The Mystery Man

1935 "Stark Drama! A Shadow Creeping Through the Night!"
5.5| 1h5m| NR| en
Details

Hard-boiled newspaper reporter Larry Doyle (Robert Armstrong) goes a bit too far in celebrating a work bonus and wakes up on a train bound for St. Louis with only a buck on his person. To remedy the problem, Doyle pawns the revolver he's carrying. When the gun is subsequently used in a murder, Doyle's problems only multiply. In the meantime, he's also fallen in love with a comely stranger (Maxine Doyle) he convinced to impersonate his wife.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Diagonaldi Very well executed
Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.
Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
Paularoc I like Monogram movies - you can generally be sure of two things - (1) the movies will be entertaining and (2) there will be either a silly plot or a plot with big enough holes in it to drive a truck through. And this movie is no exception. Robert Armstrong's Larry Doyle is a cock-sure but good reporter for a Chicago newspaper. The police respect him (indeed, they give him a gun to show their appreciation for his help with a case) but his editor can't stand him. Larry spends his $50 bonus on treating his pals to a night on the town. His editor fires him but Larry goes on celebrating and winds up in St. Louis where he befriends a down and out but spunky young woman, Anne Ogilvie (played by Maxine Doyle). One of my favorite bits in the movie is where Larry secretly pays for the Anne's coffee and donut when she finds out she doesn't have enough money. Larry sees himself as the Anne's protector and because of Larry's moxie, they end up staying in a hotel suite (with two bedrooms). In spite of his former editor's trying to prevent it, Larry eventually gets a job on the St. Louis News. He is soon hot on the trail of the notorious criminal known as "The Eel." The rest of the movie doesn't make much sense but all's well that ends well. Armstrong does a good job but does not do the snappy reporter type as well as Chester Morris or Wally Ford. However, he does such scenes as that at the coffee shop better than they so it all evens out. I had never heard of Maxine Doyle and she did a somewhat surprisingly good job as Anne. A pleasant enough way to spend an hour.
MikeMagi When you screen an old movie, there are a few obvious signs as to its quality. Take the Monogram logo, for example. You know that the script will be a rough draft, that production will take only a week or so and that the acting will range between passable and clunky. On the other hand, it might even be entertaining. Which "The Mystery Man" actually is, even when it staggers along. Robert Armstrong stars as an intrepid newspaperman who winds up, after a drunken spree, in St. Louis where he's determined to restart his career by catching the mysterious criminal known as "The Eel." Somewhere along the way, he gets mixed up with a plucky, dead-broke brunette who masquerades as his wife for reasons that make no sense. But why worry about reality? It's...drum roll, please...a Monogram Picture. And that's almost as good as a PRC release.
Michael_Elliott The Mystery Man (1935) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Decent mystery from Monogram has Robert Armstrong playing newspaper reporter Larry Doyle who after a big story gets a revolver as a gift. Later in the picture he's in need of money so he pawns the gun and is later arrested for a murder that was done using the same gun. Now Doyle must prove that he actually pawned the gun and that the killer known as The Eel was the real murderer. THE MYSTERY MAN is a fairly entertaining movie, although the story I've just given really doesn't tell everything. This thing clocks in at just 61-minutes and the murder doesn't take place until around the 37-minute mark, which should tell you a couple things. For starters, there's a lot of early filler in the film that probably could have been left and and in all honesty it probably should have been left out. The only problem then is that you wouldn't be left with a movie. The second problem is that the solving of the case happens in the final twenty minutes and in many ways this was simply way too fast for the crime to be solved. With that said, fans of Armstrong as well as the genre should find the material good enough to keep you entertained through the short running time. As you'd expect, Armstrong has no problems playing the smart aleck reporter who is constantly rubbing people the wrong way until he's finally the one being pushed around. Maxine Doyle is also very good as the woman who ends up helping the reporter on his mission. The two stars have some nice chemistry together and their work certainly helps keep the film moving. The biggest problem with the picture is that there's a bit too much comedy and sadly the majority of it never works. Still, the majority of the people remains entertaining as long as you're not expecting THE MALTESE FALCOLN or some sort of classic.
dongwangfu This uneasy cross between a "Front Page" style newspaper yarn and a cops and robbers movie was entertaining at times but never really dramatically engaging. It was made less than a decade after the stage version, and only a few years after the Menjou/O'Brien version of Front Page. The comedic elements in the first part of the movie, as well as some funny ironic dialog come out of the interactions between news hound Larry Doyle, his editor, and his fellow reporters, come from that style of film. Halfway through, we leave that movie and enter into a crime flick, with a decent ingénue mistaken for Mrs. Doyle (played by an actress who was really named Doyle, by the way) and a case of mistaken identity leaving the reporter holding the bag. The resolution is not very clever, and the light tone of the first part of the movie means we're never really worried something bad will happen in the second. I mean, if it had been made in the 1970's, that may have happened, but in 1935, no way.There's a really neat moment at the end, though, that illustrates how in the 1930's everyone knew that newspapers could make or break elected officials, and how the publishers could influence what was published. I don't know when we lost that breezy cynicism about money and media, but I prefer it to the sacred cow of editorial independence that characterized the movies about the media I watched growing up. Doesn't really save the movie, but it is an interesting difference from things 75 years ago.