User reviews

Frank R. Strayer directs this well acted 1931 who-done-it. What people won't do to have fun at a party. Accidental murder probably is a party pooper every time...but you can't say it isn't interesting. Way back when...a good party starter was a tame little game of charades. One particular night a staged murder in a game of charades turns to the real thing. The bullets weren't blank...leaving a man dead. The mood of the party guests takes on disbelief and a little paranoia. Inspector Taylor(Robert Elliott)puts the gathering of friends and lovers through their paces in search of the murderer's identity. Is it Lawrence, the butler(Brandon Hurst); Colton, the lawyer(William Humphrey); the maid(Alice White)or Aunt Julia(Clara Blandick)? Put disputed inheritance and infidelity in the mix...why wouldn't murder be the result? A long, heavy rainstorm could have made for better atmosphere; but all- in-all the 67 minutes running time is not wasted.

Occasionally clever little early 30s multiple-murder mystery, with a killer stalking the Kennedy household and knocking off a half dozen victims. The cops don't seem especially perturbed by the continual corpses lying around and aren't very good at getting to the bottom of the mystery. Lots of telephone cord cutting and such; good example of how the telephone became the mystery writer's best friend.

The plot concerns a letter fingering the killer, which comes to light after a game of charades goes bad (after seeing this and The Death Kiss, I have some advice: do not agree to be shot by a gun filled with blanks during the 1930s). The head of the household, maid, the butler, and who-knows-who-else also fall victim to the clever murderer bent on getting his hands on the letter.

The acting is stagy and old-fashioned, but occasionally sharp and witty, and Alice White as the house maid Millie is a doe-eye peach. An absence of music makes this seem rather duller than it should be. It's okay if you like the genre and era, but it's not something to seek out.

This is another decent poverty row offering from Frank R. Strayer, the director of The Ghost Walks and Condemned To Live. It's a whodunit concerning the whereabouts of a missing letter that pertains to the will of a recently murdered man. While there really isn't anything overly of interest here, the mystery is compelling enough to keep fans of 1930's mysteries entertained. It follows the conventions of the old dark house mysteries that were so popular at the time, and it doesn't exactly break the mould. It has a typical convoluted plot-line. Like many films of its type, this one is pretty stagey too, with some stiff acting throughout. Although there is some imaginative cinematography and the audio is very clear. The tone of the film is generally light, with not much in the way of thrills. Although it does introduce death by telephone! But if you are a fan of creaky old mysteries I think you could well enjoy this early talkie.

The mystery story in "Murder at Midnight" is an interesting one, with some good plot turns, plenty of suspects, and a competition between the police and some amateur sleuths to see who can solve the case first. The story is good enough to make up for the rest of the production, which is routine or somewhat weak in several other respects.

The story starts cleverly, with a murder committed in the course of a party game, and the scenario is well-written, maintaining the tension and interest all the way to the finale. There are clues and suspects in abundance, and most of the details fit together pretty well. As another reviewer has observed, it gives you a fair chance to figure things out yourself. If the rest of the production had been up to the level of the story, this might have been one of the classics of its era.

Some of its weaknesses are simply the common ones of the early 1930s: the irregular pacing and the distracting background, which unfortunately keep the script's rather snappy dialogue from working better. It also could have been improved if more attention had been given to the atmosphere, and with a somewhat stronger cast. The best performance comes from Clara Blandick as a cantankerous aunt, but the rest of the cast is mostly undistinguished, although Aileen Pringle and Alice White are both quite pleasant too look at.

Nevertheless, it's still well worth seeing, at least if you enjoy movies of its era, because the story really is a good one for its genre. With some improvements, it could have been quite good.

This is a good little thriller from the beginnings of sound. The only real problems it has are due to the era it was made, one when music wasn't a standard part of talkies, so the pace can seem a bit slow.

The plot concerns a murder during an elaborate game of charades. The bullets fired aren't blanks and as a result no one is playing dead. Of course since the game was taking place during a very fancy party everyone is a suspect. A neat twist is that any of the stereotypical scenes of the detective bringing everyone together are at the beginning of the movie, well before the denouncement.

The dialog is witty and the mystery keeps your interest, which is a big plus. I'm reasonably certain that the mystery is played pretty fairly which is nice since many times in B- movies the murderer comes out of left field.

Despite this not listing as available on video, Alpha Video does have it as a double feature with the very short Moonstone, and the pair makes a nice evenings viewing.

"Murder at Midnight" from 1931 is a mystery starring Aileen Pringle, Alice White, Hale Hamilton, Robert Elliott, and Clara Blandick.

During a game of charades at a party, a gun shooting blanks shoots real bullets and a man is killed. A police inspector (Elliott) is brought in and accuses everyone during the course of the film. But he has to contend with the fact that there are four more murders as well.

Nevertheless there are plenty of suspects - according to an attorney, there's a missing letter written by the first person who was murdered. He had some concerns for his safety, with good reason.

This looks like a film stage play, as early films like this often did; the rhythm of the dialogue is off due to no music, and also the actors just getting used to sound.

I interviewed Aileen Pringle about 30 years ago for a book project. She was no help, but I bet she had some fantastic stories.

The one who makes the biggest impression in this film is Alice White who plays the maid. She was a film star who fell on hard times after a sex scandal - today that would have boosted her career. Back then it didn't help. It's easy to see why she was a star at one time - she was very appealing.

The rest of the acting is stiff, but the story has a nice twist to it.

This is prototypical whodunit. It has atmosphere, interesting characters with personality flying all over the place, hard nut police detectives, most of whom aren't very smart, and that air of snobbery. The film begins with a shooting during a game of charades, where a gun, supposedly holding blanks, proves the undoing of one of the characters, a man who changed his will at the last moment because he sensed danger. A loudmouth detective shows up on the scene and treats everyone like dirt. He shouts in their faces and tries to intimidate. The people at the mansion are upper crust and resent his invasions. Mixed in are a nervous wreck, a cute maid, a stodgy butler, a matriarch, and several other figures who could have participated. There are also some interesting dealings with the telephone (which I won't reveal). The pacing is pretty good and the ending is acceptable. One character who cracked me up was a policeman who spent the whole movie guarding people and eating peanuts in the shell. There's a great scene where the butler brings him a large bowl because he has been tossing the shells on the floor. The cop, puts the peanuts that were in his pocket, into the bowl, then continues to throw the peanut shells on the floor. It's a nice little story and worth watching.

The opening shots of this film are blurry with undefined shapes and objects, however suddenly a light is switched on and the change in lighting brings about sharper and more detailed images. The lighting techniques in the opening sequence are an indication of things to come in the film. It is an early experiment with lighting and varying the contrast levels from shot to shot. In some shots there are plenty of grey hues and details are easy to make out, while in other shots the faces and clothes of the characters are blown out to white. The blowing out to white is used most effectively when Aileen Pringle is interrogated by investigations - as her facial features can hardly be made out, it is hard for us as viewers to tell whether or not she is lying.

However, other than interesting lighting and camera techniques, the rest of the film is pretty flat. The mystery at the heart of the film is intriguing, but it is never really involving since the film lacks strong character development. Robert Elliott plays his hard-boiled detective as a one-dimensional stereotype too, which makes it hard to want to root for him and his desire to solve the mystery at hand. As an early sound film, the audio quality is not too great, with a bit too much atmospheric sound and perhaps some music could have helped. However, the timing of when a character says "and he fired" followed by a bang, and the timing between dialling for the police and a sudden siren sound, show that some thought was indeed put into what the film was going to sound like it. It is a flawed film, but other than a blatantly contrived ending it makes quite satisfactory viewing, and the lighting work is simply fascinating.

I'm a fan of this genre, and even I had trouble watching this film through to the end. After quite a bit of pausing on YouTube to do other things, eventually I did. This is an early talkie, and it shows. The plot drags, and much of the dialog is stilted. Some scenes come right off the stage, with that 'stand around and talk' feeling you get from plays of the era. There are multiple murders, but I found it difficult to care as each suspect was killed. I think the biggest problem was the lack of charismatic characters, either detectives or villains. Imagine an early Charlie Chan film without Charlie. There wasn't even the Dark Old House element to keep this one interesting. I think if it had been made three years later, it would have been significantly better.

As I said, I did watch this one, and if you're a fan of the 1930s murder mystery genre, it's worth a look. Some other reviewers clearly think more of it than I do, so you may find it more appealing than me. I just find it a big step down from The Kennel Murder Case and The Dark Hour.

This one is a bit fun to watch - some likable characters, fun little mystery to try to solve while watching.

You have a huge mansion, several party guests, a game of charades turns deadly and a few murders! Police arrive almost early or a little too late to the scene of the crime/crimes and can be bungling idiots at times - which adds some comedic elements to the story unfolding.

This one is your typical, average whodunit of the 1930s but still quite a but fun to watch. This film was remade into The Mystery of Mr. Wong starring Boris Karloff - and I'll admit that I like the Karloff/Wong version better than this original - but the original is fun, as I already mentioned.

6.5/10

Do you like 'whodunnits'? The other kind is a 'cat-and-mouse' picture, wherein the killer is known from the outset. I don't like those but am a sucker for a 'whodunnit', especially a well made one. "Murder at Midnight" is a whodunnit although a primitive one, but it holds your interest throughout - but just barely at times due to the ice-cutter pacing. Was thrown off somewhat by the lack of a music track, something we have become used to as the sound era wore on.

Hadn't seen Alice White before but will look for her from now on - cute as the proverbial button. Thought Aileen Pringle was a dead ringer for Ruth Chatterton, and that the film was helped a great deal by several distinguished actors in tuxedos. Makes you think what a shame it is that men rarely wear tuxes anymore except at weddings.

I'm trying to get through my gift box of old mysteries on DVD and I am always appreciative when I come to one worth the time to view it, as opposed to scads of 'quota quickies' and poorly made B's. I gave "Murder at Midnight a rating of 7, because it is a cut above.

Does anyone remember Abbott&Costello's film Who Done It where the boys play soda jerks who are trying to get a script played on a radio mystery broadcast show? The show was also entitled Murder At Midnight and watching I got the feeling we saw the complete show which was so rudely interrupted by a murder or three in the A&C feature.

This Murder At Midnight has a party going and at the midnight hour a parlor game of charades is interrupted when the wealthy fires a gun that unbeknownst to him contains live rounds and kills his secretary. That brings in the cops, but it doesn't stop the murders as a few more bodies pile up in this film as well.

Robert Elliott plays the long arm of the law and he also has noted criminologist Hale Hamilton along for any aid and assistance. Most of the aid and assistance is supplied by Clara Blandick the dowager aunt of the rich man who keeps pointing out all the shortcomings of law enforcement. It all has to do with a change in a will and some hanky panky going on.

Murder At Midnight moves kind of slow though. Maybe the uninterrupted broadcast would have been better in Bud and Lou's film.

"A sophisticated party held in an old mansion goes horribly wrong when a gun used during a parlor game contains real bullets instead of blanks. When the shooter ends up dead, the police and guests realize that the first death was no accident and that they have a killer in their midst," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. The opening scene is good, with butler Brandon Hurst (as Lawrence) moving up the hands on a grandfather clock, cuing Aileen Pringle (as Esme Kennedy) and Robert Ellis (as Duncan Channing) to act out their "Murder at Midnight" charade. From then on, it works if you can imagine Groucho Marx is playing "Inspector Taylor". Robert Elliott, who does plays the part, even has some of Mr. Marx' vocal tones.

**** Murder at Midnight (8/1/31) Frank Strayer ~ Robert Elliott, Aileen Pringle, Leslie Fenton

Like so many movies of this era, the movie moves at a snail's pace with no soundtrack whatsoever. The story is fun and clever. Who knew vacuum cleaners haven't changed that much in 87 years?

The DVD case says this is a Tiffany picture, so I was expecting an interesting presentation. The credits don't mention Tiffany, laying the blame instead on Amity Pictures. The film looks good, advanced cinematography for the times. The 1931 audio is lousy. Other than the obvious charms of the beautiful Alice White, who plays the maid we'd all like to have, there is no good reason to seek out this old stage play about murder in the mansion. Clara Blandick has the plum role as old Aunt Julia, foil for deadpan Robert Elliott's Inspector Taylor. Headliner Aileen Pringle isn't given much to do. As for who did it, you can see it coming almost from the very first scene. Still, pre-1935 Alice White might be reason enough to watch.

Kenneth Thomson shoots another man in a game of Charades; it turns out to be loaded with bullets, not blanks. Soon, slow, stolid Inspector Robert Elliott is on the scene, and the bodies begin to mount up.

There are several problems with this movie, ranging from sheer goofs (there's a phone call to an outside line when the line has been cut), weird plot points that are never explained (why the time on the grandfather clock was advanced an hour -- and why it did not chime as it was done), and why the print was so faded. The most annoying problem, however, is Mr. Elliott's performance. It's slow and portentous and gives the entire movie a plodding pace. It's surprising, given that the director is Frank Strayer, an expert in well-timed farces. There are a couple of shots that show his sense playfulness, like the houseguest reading a detective story magazine, starting at a noise. However, Mr. Elliott casts such a pall on the film that it becomes annoying.

During a game of charades a man was murdered and that touched off a slew of other killings at the Kennedy estate.

The game of charades (pronounced shar-odds by the sophisticated) was not like what you may know today. The game had an elaborate set up with speaking and props. It looked like dinner theater. In the game Jim Kennedy (Kenneth Thomson) shot his secretary. Little did he know, the blanks were exchanged for real bullets. Later, two other movies would employ a similar tactic ("The Death Kiss" (1932) and "Crime of Helen Stanley" (1934))

Per normal for that era, the murder happened at a manor with many guests, hence anyone could've been the perpetrator. Everytime it seemed someone was close to disclosing the real killer, they were killed. After the first man was killed, three more people were killed to keep them silent.

Inspector Taylor (Robert Elliott) was on the case, but he didn't have much to work with.

"Murder at Midnight" was mediocre. It wasn't a compelling mystery nor were there any compelling characters. It lacked anything distinguishing to set it apart from most of the murder mysteries of that era.

Free on YouTube.