I liked the plot, more than what the movie was ready to make out of it; there are viewers who liked the cinema approach better. I didn't care much for any of the characters. The storyline is dramatic and intriguing, and the puzzle plot, not _uningenious (as the script was adapted from 'The Last Trap' by Sinclair Gluck), till the final denouement makes it look like a farce, so a very stripped adaptation of a possibly good puzzle plot, yet most of what's interesting is merely told by the two policemen, as much as one could gather from a radio show; the style is neutral, very plain, very basic, unassuming. The policemen's inquiry has an air of casualness; there's no characterization. Unpretentious mystery movie, exempt of comic relief, except for an old policeman climbing an armchair, but it has enough intriguing ideas (the wound that didn't bleed), which make it more interesting as a story, than as a movie; the very idea of a handsome heiress having a relation with an unlikable ugly policeman seemed unlikely. Some of the actors give at least average performances; I disliked the younger policeman. You can call the production, austere or cheap. As a matter of fact, there are some humorous moments, but the main story of detection, till it switches to farce, is stark, logical and dry, and somewhat more thrilling than the movie was ready or able to assume and take over from the book; the twists have unexpectedness, of the literary kind. To me, the farcical denouement was somewhat disappointing.The footage doesn't add much to what's merely spoken by the two policemen.The dialog, casual, was more or less comprehensible.As I gather it now, not a treat or a jewel or a discovery, and in many respects mediocre. (But like each time as many people are involved in a common action, there are also a few good things.) Dry, clever, but a bit graceless.

This film is a B-mystery from tiny Chesterfield Productions--one of many so-called 'Poverty Row' studios churning out extremely cheap and quickly made short films during the 1930s. It's only significant actor is Berton Churchill--a man who usually played blustering supporting roles (such as in "Stagecoach"). Here, however, he is co-lead in the film.The film begins with a woman going to talk to two detectives about her strange and rather nasty uncles. The two begin investigating and almost immediately a murder occurs--and one of the uncles is killed in a very peculiar manner (he was killed by gas and was stabbed AFTER he was already dead). The two detectives (one of which is Churchill) investigate the case almost like two Sherlock Holmes--which is a bit unusual, as in the mystery films of the era, usually the police are portrayed as idiots! How the murder occurred and who was behind it make this a VERY contrived film--and the ending offers too many twists to make the film realistic in any manner. Still, it's not a horrible film and is mildly entertaining--and is a film I'd recommend mostly to fans of these cheap murder mysteries. Others probably will be even less impressed by this one.

Someday I'm going to go back and watch this again because it's a neat little murder mystery given the era. There's more than your usual amount of false leads, suspicious characters and red herrings wrapped around a double murder, with young detective Jim Landis (Ray Walker) teaming up with a retired Paul Bernard (Berton Churchill) to almost solve the mystery. I say almost because even though the resolution is spelled out at the finale by Landis, it's just as quickly thrown in doubt by the Tallman dame (Hedda Hopper) negating Bernard's confession. It's all very strange because when the picture's over, you're not really sure who killed who because of the multiple possibilities. In fact, old Henry Carson (William V. Mong) got a knife in the back after he was already dead! Individually, none of the players are particularly effective, but the fact that they all play off each other quite well makes the story interesting. As the girlfriend of detective Landis and the niece of the murdered Henry Carson, Elsa Carson (Irene Ware) makes one suspicious of her guilt by being just a bit too secretive. At one point when the Chinese servant made his appearance, I thought that Charlie Chan might have been just around the corner to help make some sense out of the proceedings and identify the killer in his own inimitable style.Anyway, if you don't mind being left clueless at the end of the story, this one is fairly entertaining and goes by quickly at just over an hour in length. The presence of Miss Ware is a bonus, as the former Miss United States is quite appealing, though I couldn't quite figure out the attraction to her fiancé Landis.

"But I didn't do it." "What! Then who the heck did?" The Dark Hour keeps viewers—and detectives—guessing until the final moment. A truly puzzling mystery combined with some juicy performances make this quite a nifty little hour of fun.Berton Churchill as the retired detective—respectfully requested by his younger counterpart Ray Walker to assist on the case—is wonderfully nimble-minded and yet perhaps suspicious. Irene Ware is earnest and intelligent as the niece of rich old uncles in whose house the mystery develops—but she's obviously hiding something. Hedda Hopper bustles in occasionally with energy and smarts as an aunt who seems to know plenty but isn't saying just what.Not a fancy movie, but one that's paced just about right: The action certainly moves along quickly, but care is taken to allow us time to notice which characters are thinking a bit more than they're saying. Irene Ware's character, for example, is given an extra moment of screen time here and there—just enough of an extra glance for us in the audience to see quite clearly that she's holding something back. Again, it's not fancy or subtle—but it does show that director Charles Lamont was paying attention.The dialog is crisp enough; the actors move with energy. Hopper and Churchill, in particular, appear to enjoy themselves immensely in their roles.My only complaint is that the sound is badly chopped up in the version I saw. Lines are dropped and cut into pieces (including in a couple of key moments!). I can only assume that the print from which this came had been shown about a hundred times and broken and been spliced in about that many places. Oh, well—I can live with that. Otherwise: a top-notch B mystery.