Reviews

Some of the reviewers here need to lighten up a bit. The negative comments on this film are evidently by those who cannot appreciate how hard it is to make a movie for $2500 and have it gross a half million because of it's cult status. Are the jokes bad? Absolutely. Is the acting awful? Some of it, yes. But to me this is what cult cinema is about. It doesn't take itself seriously and viewers shouldn't either. It's 84 minutes of fun with more than a few laughs. Eddie Deezen calls this his worst movie he ever appeared in and even he misses the point while making the film a joy for those who love bad movies. He's brilliant! Is Mark Pirro going to be the next Alfred Hitchcock? No but he's done something major studios only dream of. Make a film for nearly nothing and 40 years later people are still discovering it and smiling. I did. Find it. Watch it. And please write a review that will absorb the bad ones that don't get it. They'll never get it.

I'm shocked at so many of the reviews giving redeeming value to this serial. Above average production values? Really. So bad it's worth seeing? Yes, there are films so ridiculously bad they're good but I beg to differ that this is one of them. Not giving anything away by telling you that the villain is a hand. The story features the character called America's Sherlock Holmes, Craig Kennedy who is also called a Scientific Detective. Played here by 2nd fiddle actor Jack Mulhall with Rex Lease as his newspaper reporter friend Walter Jameson. Today's LED bulbs are brighter than the two of them put together and all I could do for 15 Chapters to entertain myself was to sing Help Gironda, help help Gironda who is the missing scientist who supposedly has developed a formula for synthetic gold. He hasn't and he's not even really missing which isn't giving away a spoiler. You know almost right away that he's the dreaded clutching hand. It's laughable but you won't laugh. I like serials and can usually find something to like about all of them. I'll get back to you.

...how I ever got through this serial. It's a mystery why the main character is in it less less than half the time. There are worse serials but this one's really long and boring. I love the genre but even the cliffhangers aren't that exciting (maybe one good one in the whole lot) there's just not a lot of motivation to keep watching. There's too much repetition even for a Katzman flick. The cast isn't terrible but they do very little to even justify their being a part of the story. Stretching out a 55 minute movie to 15 Chapters without some good fight scenes or suspenseful moments is like having a root canal that lasts 3 hours too long. I'm not one of those who dislikes Columbia's serials but it's ones like this that gets most of them stamped as garbage. It would have been more fun to watch Talbot, King, Fowley, and Acuff pass around a whiskey bottle and tell anecdotes about the crap films they had been in. At least there would have been laughs.

I'd like to give some points for effort here. This was obviously done by someone who is a fan of the character. That being said they missed the entire point of Mabuse. I was lost after the very first scene. Don't know what I expected it's hard to determine what was the worst thing; the acting, the sets, the script, and did I mention the acting? I've been to haunted houses with better performances and more realistic sets. Just as obvious is that most of these reviews were done by cast members or their families. Only a mother could love anything here. Just too amateurish and cheap to deserve even 10 minutes of your time much less over an hour. It had the look of something you'd see in a graphic novel and would probably have been better in that format. Sorry to be so brutal about it but the longer I watched the sillier it got. If the creator of Dr. Mabuse (which they didn't even pronounce correctly) was alive he'd have to stop this from ever seeing the light of day. No wonder this is free to view on YouTube. NOONE would pay to see this on stage or in a theater.

Let me get this out of the way first. Those who are so hard on Joe Cole seemed to base their opinion solely on the fact that he's not Michael Caine. Agree. But he was quite good as were almost everyone in this cast. Liked the story a lot. Each episode built my interest more and the finale didn't disappoint. I hope they do more Palmer. Watch it yourself and decide.

My premise is that if you had never before seen Rainn Wilson in ANY other part this show would have at least survived 3-4 seasons. Perhaps longer if they kept up the good writing and improved over time. Backstrom is based on a Swedish character (in fact there's a Beckstrom series in 2020). I have to tell you I'm impressed how they plugged it into a US series in Portland while keeping the essence of the character. Wilson is terrific as the rude, intolerant genius who is so far ahead of everyone else he just can't resist rubbing their nose in it in every way. Yes, like the poster says he IS a total dick. But he connects to the victims, not in a social way but he's able to use his empathy to envision their very thoughts and feelings and create a mental image of what happened. Team player? Not a bit but he's just too valuable to put on a shelf and not use for what he was intended for. I blame many of the viewers and of course FOX for this show's demise. It could have been special if people would have let Wilson be someone else. I never realized how talented he was before this show but he's capable of great things. This was one of them.

Found this early Agatha Christie adaptation tonight on YouTube. Having read all of the Poirot novels and seen all of the other Poroit movies and TV shows I was curious. They had to have read the novel, right? But it would be hard to prove by the casting here. We have a French (?) Poirot played by a tall, slender clean-shaven actor. Not only does he not look like Hercule he doesn't act like him either. Hastings is just as bad. Japp better but played as dim as a cheap solar light. The story is basically right Considering it's in the B-Movie mystery typical running time. Glad to have seen it but not because it was good. Not the worst Poirot movie ever but close. Recommended only as a novelty for Christie fans.

A show created by Joel M. Stephens, a man who loves to see his name attached at least 9 times to every show on the worst streaming channel ever, Spydar TV . The host in very painful presentations introduces chapters of old cliffhanger serials with the talent and enthusiasm of a middle school play performer while wearing a ridiculous outfit and holding toy space guns. The credits roll and of course the Joel is credited for creating, directing, producing, set design, wardrobe, writing, and probably things we don't want to know about. All of Joel's creations are pretty similar. Show something in the public domain that introduced by one of his stable of young females (some scantily clad) reading with the skill of someone who has never read the content before and was probably waiting tables earlier in the day. If you like old movies and lots of bad ads and even some dead air then you'll like this show. You'll just have to endure the unnecessary intros.

I was so astounded to see the number of poor reviews I had to put in my two cents. First of all I love the cast. I liked the chemistry from the very first episode which grew as the series progressed. I didn't find it slow, boring or a "wasted" opportunity as I read in the other reviews. I liked the character development which is important to any new series. Someone compared it to the UK coroner series and while I also liked that series I found this one more compelling. I actually couldn't wait for the next episode to air to see what was coming next. I felt it answered many questions and wrapped up nicely. I will be very disappointed if this very entertaining show isn't back for another go next year. For those that said they watched a little and gave up I would encourage you to revisit although if you have that little of patience I'm not sure you would enjoy any new show. Maybe I enjoyed it so much because I'm a huge fan of Silent Witness and like the forensic elements of the stories. Whatever the reason I'm a fan. Bravo!

I read the other reviews so I had to add my two cents. I liked Franchot Tone as the Private Eye. It would be easy to underestimate his toughness. The story is well written and well played by the actors. Glenda Farrell's part was especially entertaining. Unlike a couple of other reviewers I didn't find it slow or dull at all. I liked the pace of the story and the dialogue. My only complaint was the very poor quality of the print. One reviewer mentioned seeing it at a festival. I'd love to see a better copy. It's a shame that the PD version out there is so awful. Still, it kept me entertained despite the terrible, almost unwatchable print. Fans of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett are bound to love the character Roy Huggins created for this film.

I usually love these old parlor mysteries but this one started with a thud that just got more boring as the film dragged on and on. To say the acting was stiff is an incredible understatement. Thomas E. Jackson played the Inspector with Lew Kelly providing "comic relief" that made you wish the killer would strike again and put us all out of their memory. The doctor, played by an uncredited George "Gabby" Hayes diagnosed that a decanter of water had been drugged by tasting it. The mystery writer/amateur detective ran rings around the cops as expected but was just as useless at solving the crime. The only crime here was the 63 minutes that was stolen from me (no wonder Hayes didn't want to be listed as being in this turkey). I never expect a masterpiece from a Chesterfield poverty row production but most of them at least have a coherent story. I wonder if the screenwriter decided who the killer was or they just drew lots for it 3/4 of the way through the film. There's a lot of movies better than this one. Don't waste your time.

I'm a big fan of Simenon's Maigret. I've read several of the novels and seen all of the movies from Pierre Renoir to Jean Gabin and Charles Laughton. I have seen the very limited Rupert Davies clips on YouTube and I wish there were more to see. Davies looks a lot like Gabin. I didn't care for the Richard Harris Maigret and at first Michael Gambon left me cold but I've changed my opinion somewhat after a second viewing of that series. About a year ago I discovered the episodes featuring Bruno Cremer. I was unfamiliar with Cremer other than seeing him in the excellent Sorcerer film (I think people avoided because of the title). I immediately fell in love with the series. Cremer to me is the Maigret that reminds me the most of the one in the novels. His physical appearance is right (to me). His ability to quietly observe and hone in one the trivial details that almost always are crucial to solving the mysteries. His intuition almost from the start at what or who is behind the crimes and his friction with the judges is the Maigret I recognize. I understand criticism of the slow-moving aspects of the series. But I enjoy watching the patience of this brilliant investigator. The criticism that he's more involved than a man of his rank should be is the exact quality of the author's character and the reason he's disliked by many of his fellow officers and by the judges who think he's too involved. I now have all of the DVD sets in my collection but I continue to watch the episodes in order on MHz Choice that streams on my ROKU players. I'm glad I discovered this great series and if you're a true fan of Simenon and Maigret you would be advised to check it out even if you're not a fan of subtitles. It's worth the effort. In fact, it's worth checking out MHz Choice. I've watched other very entertaining shows on that streaming channel as well from France and other countries.

I'm a mystery fan and although there is little mystery in this film (we know who did it from the beginning) I did enjoy this one. David Farrar, who fans may remember as Sexton Blake, and William "Billy" Hartnell, better known as the first Doctor Who are rival newspaper reporters with the latter usually getting the best of Farrar at his bosses frustration. Farrar's boss Ellington (John Stuart) is one of those hard-core editors who is married to the job and just wants the story. In fact he's so married to the paper that he's ignoring his wife. That's where the story starts. Tired of being stood up by her husband Mrs. Ellington goes to the flat of a friend, Paul Grayson, who is confronted by an old girlfriend with a gun. Grayson wrestles the gun from the girl and then shoots and kills her. When the police investigate a witness tells of the jilted girlfriend and the mystery lady who was with Grayson at the time of the murder. Farrar is the first to learn of the mystery lady and his boss, not knowing that it is his wife, is obsessed with having Farrar discover who it is. A bizarre informant who is dismissed as a wacko by Harnell is then sent to Farrar provides a key to finding the missing Grayson. No spoilers here; you'll have to watch the rest of the film to see what happens but I found it entertaining. It's definitely worth 75 minutes of your time if for no other reason to see a young Hartnell and to see a young Anne Crawford who died tragically in 1956.