Let's see if I have this right. A newspaper reporter and his girl friend are caught in a downpour. Their car is stuck in the mud so they stagger off to the nearest hostelry where they stumble on a murder. Most people would call the cops. But not our plucky newsman. He plants clues implicating himself as the killer so that he can cover the story from a unique angle. Of course, he has something that will prove his innocence. And of course...duh!!!!...that item mysteriously vanishes. Which means unless a miracle occurs, he's going to the chair. Okay, it was 1932 and movies were just learning to talk. But this has to be one of the dumbest ideas for a thriller, even for those early days. On the other hand, idiotic as it is, it's curiously entertaining.

When Wesley Ruggles put out a casting call for his movie "Are These Our Children" he found 3 bright stars. Eric Linden was given the leading role of the young braggart and won rave reviews. From then on he had a very up and down career (unfortunately mostly downs). He was dubbed "the tragic boy actor of the screen" and when given a meaty part often proved more memorable than the movie. Maybe this was the movie that started the "why don't I plant evidence so I can be convicted of the crime" cycle but films like "Circumstantial Evidence" (1936) and "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (1956) posed serious questions about capital punishment, whereas with "The Roadhouse Murders", it was simply a novel twist to a tired mystery plot.Chick Brian (Linden) a reporter on a muck raking paper (is there any other kind) is desperate to prove himself - even surprising women in their baths to get a sensational photo. His girlfriend Mary (sweet, petite Dorothy Jordan) is the daughter of the local police chief (Purnell Pratt) and as her father is not impressed with the brash Chick, they tend to meet on the sly. One of those times, they are caught in a downpour and seek shelter at the Lame Dog Inn and within an hour are embroiled in a double murder. Even though they see the murderers, Chick thinks it would be a swell idea if he with-holds evidence and plants clues showing himself to be the murderer, then he can send the paper sensational articles about life on the run and thoughts of a wanted man. To give Mary her due, she is not keen on the idea and only falls in with her idiot boyfriend when he convinces her that all she has to do is turn up at the trial with the pocket book and it will be champagne all around.Bruce Cabot, who easily gives the most dynamic performance in the movie as the brutal thug, starts following Mary around and - yes, you guessed it, manages to steal the pocket book!! What will our intrepid dumb-cluck do now!!! Even before Chick is caught, life on the run is taking it's toll - he starts to feel hunted and guilty!!!This was Linden's 4th movie. Even though he was versatile, his first 2 films gave him parts that were abrasive braggarts, in this he was a cocky upstart and with the next one "The Age of Consent" you guessed it - he wasn't the sensitive hero but "Duke" who loved fast cars and fast women, so is it any wonder his star faded so quickly. The maid's role was filled by the uncredited Julie Haydon - films didn't do right by her so she went to Broadway, to be the muse of George Jean Nathan and Noel Coward.

The only reason I watched this one was to catch a glimpse of ERIC LINDEN, the man who played the amputee soldier in a devastating hospital scene from GONE WITH THE WIND where Dr. Meade gives the order to amputate. I had never seen him in a starring role.Indeed, here he looks nothing like the man in the GWTW epic--he's clean-shaven, youthful looking in a boyish sort of way that makes it hard to see how he could have played the amputee victim of war in that Selznick film classic. The make-up was a big help.The plot has a man framing himself for murder and then unable to prove that he didn't commit the crime when the time comes for him to produce the evidence that got away when his girlfriend's pocketbook was stolen by the real culprit--BRUCE CABOT.By now, this plot has been used many times and it has been done to better effect by directors like Fritz Lang, who used it in BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Here, the story is weakened by some stereotyped newspaper types (particularly ROSCOE KARNS as the fast-talking editor), and some less than stellar supporting role performances.DOROTHY JORDAN is so-so as the femme lead and Linden is merely adequate in the role of the unwise reporter who gets caught up in circumstances beyond his control. Nothing special, but it holds the attention for its brief running time.

A reporter on the copy desk tries to get a chance to break a big story he has a lead on. When he tries to run it down he ends up bursting in on the girlfriend of the publisher of the paper as she's bathing. Deciding to relax with his girlfriend after a trying day he ends up stuck in the rain in his car with its top down. Getting a room at a roadhouse the couple thinks they hear a shot. Going to investigate they find two dead bodies and two people rifling through a desk who tell them "they know and saw nothing" before they climb out a window. Our hero sensing a big scoop then tries to bend the crime to his advantage and sets himself up for the murder so that he can write about it. The problem comes when he's unable to prove his innocence when he needs to.This early talkie is an okay, if clichéd, little film once it gets going. The early scenes in the newsroom seem to be steals from the Front Page and its over lapping dialog in a mad attempt to exploit the then novelty of sound film. Once the murders occur and the plot is in motion things are enjoyable even if we've seen it all before.The problem with this film is that its plot has been done countless times before and since. You know whats going to happen the question is do you care enough to see how they do it this time. Complicating matters is the acting which is often stilted and seemingly out of date and artificial. The behavior of the City editor at the opening is very unnatural. Coupling the odd acting styles with what now seems to be very silly dialog makes matters worse. I wasn't sure if I was laughing at or with the film. There are a few times when all of the problems in plot,acting and dialog come together to produce some big "they didn't mean that" sort of laughs.If you like old mysteries and don't mind one thats a bit past its freshness date I'd give it a try. If you don't want your movies stilted I'd stay away.