An ancient curse and a killer ape are contained inside an old dark mansion.An ancient curse and a killer ape are contained inside an old dark mansion.An ancient curse and a killer ape are contained inside an old dark mansion.
Joyzelle Joyner
- Chanda
- (as Laya Joy)
George 'Gabby' Hayes
- David Fells
- (as George Hayes)
Harry C. Bradley
- Prof. Horatio Potter
- (as Harry Bradley)
Sam Godfrey
- Jerome Ellis
- (as Samuel Godfrey)
Dick Botiller
- Hindu
- (uncredited)
Eddy Chandler
- Detective Sawyer
- (uncredited)
George Cleveland
- Detective Clancy
- (uncredited)
Bruce Mitchell
- Bartender
- (uncredited)
James C. Morton
- Englishman
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
House of Mystery is ok as a 1934 mystery movie with a respectful dose of comedy thrown in. I was hoping for something a little scarier but that never came about. As a mystery, I thought it was below average but the strange and often comedic characters did keep things interesting. The movie doesn't drag or bog down, but that may be in large part to the fact that the film is only 62 minutes long. It never really met my expectations but had enough going for it that it managed to keep my interest. My impression of this movie is that it was just an ok movie, nothing special, but certainly not bad. If you see it, I think you might get some enjoyment out of it, but if you don't see it, you're really not missing too much. A respectable but forgettable 30s mystery movie.
The theme is nice and supernatural, nearly but it's a murder mystery. I didn't expect there to be comedy too. I found the film in the first half hour interesting but the second was silly. The policemen were comics and it became too over the top daft. I like old films but this one was just not my kind of thing. The ending felt rushed and I wanted to see a bit more to round it off.
Years ago fortune hunter ran a foul of an Indian cult. Now years later he calls together the backers of his trip to try and make amends and to make right what happened.
Or so he says.
Actually there's more going on here than meets the eye, not to mention a potentially murderous gorilla.
This is a very good, completely unremarkable and completely forgettable movie that is probably destined to end up lost in your memory. I know I have a hell of a hard time remembering which movie this is every time I run across it in my movie collection. I have to put it on to see what it is and more times than not I'll leave it on. Its not one that I actively search out to watch, even though I've seen it numerous times.
Should you get the chance, you might want to give it a try, just don't expect to remember it in the morning.
Or so he says.
Actually there's more going on here than meets the eye, not to mention a potentially murderous gorilla.
This is a very good, completely unremarkable and completely forgettable movie that is probably destined to end up lost in your memory. I know I have a hell of a hard time remembering which movie this is every time I run across it in my movie collection. I have to put it on to see what it is and more times than not I'll leave it on. Its not one that I actively search out to watch, even though I've seen it numerous times.
Should you get the chance, you might want to give it a try, just don't expect to remember it in the morning.
An obnoxious archaeologist insults the locals in Asia and has to flee, but not before grabbing a hoard of Asian treasures as he scurries back to the U.S. His investors back home want part of the fortune that he brings back with him. So he invites them all to his two-story mansion, but informs them that an Asian "curse" befalls those in possession of the fortune. His proposition is that the investors stay in his house for awhile and see for themselves what happens.
It's a silly story concept. But it does offer a neat little puzzle for whodunit fans to solve. The plot involves a séance, some incense, and tom-tom drums. There are multiple plot holes, at least one of which is revealed by means of dialogue. The solution to the puzzle includes a psychological concept called "conditioned response". But the application of it to this story is not very credible.
Characters are poorly developed, which is not surprising, given the short runtime. There are eight or so suspects, none very interesting, apart from a grouchy old woman lording over her henpecked husband. The insurance salesman is a bit annoying. The cops are rather nondescript and bumbling. I could have wished for a Charlie Chan.
In the version I watched, sound quality was not very good, and neither was the B&W cinematography. The visuals tended to be unnecessarily dark and somewhat blurry, probably a result of inferior technology in the 1930s. Casting is okay. But acting is exaggerated, also likely resulting from an era just emerging from silent films.
Aside from poor visuals and sound, which we might expect for that era, the main problem is a not very credible story premise, compounded by poor characterization. Even so, the film might still appeal to viewers who like animated puzzles, which is what a whodunit film really is.
It's a silly story concept. But it does offer a neat little puzzle for whodunit fans to solve. The plot involves a séance, some incense, and tom-tom drums. There are multiple plot holes, at least one of which is revealed by means of dialogue. The solution to the puzzle includes a psychological concept called "conditioned response". But the application of it to this story is not very credible.
Characters are poorly developed, which is not surprising, given the short runtime. There are eight or so suspects, none very interesting, apart from a grouchy old woman lording over her henpecked husband. The insurance salesman is a bit annoying. The cops are rather nondescript and bumbling. I could have wished for a Charlie Chan.
In the version I watched, sound quality was not very good, and neither was the B&W cinematography. The visuals tended to be unnecessarily dark and somewhat blurry, probably a result of inferior technology in the 1930s. Casting is okay. But acting is exaggerated, also likely resulting from an era just emerging from silent films.
Aside from poor visuals and sound, which we might expect for that era, the main problem is a not very credible story premise, compounded by poor characterization. Even so, the film might still appeal to viewers who like animated puzzles, which is what a whodunit film really is.
From the time I was a small child, watching our first TV set, I was intrigued by the movies of the 30's and 40's featuring men in gorilla suits. We were to take them seriously (my favorite was the one in the Laurel and Hardy movie in Switzerland). Here we have the standard mystery with the central character a boorish man who supposedly has a curse on him. He has done shameless things in a foreign country in the past, and now decides to meet his investors a mansion to pay them their rightful earnings from their investments. It is a cast of the usual buffoons where several are murdered. Still it is quite a bit of fun.
Did you know
- TriviaThe failure of the original copyright holder to renew the film's copyright resulted in it falling into public domain, meaning that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a VHS/DVD copy of the film. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market are either severely (and usually badly) edited and/or of extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation (or more) copies of the film.
- Quotes
Prof. Horatio Potter: I shan't be able to go my dear. I must be at the museum. They're going to unwrap the mummy of Ramses the Fourth.
Mrs. Hyacinth Potter: Listen, you worm: you'll be at Mr. Pren's house tomorrow night and forget all about Ramses the Fourth or I'll make a mummy out of Potter the First!
- ConnectionsFeatured in Scream Stream Live!: The House of Mystery (2023)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 2m(62 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content