GamerTab That was an excellent one.

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 15 September 1934 by Monogram Pictures Corp. No New York opening. U.S. release: 20 August 1934. U.K. release: 23 March 1935. Australian release: 17 July 1935. 7 reels. 62 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A guest steals a valuable jewel from the daughter of the house. Inspector (sic) Cuff nails the culprit.NOTES: Despite the novel's enormous popularity, The Moonstone has only been filmed twice, firstly in 1915 and then on Poverty Row in 1934. Although Sergeant Cuff was eliminated from the silent version, the popular Eugene O'Brien made a dashing Franklin Blake, whilst the lovely Elaine Hammerstein was equally delightful as the heroine. An expensive production, this Moonstone was often inventively directed by Frank H. Crane.Like his other famous mystery thriller, The Woman in White (1860), The Moonstone was not only based on real people and actual events, but no attempts were made to disguise these facts. Contemporary readers were well aware that Sergeant Cuff was the well-known Scotland Yard inspector, Jonathan Whicher, and that dull- witted Superintendent Seegrave was actually an Inspector Foley. Both novels are cleverly built up from complex plots that encompass many cliff-hanging thrills before being finally resolved into satisfying, high-tension climaxes. COMMENT: Just about what you might expect from a Monogram interpretation. A great novel is here reduced in size and stature until its bare bones are scarcely recognizable. The setting has been updated, the plot grossly over-simplified and its unique characters transformed into the formula creations of Hollywood-land. With two or three exceptions, all the players stand around, declaiming their lines to an invisible gallery. Bunston, Barry and Thomas are the worst offenders. Although he doesn't the least resemble the novel's Cuff, Charles Irwin registers fairly well; whilst David Manners proves his usual mildly personable self; but it is Evelyn Bostock who makes off with the picture's acting honors, such as they are. Stiff direction and impoverished production values don't help, though ace photographer Robert Planck has managed a few welcome atmospheric effects, despite being forced to shoot in obvious haste.OTHER VIEWS: The credit titles, suitably framed within the borders of the novel, promise much, but the picture delivers disappointingly little. Good players are worn down by tepidly repetitious dialogue and an even more feeble plot. After a few initial sparks of inventiveness, the direction dies too. — G.A.

dougdoepke I'm leery of drawing hard and fast conclusions since I too saw the shortened 45-minute version. The editing appears choppy, especially the last, reveal section. That, plus a fuzzy sound quality didn't help. Anyway, from what I saw, the programmer's a fairly standard dark and stormy night, except no one gets murdered. Instead, it's a stolen gem that breeds the mystery. Oddly, what I took away from the proceedings was not the plot nor the slam-bang thunder, but two of the greatest faces of the time—von Seyferttitz and Dudgeon. I wanted a scene where they could go nose to nose; that is, if the set were big enough to handle their majestic blades. In fact, to me, vS has an appearance that should have pushed him up the Hollywood ladder of intellectual villains. Then too, I'm surprised John Davidson's exotic Hindu didn't get more time. But his may have been a casualty of the shortened version.At the same time, I should note the nicely fluid camera work that seems unusual for early talkies still struggling with sound. All in all, from what I saw, it's an interesting, if uneven, time-passer.

kendavies If you want to see an adaptation of The Moonstone, Wilkie Collins' great mystery story, you will be greatly disappointed by this standard country house whodunit, complete with posh accents to conform to American stereotypes. Collins was the originator of the genre (The Moonstone was the first detective novel in English) and also much better at it than those who followed (Dorothy L. Sayers called it "probably the very finest detective story ever written"). Collins' friend Charles Dickens, for example, though one of the greatest novelists, found it difficult to emulate him (never finishing The Mystery of Edwin Drood). The Moonstone includes elements totally absent from this B movie, including Hinduism, the Indian caste system, narcotics, etc., etc.. The best part of it is the opening with trains spelling out the film company name in a futuristic townscape.

jonfrum2000 Those who have read the classic book by Wilkie Collins should not expect anything similar. Other than a jewel called the Moonstone, that is. The 1933-34 years saw movies that still suffered from the silent film hangover, and some that showed more naturalistic acting. This has some of both, leaning towards the stiffness of the silents. As noted by others, the actress playing the lead is so foolish that it's difficult to care that she's had her jewel stolen. And then there's the scene where she refuses to have her belongings searched for the jewel, which is never explained. And the reveal comes out of nowhere, with no 'detecting' at all. Watch 1933's The Kennel Murder Case for far superior acting and plotting. This movie just doesn't have the right pieces in the right places. It tries, but never really pays off. Still, I did watch it to the fast-arriving end, so I can't complain too much. Worth watching as long as you don't expect too much. Watch it on a dark and stormy night when you have nothing else to do.