Okay, I must admit that I generally DO like B-movies and series films from the 1940s. I like to watch The Falcon, The Saint, Sherlock Holmes and even Charlie Chan--they are escapist fun. Predictable and occasionally poorly written? Sure,...but still fun. So, despite my love for the genre, I am still in complete shock that so many people gave this ordinary little film a 10 on IMDb!! Come on, people, this is NOT "high art" or even an especially memorable film and the IMDb ratings become irrelevant if such a film is given ridiculously inflated scores! I would really LOVE to know what scores the people that give this movie a 10 gave to OTHER films. Do they give them all 10s or are they scoring films like GONE WITH THE WIND, BEN HUR, CHARIOTS OF FIRE or ORDINARY PEOPLE with lower scores?! I'm just dying to know.
Okay, as for the movie itself, it's pretty much what you'd expect from a later Charlie Chan movie from Mongram Studios. Unlike the original Chan movies (which featured higher production values, better scripts and Warner Oland), this movie was made by a "Poverty Row" studio (Monogram)--known for exceptionally low budgets and a quick turnaround on the films (completing many in just days--regardless of the aesthetics). While a little more interesting because of its plot involving phony psychics and mind control as well as an unusual appearance by one of Chan's daughters instead of the ubiquitous #1, 2 or 3 son, it is still an essentially low-budget formulaic film. And, as usual, Chan is supported by the moronic antics of Mantan Moreland--a Black actor sure to offend many modern viewers due to his stereotypical characterization (as a scared and rather dim-witted Black man as "comic relief"). Despite this MAJOR problem with all the Monogram films, I try to overlook it and understand it was typical of the 1940s (sadly). The film, while occasionally very interesting, isn't well-written or produced and probably will satisfy Chan fans but fail to convince others of the merits of the series.
