Sinister Hands

"Sinister Hands" is all too familiar for fans of old movies. The plot is one of hte most overused ones of the 1930s and 40s....so it's easy to skip this one, believe me!

The film opens by introducing a millionaire and all the folks around him. One by one, you see that everyone has a potential reason to murder him. And, when it eventually occurs, you know that some smarty-pants detective will come and determine which of the guests offed the old man.

It's a familiar plot, as I've already said, and this low budget film has done NOTHING to improve upon the same basic plot I've seen 30,000 times already. The acting is stileted and there's simply nothing about it that demads to be seen. Overall, a bit dull and a cheapo film that is, at best, a time passer.

Getting old can surely help a movie's entertainment value, as this low-budget very traditional murder mystery offers ready-made camp content. I attended innumerable premieres of extreme flops over the decades, and it's a fact that people are often quite forgiving many years later when nothing (money) is on the line -I would cite "Heaven's Gate" which I saw in NYC at its disastrous first public showing as a prime example.

The almost constant array of cliches and corny elements (most notably attempted comic relief of the cop detective's sidekick insisting over and over and over "Don't call me Watson!" burlesque routine) are fun over 90 years after they were recorded. And what's wrong with having fun at the movies?

For me, the barrage of clues, a gimmick still very much in vogue (see: Daniel Craig in that new and popular series of "Knives Out" films, which by the way is the weapon of choice in "Sinister Hands") is fun, and I was able to use them to guess the killer correctly quite early on. And the lengthy list of suspects, played by nonenties (with the exception of the sinister swami played by the great Mischa Auer) was quite easy to follow via adequate stereotyping. Nothing could be cornier than the arrogant behavior of the police captain/detective (Jack Mulhall) and his gathering everyone in a room to confront them and explain everything leading up to fingering the killer!

Apparently this was an early "talky" and that might account for the long pauses between speeches and the stilted acting. It's a typical who done it, with the long list of suspects. There are two points where the head detective stops the show and explains who each of them is and what they did. It has the last drawing room thing which is kind of fun, actually. I wouldn't want this on a regular basis, but it's kind of cool. The plot involves a murder during a séance (which the detective pronounces "see ons." There is a swami and a silly detective who is continuously being called Watson instead of Watkins. He is incompetent and no help. It's as if the police trained in a guy for his comedy relief. There are a couple gangsters (one named Lefty Louie), and a bunch of other saps, including a virginal secretary with horn rimmed glasses and a prissy suit. Anyway, they are all kept in place so one has to have done it. It has a somewhat satisfying conclusion. As with most of these stories or books, we need to keep rethinking things. It's an OK film with an interesting cast.

There is nothing super-special about this ensemble murder mystery -- a rich man is killed and everyone is a suspect -- but it is notable as one of a number of detective films of its era to feature mid 20th century depictions of mystics, seances, seers, fortune tellers, fake physics, and the like. Misha Auer has a nice turn as Swami Yomurda, and therefore the movie joins my collection of B-Movies with occultism themes. There is something intriguing to me about this sort of exoticism -- it is rarely respectful of the occult, but it always spices up the proceedings and can also provide an excuse for some nifty set dressing and costuming.

If you like murder mysteries the you've seen this movie before, probably at least a hundred times. The plot is the typical a group of people are staying at the home of a rich man who turns up dead. The police arrive to flush out the killer and its quickly revealed that everyone wanted the guy dead. Its an early sound version of the plot line you've come to know and love. Spicing things up is the addition of an Oriental fortune teller played by Misha Auer. The introductions to most of the characters come during a reading he is doing for one of the people staying at the house. Its a unique twist to the proceedings. Auer himself ends up at the house and it is during a gathering for a séance that the murder occurs.

Despite my low rating this is not a bad movie. The cast is good the mystery serviceable. The problem is that time has not been particularly kind to this movie. Its pacing is now rather slack and it seems to just go on and on. The action is a bit static. The film being a relatively early sound film is very talky at times. The detective once he appears is capable of chattering on and on a good deal. The flaws are not fatal, but since this is a path I had been down before numerous times I found that I wasn't enjoying it as much as I would if I wasn't a mystery fan.

If you're curious try it, though be warned its the type of thing you've seen before.