User reviews

This is an entertaining murder mystery of the mid-1930s made on a budget so small it would fit in a child's pocket. The lack of production values and largely unknown cast do not however detract from the appeal of this unpretentious offering, for those who like creaky old mystery films and enjoy seeing the manners and mores of a bygone era. The only performance which really stands out is by Robert Warwick, who was a cut above the rest and does superbly well, old trooper and charmer that he was. The plot outline given for this film at the moment is entirely wrong, is obviously that of another film, and should be replaced, as this film is not about people in a room being murdered. It is set on a university campus, though no classrooms come into it, and it is all about someone inheriting when he turns 21 and whether he hangs himself or not. Some novel twists are introduced, an unusual murder weapon appears, and there are some far-fetched solutions. But it is all good fun for those who are not fussy. in other words, people who just like a good mystery film and do not demand modern stars, big budgets, car chases, and exploding buildings.

The strength of this film is a pretty complex plot. There are a few layers we need to wade through and that's a good thing. Once that was established, the film becomes worthwhile. There are so many other things that are really hard for the modern viewer. First of all, most of the college students seem to be about thirty-five years old, fully mature, looking more like bank executives. We have the father who writes mystery novels who just moves in and takes over. The handling of evidence and the ignorance of the police force is all so contrived. We have the young woman who does nothing but sit in the shadows. We have a chance to solve the crime and they send her into a room where she is almost killed. There's no reason for this.

I did enjoy Everett Sloan, whom I remember as Van Helsing from the Lugosi Dracula. His voice is delightful. I also got a kick out of all the smoking that the self declared detective did. He was constantly blowing smoke in people's faces and couldn't seem to get through two minutes without lighting up. I wonder what the lung cancer rate was back then. This is worth a watch and has some surprises even with its rough edges.

Midway through this Chesterfield mystery, I found myself wondering: Is this plot awfully complex, or just awfully muddled? A suicide that is a murder; a stolen letter; an old photo in an album; odd family relations and relationships….Various characters guard strange secrets of the past and present. But I'm still not sure how much sense it makes.

Three male leads are at the center of the story. Charles Starrett is of course the rather upright and dashing young student whose roommate is bumped off in the film's opening moments. Starrett immediately calls for assistance from his criminologist father, played by Robert Warwick in the best Holmesian style. It seems like a promising setup—a father-son team parsing clues, nabbing bad guys. But, for me at least, Starrett's character came across as overly deferential and Warwick's as annoyingly smug. Third-billed is the great Edward Van Sloan as a professor (naturally) interested in the parties involved; his character is darkly appealing but, alas, not on screen often enough.

Overall, it's not a bad film, exactly, but I just couldn't feel it gain any momentum. The comic relief supplied by the moronic sheriff and his deputy is rather lame, and the rest of the cast seem to take things altogether too seriously. And there's one large red herring that would have added intrigue had it been a "real" clue....Anyway, early practice, I guess, for director Charles Lamont, who would go on to bigger and better and less serious things.

"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings.

**** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush

A student's suicide turns out to be murder. Murder mystery in which the police are happy to sit back and let an amateur criminologist, played with authority by character actor Robert Warwick, lead the investigation. Passable entertainment despite the inevitable far-fetched resolve.

The summary of this film isn't quite right. It is NOT about an old mansion but students at a college are killed--the first in the dorm, another at an assembly. Will there be a third?!

When a student is found hung outside his room, the coroner rules it's a murder--as the body was already dead before he was hung. It seems some sort of deadly needle was shot into the base of the victim's skull! Surely this is a VERY sophisticated murder, so it seems odd that they'd use the clumsy ruse of a hanging to hide the killing. It seems even odder that they'd ask one of the student's fathers to help investigate the crime--especially since he's not a detective but a corporate lawyer! Non-police investigating crimes was common in 1930s and 40s films, but usually they are amateur detectives or adventurers such as the Saint or Bulldog Drummond--here, he's just some lawyer who has had dreams of becoming a gumshoe! This weird plot isn't helped any by the crime itself. While it's supposed to be a mystery, I figured out who the murderer was about halfway through the film. It also was silly how complicated the murders were--they just weren't very practical or believable--more like a B-movie murder than one that could really happen. Overall, a somewhat competent movie that isn't completely bad---it just isn't all that good, either. And, I had to laugh at the old cliché where EVERY TIME A PERSON WAS ABOUT TO TALK, they were soon killed!! Gimme a break! You could do a lot better than this one by watching any of the Charlie Chan films!

One night in a college campus a man commits suicide. Or rather he is murdered and left for dead as if he had. From here on in his friends try to piece together the mystery and discover who the killer is.

A Shot in the Dark is yet another 30's mystery film. These types of films were ten a penny in the decade for some reason. I can't say I thought too much of this one though unfortunately. While it does move through its plot-line fairly methodically and logically, and while it also mercifully does not have an annoying comedy relief character I just found myself somewhat bored to tell you the absolute truth. It was slow and quite uneventful, relying on detective staples rather than thriller ones. Although one thing is for sure, college students have certainly changed a lot in the past 75 years.

While at a party at his college campus Ken Harris gets a call from his dad saying that he's nearby and would like to see him. Ken goes that night to pick up his dad and bring him back to stay in his dorm room. Ken sends his dad up to the room while he parks the car. When Ken arrives at his room he finds that the door is locked and neither his dad nor his roommate will answer the knocks. Ken then crashes for the night in a downstairs friends room. In the morning Ken is awoken by a banging outside. It seems that Ken's roommate has committed suicide by hanging himself out the window. It quickly transpires that what appeared to be suicide was in fact murder and the murderer is still on the prowl.

This is a solid little mystery that unfolds in such away as to keep you glued to the screen wondering whats going to happen next. The investigation, nominally headed by Ken's dad moves along at a good clip and in a logical progression with events, including more murders, coming out of what is revealed in the story. Each clue leads to something else which leads to something else. This is one of the few times that you can feel the source novel actually working well with in the frame work of a 60 minute movie, and where the compression of the story doesn't lead to a moment or two where something seems to come completely out of left field. The film is also unique in that contrary to most mysteries of the period (or mysteries period) the local cops are not buffoons. While they admit that murder is beyond them (the deputy says about all they're used to is speeders) they do make a go of investigating the crime and acquit themselves nicely.

As good as the film is its not perfect. The pacing is a tad slow since the film is has a great deal of talk (though this is not a bad thing). There is one moment where the scenes seem to have been placed out of order with Ken's dad talking about working with the police and in the next scene has a conversation with the police about working with them. The film's main sin is that while we get all of the required information there are times where characters and situations get the short shrift. There are times when I felt we could have known a character more or that perhaps they could have added a scene that lead to something (the discovery of the murder weapon for example).

Still this is a great little flick. Worth a bag of popcorn and some soda on the couch with some friends.(Possibly as part of Murder on Campus which has some of the same cast and also set on a college campus)

While many of the era's murder mysteries incorporated elements of other genres, such as comedy, action or those beloved old dark house kind of horror movies to shake things up a bit (or to make you forget about plot holes), this one uses no such things, which results in a quite serious tone and a very plot centered script. Which could be a good thing, but unfortunately the movie (which is now in public domain) fails in so many ways.

The budget was pretty low (the movie was produced by Chesterfield, shortly before it was merged into Republic, to avoid closure due to their debts), which would not be a problem itself, but the whole film is way too talkie, while the confusing plot drags around quite slow, with not much going on: the incompetent, but unfunny police officer admits that they don't know much about murder and do not really wish to be in charge (just what!?) and the son-and-father duo that ends up handling the case does not do much detective work either, as they often simply run into important evidence accidentally.

The acting is also pretty weak with people reacting to events in totally unlikely ways. For example when they discover the body of Byron, the first victim or when later others are told about his death, they are all like "Oh, really?" with almost zero emotion shown. Even when his mother learns about his death, we see her smiling, showing childhood pictures of the boy just moments later. The way the other murders are committed is rather unrealistic, the actors that are supposed to play collage boys are quite obviously much older than they should be and the plot, which revolves around some complicated family matters and a lot of money is just too muddled and uninteresting to keep up your attention for 70 minutes. Still, it is not a complete waste of time, but not really recommended either.

The real mystery here is how -- and why -- this movie got made. At a mythical college where most of the students have apparently been flunking for years -- since they're all in their thirties -- a body is found hanging outside a dorm window. Suicide? Nah! That'd only be a short subject. The poor lad was bumped off, a murder followed by two more. And if you haven't figured out who the culprit is about five minutes in, it's time to brush up on your 1930s grade-C thrillers. Charles Starrett in the days before he rode the range, can obviously act. His girl friend (whose name I'll omit out of respect) struggles to say a few lines. Hopefully, she moved on to a more suitable career. One last question. Can anyone who's seen the movie tell me why the killings were committed? If so, you're way ahead of the screenwriter.

Gasp! A student has died! And he appears to have been murdered! What a mystery!

It's not a very urgent mystery, mind you, as the course of events proceeds with a blandly flat tone. Very few people here speak with any major emotion in their voice, and one of the actors given the most dialogue (Robert Warwick) drones on with a near-complete monotone. Charles Lamont's direction generally results in blithely casual pacing and execution of even those moments that should be the most lively; some dialogue is somewhat senselessly grandiose both as it is written and as it is delivered. One might say that 'A shot in the dark' comes across as the type of dime-a-dozen mystery rushed out in paperbacks by the boatload, adapted to film. It's not bad, but it certainly doesn't make any real impression, either - nor does it try to.

Actors act, lights shine, four walls build a set, cameras move (a little bit), secrets are uncovered, and so on and so on. Except as it specifically serves to advance the plot, the dialogue and scene writing is frankly unimpressive, and the performances don't make much of a mark. Most troublesome of all is that while all the elements are here that could theoretically form a complete and compelling story, the plot development as we see it comes across as specious and arbitrary to the point that it feels like Movie Magic more than judicious storytelling. Oh, who am I kidding: this is kind of dull.

If you want to watch a mystery movie, and in particular one that won't cost you much more than an hour, then this just may fit the bill. Just don't expect anything more than that genre label portends on a rudimentary level, because you're quite unlikely to get it. 'A shot in the dark' is alright if you come across it, but definitely don't go out of your way.

Caught this film on Hastings Mystery Theater (YouTube) and was surprised at how good the mystery was. The only actor I recognized was Robert Warwick who plays Joseph Harris the father of the young male lead Ken Harris (Charles Starrett).

The film has a truly gruesome opening. After an evening out, Ken Harris returns to his dormitory suite on the Dartmouth campus. Ken is unable to open the door to his room, and his roommate doesn't respond to the knocking on the door. Ken goes down a flight and enters the dorm room below his. There Ken sleeps in an unoccupied bed, but he is awakened by the sound of a low banging on the window. Ken goes to the window, and opens it to see the dead body of his roommate with a noose about his neck. He wakes the student whose room he is in. Let's say the scene gets more gruesome as Ken goes to get a doctor while the other student hauls the dead body up. The relative calmness of both boys makes one wonder what is considered normal on the campus.

The university decides to ask Ken's father, Joe Harris, a well-known lawyer with an interest in criminology, to take on what turns out not to be a suicide but a murder.

As the story plays out there are numerous clues and two additional murders. It even seems possible that Ken's dad could be a suspect.

Some bad acting aside, the film provides a good mystery that will likely have any viewer, including me, making several bad guesses as to who the murderer is. Definitely worth a watch.