House of Mystery

In the 1930's there seemed to be three types of poverty row films that were made over and over again: (1) mystery films, (2) old dark house movies, (3) films featuring men in gorilla suits. The makers of House of Mystery evidently came to the natural conclusion that all of these elements should be combined together. In fact, along with films such as The Gorilla and Son of Ingagi, this film was part of a very specific sub-genre that can best be described as 'Gorilla Hiding in a House' movies.

Comedian Harry Enfield did a funny sketch once where the Arsenal football team of the 1990's played the one from the 1930's. The latter team's tactics were to kick the ball and then chase after it in a large group. Funnily enough, this is exactly what happens in these old dark house mysteries from the 30's. In them a large group of people move from room to room en mass trying to get to the bottom of some mystery or other. From a 21st century stand-point I don't think we will ever truly understand why so many films were made involving large groups of people moving from room to room in houses with hidden passageways, moving paintings and, well, men in gorilla suits. But, they sure made a lot of them in the 30's, so audiences must've liked them I guess.

In this one an immoral adventurer kills a sacred monkey in India. Once back in the USA, he gathers a group of investors together to give them the chance to obtain a fortune in gems from the Hindu temple. But naturally, things are not what they seem.

Like pretty much all of these types of movies this one is nothing great. It's creaky and obvious most of the time with only the killer gorilla providing anything in the way of thrills. I can't really recommend it exactly but if you've seem a few of these types of movies, well, this one is more of the same I suppose.

Based on the play by Adam Shirk, 'House of Mystery' tells the tale of John Prendergast (Clay Clement), an archaeologist sent from his home country to seek the wisdom of the Hindu religion. While in Asia, John "accidentally" (read as "drunkenly") kills a sacred monkey at a Hindu temple and is soon exposed as a thief (in the future). His fate is then cursed, along with the fates of his descendants. Twenty years pass and the Curse of Kahli still follows him. The investors of his expedition have gathered together at his mansion to seek their share of the fortune that he earned, with the only demand being that the inheritors must remain in the old mansion long enough to claim their money. Unfortunately for all, anangry killer that may be a result of the curse is loose and out for blood.

Like many "dark house" horrors of the early twentieth century, 'House of Mystery' isn't a very complicated film. While it does have a deeper background to it than similar films (many of which feature a lost couple who stumble upon a decrepit manor without much more), the overall feel and style still remains in line with the others of its subgenre. In fact, there isn't much to separate 'House of Mystery' as being very special at all. That's not totally a bad thing, however. It's just one of those decades-old films that have been mostly forgotten because, well, it's fairly forgettable.

The story is entertaining enough (which is really what matters most in a film like this). I liked the backstory set in Asia and the progression to the "present" (i.e. the early 1930s). However, once it gets to the present, it loses the originality that was being built by the introduction and fades into the standard fare of this style of film. Nevertheless, it does remain quite enjoyable with a funny cast of characters and some interesting plot turns. Also, the old mansion is one of the better "dark house" settings I've seen and director William Nigh (who had an astounding 120 directorial credits to his name over his 34-year career including another "killer monkey"-themed film 'The Ape' starring Boris Karloff). Other than that, there isn't a whole lot more to say. The film comes in at a lightning-fast 62 minute runtime, making it worth the short investment for the entertainment value. Overall, fans of the "dark house" subgenre should give it a look as they'll find more enjoyment in it than others, but it's still a fun time regardless for anyone who wants to give it a go.

Final Verdict: 6.5/10.

-AP3-

An obnoxious archaeologist insults the locals in Asia and has to flee, but not before grabbing a hoard of Asian treasures as he scurries back to the U.S. His investors back home want part of the fortune that he brings back with him. So he invites them all to his two-story mansion, but informs them that an Asian "curse" befalls those in possession of the fortune. His proposition is that the investors stay in his house for awhile and see for themselves what happens.

It's a silly story concept. But it does offer a neat little puzzle for whodunit fans to solve. The plot involves a séance, some incense, and tom-tom drums. There are multiple plot holes, at least one of which is revealed by means of dialogue. The solution to the puzzle includes a psychological concept called "conditioned response". But the application of it to this story is not very credible.

Characters are poorly developed, which is not surprising, given the short runtime. There are eight or so suspects, none very interesting, apart from a grouchy old woman lording over her henpecked husband. The insurance salesman is a bit annoying. The cops are rather nondescript and bumbling. I could have wished for a Charlie Chan.

In the version I watched, sound quality was not very good, and neither was the B&W cinematography. The visuals tended to be unnecessarily dark and somewhat blurry, probably a result of inferior technology in the 1930s. Casting is okay. But acting is exaggerated, also likely resulting from an era just emerging from silent films.

Aside from poor visuals and sound, which we might expect for that era, the main problem is a not very credible story premise, compounded by poor characterization. Even so, the film might still appeal to viewers who like animated puzzles, which is what a whodunit film really is.

From the time I was a small child, watching our first TV set, I was intrigued by the movies of the 30's and 40's featuring men in gorilla suits. We were to take them seriously (my favorite was the one in the Laurel and Hardy movie in Switzerland). Here we have the standard mystery with the central character a boorish man who supposedly has a curse on him. He has done shameless things in a foreign country in the past, and now decides to meet his investors a mansion to pay them their rightful earnings from their investments. It is a cast of the usual buffoons where several are murdered. Still it is quite a bit of fun.

House of Mystery is ok as a 1934 mystery movie with a respectful dose of comedy thrown in. I was hoping for something a little scarier but that never came about. As a mystery, I thought it was below average but the strange and often comedic characters did keep things interesting. The movie doesn't drag or bog down, but that may be in large part to the fact that the film is only 62 minutes long. It never really met my expectations but had enough going for it that it managed to keep my interest. My impression of this movie is that it was just an ok movie, nothing special, but certainly not bad. If you see it, I think you might get some enjoyment out of it, but if you don't see it, you're really not missing too much. A respectable but forgettable 30s mystery movie.