RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

jacobs-greenwood You can witness elements of what will become the director's style, but overall the pace is fairly plodding and the story pretty lame and confusing. One immediately notices the experimentation with the camera, from the hand held shot at the beginning when the actor John Stuart enters the "house for let", to the many candle lit scenes as the characters mount the stairs and explore the house, to the quick cuts used later in the chase to add suspense.Additionally, the comic elements used during moments of tension foreshadow the director's later works. One shot, which he used again in The 39 Steps (1935), occurs when the two men discover the body and their screams are masked by a passing train's whistle. The suspenseful, harrowing chase, though clearly done with miniatures, is also a tried and true characteristic later associated with Hitchcock, to say nothing of the use of trains in his films in general.The story begins with "Stuart" entering an abandoned house, full of cobwebs. He soon meets another man, a rather odd cockney-accented Igor type, who says his name is Ben, and the two of them stumble upon a corpse. Rather oddly, "Stuart" is able to "control" Ben, and there are some really slow moments where not enough tension is built before the next thing happens. Plus, oftentimes what happens next is not enough of a payoff for our wait. There are also some seemly disconnected cutaways, e.g. to doors slamming etc., which show us that the great director was still finding his way in this film.Shortly thereafter, a young woman (Nora) falls through the rotted ceiling and onto the two men. She provides a clue, a telegram from her father which mentions necklace stolen by Sheldrake from a detective named Barton. Soon there is a knock at the door which "Stuart" goes to answer. After inserting a card with Number Seventeen scrawled on it, a man and a woman are revealed behind the door. They want to see the "house for let". As "Stuart" is closing the door, a second man, not connected with the man and woman, also enters.When all of them mount the stairs, "Stuart" tries to slow them so they won't discover the corpse, but Ben informs him that the body has disappeared. This leads the two men and woman, who is identified by one of the men as a deaf-mute (and looks a little like Mary Astor), to take control. They tie up "Stuart" and Nora while Ben hides in another room. Ben is then "strangled" by Sheldrake, the "corpse", who'd been hiding in the room. With far too many cuts back and forth between the prone Ben and Sheldrake, who's not sure Ben is really "out", Sheldrake removes the diamonded necklace from the loo (the director's humor was in tact back then;-) but unbeknownst to him, Ben pilfers it from him before he exits.What follows is a really poorly done fight sequence which allows Sheldrake's gang (the two men & the woman) to leave after tying up "Stuart" and Nora. A chase ensues with perhaps the most suspense the film can manage, though it feels somewhat overlong. A crash, a rescue in water, and a couple of not altogether unexpected twists end the film.

LeonLouisRicci it has been reported that Hitch shucked this one off after it was made and didn't have anything good to say about it. The Movie does seem disjointed and clunky at times and is certainly a product of its Era. But hold on. You would be hard pressed to find another very Low-Budget Movie from the early thirties with a final Third Act so frantically edited and exciting in its use of quick cuts and miniature manipulation.It zips along with a frenetic chase between a bus and a train and finally a Docking Pier that eerily anticipates modern Film Technique. It is true that Hitchcock abandon this visceral type of fast paced thrill for more crafted Suspense and toned down displays. But here He experiments with the tools at hand and shows why He would later be called a Master. This was Playtime for Hitch at School and it shows.The first half of the Movie with its Old Dark House sensibility has its moments too. Darkly lit with creepiness and shadows lurking everywhere with some limited remarkable Action and Plot twists. It all emerges as not all that clear what is going on and who is who, but this is not serious stuff, it is just for some Fun at the Bijou.

writers_reign Billy Wilder, a far greater filmmaker than Hitchcock could ever aspire to be, had a penchant for the name Sheldrake; he bestowed it on a Producer played by Fred Clark in Sunset Boulevard and almost a decade later he gave it to Fred MacMurray in The Apartment. In Number Seventeen Garry Marsh plays a character named Sheldrake and that, I'm afraid, is about as close to a genius like Wilder as journeyman Hitch ever came, despite the hype, PR and King's New Clothes element that clings to him like ectoplasm. If you're happy to go along with a plot that has a wind blow the hat off a character in the first minute and on retrieving it he decides, on a whim, to explore an old house with a For Sale/Rent sign in front of it, and then becomes embroiled with a disappearing corpse and a gang of jewel thieves then don't let me spoil your enjoyment. I'll be watching re-runs of 'Crossroads' which have more to offer.

Spikeopath Early Alfred Hitchcock film that finds a bunch of criminals gathered at a house following a jewel robbery. Hot on their tail is a detective and as the tension mounts and suspicion begins to take a hold, it unravels that all is not as it at first seemed.Hitchcock didn't want do do it, he got lumbered with it, and later in his career he would remark that the film was a disaster. While that statement is not exactly true, it is a bit of a mess of a film, but such is Hitchcock's standing in cinema, we can now view it and appreciate some nice touches whilst acknowledging it's an odd blend of chaos and drama. First two thirds is set in one darkened house full of shadows, suspicious characters and creaky dialogue. There's impressive expressionistic photography to enjoy, which is good since nothing makes much sense and it's so murky it's hard to follow the plotting. Then the story breaks out to become a pursue and chase thriller, where a number of vehicles enter the fray with a mix of models and footage blended together for desired exciting effect. Then on to the reveal and it's end credit time. Wrapped up neatly in just over an hour.The good moments make it worth the watch, especially for Hitchcock fans who get a little taster of what would come from him further down the line. But it isn't essential Hitchcock viewing and ultimately the great director's displeasure with it says far more than any critical reviews can. 5/10