Pluskylang Great Film overall

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Uriah43 This movie begins with a young woman by the name of "Mary Kirk Logan" (Jean Parker) writing a letter in prison minutes before she is supposed to be executed for murder. The scene then shifts to a criminologist named "Charles Finch" (Lionel Atwill) as he is reading a portion of the letter to a small group of men who are interested in the story he has to tell. It's at this point that the movie backtracks to the day that the murder occurred. However, rather than reveal any more of this movie I will just say that it contained an adequate amount of mystery and suspense but it was too short (only 56 minutes) and compact to be as effective as it could have been. Of course, a number of movies produced during this particular time were rather abbreviated due to budget constraints so this particular film isn't necessarily an anomaly. Even so the movie suffered as a result and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.

JohnHowardReid By the extremely humble standard of PRC, this is not a bad movie at all. In fact, if we can accept the somewhat unbelievable manipulations of the plot (e.g. the doomed heroine's boyfriend just happens to the state's official executioner) and the implied but strong criticism of the U.S.A. justice system, it's quite a revelation. Here are just a few of many examples of the script's unstated but strongly implied resumé of slip-shod "justice": Short- sighted Byron Foulger's testimony is, to say the least, highly questionable, but the heroine's totally inept attorney doesn't call him to account at all, and the half asleep judge is so totally incompetent that he too notices nothing unusual in either the testimony itself or the way it is interpreted. Nor presumably does the judge intervene when the jury delivers an obviously half-baked verdict. Worst of all, we are then presented with a careless and totally irresponsible governor – presumably a Republican – who doesn't bother to stay at his desk on the night of the execution, let alone ring the prison or have his secretary stand by at the phone. Instead, he's gadding about at a roadside diner! Fortunately, Lionel Atwill manages to hold the plot together and, despite all, the film does emerge as a second feature winner. Jean Parker makes an attractively convincing heroine, while Douglas Fowley holds down an unusual role as the sympathetic executioner. Available on an excellent Grapevine DVD coupled with the far superior 20th Century Fox "B", Behind Green Lights.

Alex da Silva Mary (Jean Parker) is due to die on the electric chair. She makes the walk towards her fate but there is still hope for a reprieve. The story is told by Charles Finch (Lionel Atwill) in flashback. Will Mary be saved for a crime that she didn't commit...?...While Atwill is quite good, the acting is all rather forgettable. As is the story. I only watched it yesterday and there are already some gaps in my memory. The cast are uninspiring to watch with Marcia Mae Jones's character as Suzi, Parker's sister, being the standout performance. Not because she is any good, but because she is mad. The fadeout techniques between scenes are interesting to begin with but endless repetition cheapens the device. The film also seems rushed. It's not a particularly bad film but it's nothing great.

MartinHafer I decided to watch this ultra-low budget film from the "Poverty Row" studio, PRC, because it co-starred the exciting character actor, Lionel Atwill—plus I really liked the title. Even though Atwill often played in these cheap movies, his excellent style of acting always made the films seem a lot better, as his screen persona was great (his real life is also quite interesting—sort of like a bizarre soap opera). The reason I use the term "Poverty Row" is that this was a nickname given to the very cheapest and worst production companies of the era. Many of these weren't even real studios, but production companies that rented space and sets from the major studios at night! Yes, there is a good chance this was filmed after normal working hours—a common thing for such studios.The story begins with Lionel Atwill telling his friends a story about something that he was involved with years ago. A doctor falls in love with a lady but he's afraid to tell her about himself. That's because his job is putting people to death on Death Row—not exactly a glamor job! The Doc asks his friend (Atwill) for advice on how to break it to her, but regardless she won't have the man. Later, you realize it's because her own parents were criminals.Later, a man is killed and the lady is implicated—though it's obvious to anyone with a brain that her sister was involved (and is a bit of a nut) and the evidence against the lady was poor. But, apparently the jury was filled with brainless people and she was convicted and sent to Death Row. Even more brainless is that her old boyfriend was the man who was responsible for her execution. Don't you think someone else might just be able to handle this case?! Until this fateful hour, her friend (Atwill) spends much of the film trying to prove her innocence—and prove that the flaky sister knows far more about the case than she'll admit.Overall, the movie is only mildly interesting and a bit silly. While it is watchable and Atwill is good (as usual), the rest of the film never really rises above the mundane and some of the acting is pretty shabby. It's sub-par and about what you'd expect from such a low-budget flick—and nothing more despite the cool title.