Circumstantial Evidence

Other than being corny, convoluted, and highly unlikely, this film is almost watchable. Obviously a B script with a few decent actors (Lloyd Nolan, who is always very good, and Michael O'Shay, who gives it his best Jimmy Cagney imitation), the film suffers from a lot of preaching. And corny dialogue. There are a few uncertain moments at the conclusion of the film, but generally speaking, the script is so weak, that it is almost impossible for the actors to rescue the dialogue. O'Shay's character is dumb enough, however, to deserve a few years in jail for failing to take a plea of manslaugher and insisting on a murder trial that he has no chance of winning. Watch only if nothing else is available that night.

Okay indictment of circumstantial evidence, when a man (Michael O'Shea) is convicted of murder and sentenced to death for a murder no one actually saw him commit. His son and his best friend set out to prove his innocence.

Pretty fair B movie.

Odd B picture about a mailman (Lloyd Nolan) who sets out to prove a man (Michael O'Shea) is innocent of murder. What makes this one odd is, for starters, the mailman's relationship with young boys is definitely something of its era. It's all harmless enough in the context of the film's story but it's hard to see it flying today. The guy and his wife don't have any kids so he fills that void by being an uncle figure to the local boys, including the son of the guy who is accused of murder. He comes off as a little pushy and even creepy to me. The weirdest part is that he is largely responsible for getting the guy in trouble in the first place. On top of that he seems anxious to step in and replace the dad in the kid's life. It's all very strange considering he's not the villain here and his actions aren't supposed to be suspicious to the audience. Worth a look for the weird factor but as a movie it's basically a passable time-killer at best.

I only caught this film, as one early Charles Lamont's stuff, the future director of BAGDAD, which I will comment in a few minutes, and especially the Abott and Costello's adventures; at least most of them. Lamont was a prolific film maker whose most interesting and curious movie was SALOME WHERE SHE DANCED, and also SLAVE GIRL, both starring the also gorgeous and flaming Yvonne de Carlo. This one belongs to the long list of the thirties very very talkative movies, which the quality and interest was not always very obvious. The topic is not that bad however. It seems to be the same story - more or less - as Fritz Lang's BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT or John Sturges' THE MAN WHO DARED. So, from this point of view, and also considering that this Charles Lamont's film was made BEFORE the others two, yes we can consider it as interesting. Don't confound with another film made in 1945 under the same title, but not the same story, if my memory doesn't fail. Made by a forgotten and lost movie company Chesterfield. Hoops, sorry for the mistake; everyone will notice that I confounded myself ; I commented the 1945 film, instead the 1935 one which I just watched and just spoke about now...Sorry.

When his son has his new hatchet seized by a mean shopkeeper, Michael O'Shea goes to wrangle it out, and gets into a fight. While they are tussling over the hatchet, the witnesses see the man go down, and testify in court that O'Shea killed the man. O'Shea winds up on Death Row, while best friend Lloyd Nolan tries to take care of the boy.

It's a very late Fox B, and while the people in front of and behind the camera do their best, it all comes off as mechanical. On top of that, it's a misleading title; as any trial lawyer will tell you, witnesses are very unreliable in what they report, and easily manipulable. Despite attempts to provide some tension, it's rather flat.