Wordiezett So much average

Steineded How sad is this?

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

blanche-2 Oh, where to even start with this sad B movie.An ambitious young reporter who wants to get married and provide for his wife gets caught in a downpour with his fiancée. They duck into an inn. Hearing noise, they find someone in the next room dead, as well as the guy who let them in. The killer was a guy looking for money, and he had a woman with him -- they find the money, but she leaves her purse behind with her name and address inside.The reporter sets himself up as the murderer, but gives his fiancée the purse to keep to prove his innocence. He calls in the murder anonymously and then sends reports in of how it feels to be hiding and on the run from the cops.Eric Linden plays the idiot reporter who apparently never heard of hard work rather than schemes, and Dorothy Jordan, who is in for a life of misery if she marries this guy, is his fiancée.This was Bruce Cabot's first credited film, and soon after, he saved Fay Wray from King Kong.The film will remind some of the Fritz Lang film, "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," which I happen to love. It will remind you of it, and then, hopefully, you will forget the comparison since there really isn't one.

MikeMagi Let's see if I have this right. A newspaper reporter and his girl friend are caught in a downpour. Their car is stuck in the mud so they stagger off to the nearest hostelry where they stumble on a murder. Most people would call the cops. But not our plucky newsman. He plants clues implicating himself as the killer so that he can cover the story from a unique angle. Of course, he has something that will prove his innocence. And of course...duh!!!!...that item mysteriously vanishes. Which means unless a miracle occurs, he's going to the chair. Okay, it was 1932 and movies were just learning to talk. But this has to be one of the dumbest ideas for a thriller, even for those early days. On the other hand, idiotic as it is, it's curiously entertaining.

Michael_Elliott Roadhouse Murder, The (1932) ** (out of 4) The one thing this RKO film can say is that they did this story several years before Fritz Lang's BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In the film, a reporter (Eric Linden) and his girlfriend (Dorothy Jordan) are in a roadhouse when two people are murdered. There's enough evidence left by the real killers to make the search for them very easy but the reporter wants a story so he decides to take the evidence and leave news bits and pieces to make himself look guilty. The plan is for him to go on the run, cause a news sensation, go to trial and then bring out the real evidence to clear his name but of course nothing goes as planned. THE ROADHOUSE MURDERS wasn't the first film to do this story and while the Lang film wasn't the greatest movie out there it at least told the story a lot better than what we get here. I'll admit that I was entertained by the first thirty-minutes but there are just so many holes in the story and the two lead characters are so stupid that you can't help but find the entire thing annoying. One of the biggest problems happens right when the murders happen as the real killers see the reporter and the girlfriend yet do nothing to them. If these killers were worried about being caught then why on Earth do they let the witnesses live? Another problem is that this cub reporter isn't the brightest thing in the world so not for a second did I believe he could pull this off. Another thing that doesn't work is the direction because we never believe what we're watching. The idea of someone putting themselves in this situation is far-fetched to begin with but at least someone like Lang could use the suspension of disbelief but that never happens here. Linden isn't too bad playing the dimwit reporter but the screenplay just makes the character come off very annoying. The same could be said for Jordan who is good but her character is just too dumb. The supporting cast includes Bruce Cabot in his film debut playing the real killer and Phyllis Clare as his helper. Roscoe Ates of FREAKS fame has a small role here and actually steals the picture with his comic bit. At 72-minutes the final forty or so go by rather slowly because you're becoming so annoyed with the characters and it's a shame more attention wasn't given to the story. This was clearly just a "B" picture for the studio so they were just cranking it out when they should have tried fixing some of the problems and making for a good mystery.

rduchmann Reporter stumbles upon murder scene and gets the harebrained idea of framing himself for it. This will allow him to write a great human interest story about the thoughts and feelings of a man being hunted by the police. And of course he can prove that he didn't do it, when the time comes. And of course he winds up in much too close proximity to the electric chair. (What his cute g.f. Dorothy Jordan sees in this loser is a mystery to me.) The plot is as silly here as in nearly every other variation of the one where some moron frames himself for murder with good intentions, but Jordan is perky and helps carry the film in one of her bigger RKO roles. Seeing her name in the credits was the primary reason I watched this picture.Despite the story problems, picture is also well made by director J Walter Ruben (this was the second film of his that I had ever seen). Ruben and his films are largely forgotten, but he was one of the first writer-director double threats of the sound era, working nearly a decade at RKO before moving over to MGM where he produced but only occasionally directed, before his premature death in the early 1940s. Most of his films are well worth seeking out. TROUBLE FOR TWO, based on Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Suicide Club," is outstanding.