Diagonaldi Very well executed

TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

MartinHafer When the film begins, the rich playboy Larry (John Darrow) finds himself engaged to two women--one who is a gold-digger and another, Mary (Mary Brian), who is kind of sweet. Larry manages to shake loose the gold-digger but just when it looks as if the marriage will go off without a hitch, Larry is in the wrong place at the wrong time and the police think he killed someone! He's sentenced to 10 years in prison--a wonderful way to spend his wedding night! However, there is a LOT more to the story than this. There is a clue that the real killer is a guy who is obsessed with playing a bizarre little system for roulette--and when Larry manages to escape from the train taking him to prison, he begins to investigate on his own! And this is only the beginning....see the film and you'll see what I mean.The plot to this film is wildly improbable and the actors are mostly unknowns. Additionally, the film is obviously a cheap B-movie with very modest pretenses. BUT, despite all this, it IS entertaining and well made. If you don't spend too much time thinking through the plot, it is quite fun and worth seeing. A better than average B-mystery, that's for sure.

Lechuguilla A reviewer needs to give really old movies a lot of latitude. That is particularly true regarding visuals and sound, but also to a lesser extent the story. Hitchcock was perhaps an exception. But a lot of latitude still allows one to critique on points that any filmmaker should have been aware of, even in those days.The most significant problem here is a plot that is rushed. I can accept that 1930s Hollywood is responsible for the conspicuous absence of pauses between lines of dialogue. This is typical of films back then; it conveys the impression that the runtime is being clocked with a stopwatch.But in this film some scenes don't connect well, and I'm left with the impression that connecting scenes may have been cut out. How else are we to explain Inspector Gunby's assumption that Larry is innocent? Then there's that scene where Larry appears at the window at Mary's home; how did he get there from his escape location? How did he manage to get from Mary's home to Monte Carlo? None of these actions are explained. Were connecting scenes edited out? If yes, why? If, on the other hand, this is the way the scriptwriter wanted the plot to play, then it's a poorly written script. Either way, the film, at barely sixty minutes, appears forced into a runtime straight-jacket.Production values are acceptable for the era. B&W photography is about what one would expect, grainy, and with the use of static camera shots. Casting could have had more diverse looking females. Acting was a bit exaggerated at times, not unusual for early talkies.I suppose one could say that "Monte Carlo Nights" is a suspense film; there's a little, not much. The ending contains a slight story twist, but one that is not satisfying. The overall whodunit resolution here is disappointing. Other whodunit films from the same era are better.

ptb-8 Well! I like this film and here's why: it is very well made, it has two excellent good looking stars in beautiful Mary Bryant and handsome John Darrow, it is MODERN as a 1934 pic can be, it is actually interesting, a lot of care is evident s the casting and costumes... and the art direction, set design and budget is clearly on show on screen. Best of all for me is that it is a 1934 Monogram Picture and this little film company started in 1931 as a very low rung indie was really getting up into big theatrical bookings and excellent box office success. This is a good small film with very strong screen cred. It comes from a small pulp fiction dime novel whodunit by schlockmeister E Phillips Oppenheim who possible ground out dozens of mystery thrillers in the 20s. Like KING KELLY OF THE USA made the same year at Monogram, it is a calling card to big chain theaters: this little film company was striving to please; and this film does in the ways described above. And at 60 minutes or so, it would have been booked everywhere and very profitable.... as I said on the KELLY comments... no wonder big bad wolf Herbert J Yates was waiting to gobble them up into Republic Pictures the next year, as he did, until Monogram wriggled free in 1937 and rattled on until 1988 (as Allied Artists). This is antique talkie fun... and very well made.

boblipton A man found guilty of a murder he didn't commit, a daring escape by leaping off a train crossing a bridge, a shooting in a café and a scrap of paper that leads to a denouement in Monte Carlo --- these are the plot points that tell you you're watching a great Hitchcockian thriller. Only it isn't a Hitchcock picture, it's directed by William Nigh for Monogram and it is pretty poor -- especially as we've seen Hitchcock do it right, starting a year later with THE 39 STEPS. Really, the main reason to see this movie is to serve as counterpoint to Hitchcock.Even the sound system seems off. Everyone speaks their lines with great emphasis as if every article is of great importance. There are some good actors lurking here, including gorgeous Mary Bryan, Astrid Allwyn and George 'Gabby' Hayes, clean-shaven, hair neatly combed and his teeth in. But really, you'd do yourself a favor by giving this one a miss.