H.B. Warner and Sally Blane are the nominal stars (although lovely Sally is hardly in the movie at all) of "Cross Examination" with Warner in his element as the defense counsel, while Edmund Breese scores as the prosecutor in Arthur Hoerl's well-paced, edge-of-the-seat script. Richard Thorpe directs the court proceedings in fine style and manages to give this taut, 74-minute support attraction plenty of production values, despite his "B" budget. Don Dillaway makes an effectively soppy hero, Wilfred Lucas enjoys a substantial role for once (he's the judge), William V. Mong is in his element as the heavy, and the exotic Natalie Moorhead can be also glimpsed in what is by Poverty Row standards quite an extensive cast line-up.
7 Reviews
Didn't see that revelation coming
greenbudgie24 March 2021
I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I'm not usually a fan of courtroom dramas but I found myself growing more and more engrossed in the story the longer the movie continued. As each witness gives their evidence we are taken back to the night of a murder as individually viewed by each witness. The person murdered is a wealthy curmudgeon who was about to change his will. This grouchy man of wealth intends to disinherit everybody in his family and staff.
David Wells is accused of murdering his father and is brought to trial. His Defense Attorney is well played by H. B. Warner who later portrayed Colonel Nielson in some of the Bulldog Drummond mysteries. There is also a good performance by Sarah Padden as a surprise witness while William V. Mong looks good visually as the old curmudgeon who gets murdered. The respectability of the court is countered for a time by an amusing character called Varney who is in between jobs as a bootlegger and a revenue officer.
The story is told at a steady pace that slowly drew me into it's mystery. The characters speak in slow deliberate tones that is suitable for the seriousness of the situation in which David Wells finds himself. This is in contrast to the quickfire dialogue of many of the films of the 1930s and 1940s. The ending is very touching and there is a reveal that I didn't see coming. I recommend you search out this little known mystery.
David Wells is accused of murdering his father and is brought to trial. His Defense Attorney is well played by H. B. Warner who later portrayed Colonel Nielson in some of the Bulldog Drummond mysteries. There is also a good performance by Sarah Padden as a surprise witness while William V. Mong looks good visually as the old curmudgeon who gets murdered. The respectability of the court is countered for a time by an amusing character called Varney who is in between jobs as a bootlegger and a revenue officer.
The story is told at a steady pace that slowly drew me into it's mystery. The characters speak in slow deliberate tones that is suitable for the seriousness of the situation in which David Wells finds himself. This is in contrast to the quickfire dialogue of many of the films of the 1930s and 1940s. The ending is very touching and there is a reveal that I didn't see coming. I recommend you search out this little known mystery.
A very unusual courtroom drama.
planktonrules8 August 2018
"Cross-Examination" is a highly unusual courtroom drama. This is because the story begins in court and you are learning about things as the courtroom hears about them. And, as each person tells his story on the witness stand, the story then has a brief flashback showing the action that had occurred. This style was great as it kept the film fresh and original. The story has a strong "Madam X" sort of style and is clever. However, it never really rises above all this because it's a cheap B-movie and the acting was about what you'd expect from that.
Sally Blane Is Just Decoration In This One....
kidboots14 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
....and slinky Natalie Moorehead has even less to do, if that's possible! Emory Wells is found dead in his study and his son David (Don Dillaway) is on trial for his murder. He refuses to talk but through various testimonies a picture is built up of a pretty cantankerous old man. This movie format must have been old hat even in 1932 - 1929's "Thru Different Eyes" made it look shiny and new! The plot is centred on the trial where there is a re-enactment of each witness' remembrance of events of that night.
Just before his death Wells draws up a new will leaving David due to inherit the princely sum of $1 and the servants nothing at all!! David has problems of his own - he has fallen in love with Grace (sweet Sally), unhappy wife of a bootlegger and needs money to pay for her divorce etc. He is tricked into signing away his inheritance with the promise of being given some of his aunt's diamonds - and with those famous last words "I could kill you" he flees the scene. Moorehead, as Well's much younger wife, then takes the witness box but she can barely remember her own name let alone the stock that she was so eager to buy into - she was also left with nothing in the will!
This movie is no award winner but it is helped by the first class professionalism of it's stars - H.B. Warner with his warm and sincere voice, he could recite the phone book and bring a tear to your eye. Not so Sarah Padden who had to carry the last part of the plot and knew only one gear - ponderous emoting!
Just before his death Wells draws up a new will leaving David due to inherit the princely sum of $1 and the servants nothing at all!! David has problems of his own - he has fallen in love with Grace (sweet Sally), unhappy wife of a bootlegger and needs money to pay for her divorce etc. He is tricked into signing away his inheritance with the promise of being given some of his aunt's diamonds - and with those famous last words "I could kill you" he flees the scene. Moorehead, as Well's much younger wife, then takes the witness box but she can barely remember her own name let alone the stock that she was so eager to buy into - she was also left with nothing in the will!
This movie is no award winner but it is helped by the first class professionalism of it's stars - H.B. Warner with his warm and sincere voice, he could recite the phone book and bring a tear to your eye. Not so Sarah Padden who had to carry the last part of the plot and knew only one gear - ponderous emoting!
Well-Performed Courtroom Mystery
boblipton29 March 2018
William V. Mong has called in his lawyer to witness his new will in which he has cut off his son with a dollar. His son, Don Dillaway, comes in and they have a private conference. When next seen, his father is dead.
The movie takes place in court, with Wilfred Lucas presiding, Edmund Breese as the prosecuting attorney, H.B. Warner as the defense attorney, and Dillaway as the defendant. As each defendant testifies, the events of the evening are shown in flashback. It's a nicely structured example of the courtroom detective story, but it has the same essential flaw that every example holds for me: an utter failure of the investigative process that has led to the trial. The script ameliorates this by offering some strong motivations for people to hide their actions, but it niggles me nonetheless.
Still and all, it was a pleasure to watch the old professionals at work under the direction of Richard Thorpe, a sure hand at getting good results on screen with not much in the way in budgets. Within a couple of years he would go to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer where he would gradually work his way up through programmers into the big time, still coming in on budget for good results. In an era when hundreds of millions of dollars are tossed around by directors who have had one or two independent successes -- the modern-day equivalent of the Poverty-Row studios where Thorpe had toiled for nine years when he directed this movie -- it's a virtue worth noting.
The movie takes place in court, with Wilfred Lucas presiding, Edmund Breese as the prosecuting attorney, H.B. Warner as the defense attorney, and Dillaway as the defendant. As each defendant testifies, the events of the evening are shown in flashback. It's a nicely structured example of the courtroom detective story, but it has the same essential flaw that every example holds for me: an utter failure of the investigative process that has led to the trial. The script ameliorates this by offering some strong motivations for people to hide their actions, but it niggles me nonetheless.
Still and all, it was a pleasure to watch the old professionals at work under the direction of Richard Thorpe, a sure hand at getting good results on screen with not much in the way in budgets. Within a couple of years he would go to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer where he would gradually work his way up through programmers into the big time, still coming in on budget for good results. In an era when hundreds of millions of dollars are tossed around by directors who have had one or two independent successes -- the modern-day equivalent of the Poverty-Row studios where Thorpe had toiled for nine years when he directed this movie -- it's a virtue worth noting.
The sins of the father catch up with him.
mark.waltz31 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
When the son of a mean-spirited skin flint is accused of his own father's murder, his much younger wife, attorney and the servants all step up to the prosecution of the troubled young man (Don Dillaway) who obviously had good reason to hate his father (William V. Mong). The old man, who seemed so much older than his son, was a vile human being intent on disowning his son, much younger wife (Natalie Moorhead) and various employees. All evidence points to Dillaway as guilty; He was overheard telling the old fossil that he didn't deserve to live, but as seen in flashbacks, there's obviously more to the story than that. There is a surprise witness in store, a concerned old lady (Sara Padden) who sits throughout the trial before making her own way to the stand, this time as witness for the defense.
Top-billed H.B. Warner is excellent as the defense attorney, a kindly man who seems more worthy of being Dillaway's father than the evil Mong. In fact, as the story unfolds, he does become sort of a surrogate father to Dillaway, and even in the conclusion, it is obvious that he will remain in that capacity. Sally Blane plays the young woman in Dillaway's life. As for the revelation, let me tell you that while it does seem like I should have, I didn't see what Padden reveals coming from a mile away. Her testimony is riveting, and a last minute clincher that this "B" movie is indeed quite well plotted. Still, there are some questions unanswered which prevented me from calling this more than just acceptable bottom of the bill feature. Had the print of this been complete (almost 20 minutes are cut from the Alpha video DVD), I may have had those questions answered. But what is there kept my interest, and in films this old, that is the most important quality that a viewer can hope for.
Top-billed H.B. Warner is excellent as the defense attorney, a kindly man who seems more worthy of being Dillaway's father than the evil Mong. In fact, as the story unfolds, he does become sort of a surrogate father to Dillaway, and even in the conclusion, it is obvious that he will remain in that capacity. Sally Blane plays the young woman in Dillaway's life. As for the revelation, let me tell you that while it does seem like I should have, I didn't see what Padden reveals coming from a mile away. Her testimony is riveting, and a last minute clincher that this "B" movie is indeed quite well plotted. Still, there are some questions unanswered which prevented me from calling this more than just acceptable bottom of the bill feature. Had the print of this been complete (almost 20 minutes are cut from the Alpha video DVD), I may have had those questions answered. But what is there kept my interest, and in films this old, that is the most important quality that a viewer can hope for.
Deadly dull
lor_3 November 2023
This courtroom drama is very poorly structured, almost self-destructively. Director Richard Thorpe went on to direct major motion pictures for major studios, but delivered total hackwork this time out.
Structure has one witness after another called to the stand and their testimony illustrated by a flashback. Sometimes the flashbacks overlap, but not in an interesting or dramatic "Rashomon" fashion, but merely redundant, adding to the accumulated tedium. The man in the audience writing (in cursive fashion yet) his impressions of the testimony to spoon feed the viewer is not merely dated but insulting, as if the audience was too dum bot follow the story without assistance.
Casting is extremely weak, with Warner as the defense attorney not balanced by having a relatively incompetent prosecutor (latter's acting and dialogue are both deficient). The sentimental ending is a total crock, and both "leads" (not really, in an ensemble cast) nonentity Don Dillaway and underutilized Sally Blane) have zero impact.
The version I watched ran only an hour, which is more than a reel less than the published 74 minute running time, but not only seemed complete, but was excruciatingly ponderous even at that length.
Structure has one witness after another called to the stand and their testimony illustrated by a flashback. Sometimes the flashbacks overlap, but not in an interesting or dramatic "Rashomon" fashion, but merely redundant, adding to the accumulated tedium. The man in the audience writing (in cursive fashion yet) his impressions of the testimony to spoon feed the viewer is not merely dated but insulting, as if the audience was too dum bot follow the story without assistance.
Casting is extremely weak, with Warner as the defense attorney not balanced by having a relatively incompetent prosecutor (latter's acting and dialogue are both deficient). The sentimental ending is a total crock, and both "leads" (not really, in an ensemble cast) nonentity Don Dillaway and underutilized Sally Blane) have zero impact.
The version I watched ran only an hour, which is more than a reel less than the published 74 minute running time, but not only seemed complete, but was excruciatingly ponderous even at that length.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
