The Mystery of the 13th Guest

A young girl arrives at her ancestral home and is promptly murdered-- -or is she? Twelve years earlier the murdered woman, as a little girl, had attended a birthday party for her dying grandfather. Thirteen partygoers were invited but only twelve attended. The thirteenth guest was death.

Now, in the present, the original twelve guests are members of the family fighting over the will and someone wants the money badly enough to kill for it. Detective Dick Purcell is called in to solve the crime, aided by comic sidekicks and the usual inept policemen who only seem to inhabit "B" mysteries. Directed by William "One Shot" Beaudine, this 60 minute quickie is a darn good version of the Armitage Trail mystery and manages to be a little better that its 1932 predecessor-----though for some reason the 1943 film is much more difficult to see.

Perhaps I am not as well-versed in movie history as others are. I don't know what a Monogram film is.

I like mysteries and it was recommended in Netflix. I was surprised to see it only lasted an hour. Of course, well before the hour was up I was grateful for that fact.

This is not a good movie. It's akin to a bad short story; you just have to finish even though you know it's not going to get any better.

The grandfather dies and the folks who were at dinner 13 years before begin dying off. Who is responsible? We eventually find out, but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why that person is responsible.

The dialogue is insipid. The acting is not good. The lighting doesn't seem too good either. There's the hard-edge detective and the campy one-liners. It just didn't work.

Spare yourself; there are better movies out there. There's nothing about this that I find worth sitting through.

The Morgan house at has been locked up for thirteen years, ever since the death of the family patriarch (played in flashback by Lloyd Ingraham). There was, of course, the usual rigmarole of mutually antagonistic heirs, a shady lawyer, and a will calculated to make things as difficult as possible for everybody. The dying Morgan had summoned Barksdale the lawyer and all ten of the heirs out to the house to discuss his impending death and its aftermath. Morgan's will was sealed, its contents secret even from Barksdale, and it was to remain so until the youngest of his grandchildren- eight-year-old Marie (played as an adult by Helen Parrish)- turned 21. When Marie turns 21 yesterday, she lets herself into her grandfather's house, she finds it exactly as it was thirteen years ago, except with a telephone installed, which doesn't make a lot of sense in a house where nobody lives. A shot rings out, and Marie rushes to the mysterious telephone to call the police. No sooner has she lifted the handset to her ear, though, than she goes into convulsions and sinks slowly to the floor, apparently dead. Soon more dead bodies follow...

Decent enough mystery with a idea typical of the era, some fine creepy house atmosphere and shadows and a creepy looking killer donned with mask a la michael Myers, however it doesn't really lifts itself above ordinary. Still it's watchable and there's some good humorous dialogue.

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.

A young woman's grandfather hosts a dinner party for thirteen guests, and he mysteriously dies. Thirteen years later, the woman believes that someone connected to the fatal party is trying to kill her.

I had never heard of this film before, and I doubt very many people have. Which is a shame. It has a good pace, a good story, and wraps up in around an hour. This is the kind of film anyone could enjoy.

In some ways, it has the feel of Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None", but it is its own story and should not be written off as a derivative narrative. Well, unless you consider it derivative of the previous incarnation, "The Thirteenth Guest" (1932). As I have not seen that version, I cannot comment.