thrown in that works as well but the film mainly tries to work its mystery and it does so to a nice effect. I think the screenplay is rather good and I enjoyed how they added in the curse of the monkey. The gorilla outfit doesn't look too bad but then again I might be saying this because I've seen some really bad ones out there. Clay Clement does a very good job in the lead and the supporting cast is fine.

kidboots The film starts in Asia, in 1913, when John Prendergast (Clay Clement), an archaeologist, in a drunken rage, kills one of the temple monkeys. He has a curse put on him by the temple priests. They predict that he will steal jewels and go off with them but he and his descendents will be cursed. His insolence seals his fate. A giant ape is ordered to kill him but Chandra (Joyzelle) the exotic dancer that he is involved with helps him escape.Twenty years later they are found and the relatives of the original expedition meet at John Pren's house (he is now going by that name) to demand their share of the wealth. Pren tells them of the curse (2 English relations had been given their share - within a month they had been murdered) and stipulates that to claim their share they must stay in the house a week.The first night a seance is held and one of the ladies, Mrs. Carfax, (Dale Fuller) the hypochondriac, is murdered. It is very clear that an ape has killed her. Gabby Hayes makes a surprise appearance as one of the guests - one with gambling debts - he is the next one murdered. He is found in an ape suit which immediately throws everyone off the scent. "I'm going to the zoo" "Sit down, you're in one right now!!!"Joyzelle is the most interesting character in the film - she plays the inscrutable Chandra. Why she was billed as Laya Joy instead of Joyzelle may be the real mystery???? She didn't make many films and in most of them she was billed as "exotic dancer" but in "Just Imagine" (1930) she had a memorable part as twins, one good and one evil!!! In "House of Mystery" she had the second female lead - I admit that in a film of 62 minutes that is not something to boast about!!!Things are not what they seem. Mr. Pren is not the benevolent old gentleman confined to a wheelchair - he is very predatory and wants the money for himself. The guests find a note and are persuaded to go to the police station - all except Ella Browning (Verna Hillie). She is persuaded to stay in the house by Mr. Pren, who wants to send Chandra away and marry Ella. Chandra has other ideas.The film is okay. Everything is tidied up very quickly. It is like "The Mummy" meets "The Old Dark House".