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.

A quick run-through of most of the plot suggests that this whodunit film might be an Agatha Christie creation, as complicated as the story is. There are five to seven suspects, depending on whom you count. And the murder occurs in the library of a large house. But though the underlying premise is okay, "The Dark Hour" is no Agatha Christie creation. Two brothers live together along with their various servants. A couple of other suspects live close by, together with a retired detective. A building fire figures prominently in the plot.It took two viewings to make sense out of the story. In the end it does all come together, though there is some conveniently coincidental timing in certain plot points. The main reason to watch the film is the ending. My guess as to the identity of the murderer was dead wrong. So the ending was a pleasant surprise, and I was able to go back and see the subtle clues that I missed. Near the end a major twist further adds to the film's enjoyment. Spine-tingling suspense erupts near the climax as an unknown person shines a flashlight into a darkened bedroom, and then fires a shot.Almost all the scenes take place on indoor sets, implying that this was a low-budget film. Production design is minimal. I'm constantly amazed at how old houses back in those days were built with such high ceilings, making rooms look cavernous. B&W lighting has a slight noir effect. The camera is largely static. Very little music occurs during the film, but I like the score during the opening credits. Sound tends to be scratchy and overall sound quality is poor, which makes dialogue hard to understand in a few spots. Acting is acceptable, my favorite performance being the actor who plays blustery Mr. Bernard.It's not the best whodunit out there by any means. The script could have been improved to enhance clarity. And production values are weak. Still, it's not a bad movie. The final twenty minutes or so are quite good, and render "The Dark Hour" worth at least a one-time viewing.

This mystery film is unusual is that there are two quite different (old & retired vs. young & active on the police force) detectives on the case, & they are both competent & work well together. Usually, Hollywood would be expected to have at least one of them take the comic element, but here they are both serious & both effective! Aside from trying to guess "who done it?," the viewer also finds him/herself wondering which of the two detectives will solve the case first, & this aspect adds to the excitement. There are plenty of suspects here, & the film moves along briskly. Berton Churchill is especially good as the older detective, & reminds me of a smaller version of the great Sydney Greenstreet. I rate this 8/10.