A woman of twenty-one opens her grandfather's will left to her thirteen years earlier, per his instructions. Murder soon follows.A woman of twenty-one opens her grandfather's will left to her thirteen years earlier, per his instructions. Murder soon follows.A woman of twenty-one opens her grandfather's will left to her thirteen years earlier, per his instructions. Murder soon follows.
Photos
Johnny Duncan
- Harold Morgan
- (as John Duncan)
John Dawson
- Tom Jackson
- (as Jon Dawson)
Robert J. Anderson
- Harold as a Child
- (uncredited)
Shirley Jean Anderson
- Marie as a Child
- (uncredited)
Mike Donovan
- Mike - Police Desk Sergeant
- (uncredited)
Lester Dorr
- Carter
- (uncredited)
Dick Gordon
- Uncle John
- (uncredited)
Herbert Heyes
- Dr. Sherwood - Plastic Surgeon
- (uncredited)
Donald Kerr
- Photographer
- (uncredited)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaFrank Faylen who played policeman "Speed Dugan" would go on to notoriety as Dobie Gillis's father in the early-1960s sitcom "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis."
- GoofsIt's never said who raises young Marie. Surrounded by aunts, uncles, cousins, a grandfather, and the grandfather's lawyer, she and her brother are supposedly orphans, although this is never said. Why the grandfather favors his granddaughter over his grandson is also a mystery. In that he's soon to die, it's curious who becomes her guardian over the next 13 years (since it's a good guess her grandfather has been watching out for her and won't be around to protect her).
- Quotes
Johnny Smith: Burke, you ought to have that mind of yours dry-cleaned.
Police Lt. Burke: And while I'm at it, I'll have your conscience pressed.
- Alternate versionsAlternate titles include "Dangerous Men" and "The Last Racketeer."
- ConnectionsFeatured in Movies at Midnight: The Mystery of the 13th Guest (1954)
Featured review
Mystery of the 13th Guest (1943)
I have to admit, I started this with too high expectations--it had great mood, great B-movie sets, and a plot that sounded great in an Agatha Christie way. But then the corny style of acting kicked in--it's a kind of pre-TV flippant entertainment, purposely aiming for a slight, silly humor at the expense of real drama. Too bad.
So I watched the rest with half an eye, which was enough. The plot is highly contrived and highly important--it's a whodunnit, for sure, with a series of growing clues and new characters. The detective is just too absurd to work--he doesn't even serve as a parody of the newly crystallizing Bogart kind of hardboiled detective. And there a too many scenes with a lot of people standing around a room (a living room or a detective's office), with not a lot of clear tension of development, just exaggerated chitchat.
So, why watch it at all? I'm not sure! But I did, from the side, and there are some great stereotypes (call them clichés) at work--dark shadows of men in fedoras, a haunted old house, a murder and the threat of more murder, even a terrific (haha) trap door. It verges on Three Stooges kind of humor now and then but lacks the true slapstick genius (at times) of those guys (who began in the 1930s and were really big by the 1943), but you can sense an echo of them (one of the detectives even makes little Curly and Moe noises). This version of the movies is actually a remake of a better if not brilliant 1932 film, starring a young Ginger Rogers (and available to see free and legal at this site: www.archive.org/details/The_Thirteenth_Guest).
If you are really feeling frivolous, this might be fun. But your are forewarned.
I have to admit, I started this with too high expectations--it had great mood, great B-movie sets, and a plot that sounded great in an Agatha Christie way. But then the corny style of acting kicked in--it's a kind of pre-TV flippant entertainment, purposely aiming for a slight, silly humor at the expense of real drama. Too bad.
So I watched the rest with half an eye, which was enough. The plot is highly contrived and highly important--it's a whodunnit, for sure, with a series of growing clues and new characters. The detective is just too absurd to work--he doesn't even serve as a parody of the newly crystallizing Bogart kind of hardboiled detective. And there a too many scenes with a lot of people standing around a room (a living room or a detective's office), with not a lot of clear tension of development, just exaggerated chitchat.
So, why watch it at all? I'm not sure! But I did, from the side, and there are some great stereotypes (call them clichés) at work--dark shadows of men in fedoras, a haunted old house, a murder and the threat of more murder, even a terrific (haha) trap door. It verges on Three Stooges kind of humor now and then but lacks the true slapstick genius (at times) of those guys (who began in the 1930s and were really big by the 1943), but you can sense an echo of them (one of the detectives even makes little Curly and Moe noises). This version of the movies is actually a remake of a better if not brilliant 1932 film, starring a young Ginger Rogers (and available to see free and legal at this site: www.archive.org/details/The_Thirteenth_Guest).
If you are really feeling frivolous, this might be fun. But your are forewarned.
- secondtake
- Nov 23, 2010
- Permalink
- How long is The Mystery of the 13th Guest?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- El huésped número 13
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was The Mystery of the 13th Guest (1943) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer