ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

DKosty123 This is an RKO "B" picture that could have been better, but definitely shows it was made on the cheap. Richard Dix, the lead is a B actor who really had a dismal career. Lucille Ball is the most well known of the script but she really is just in the back ground for most of this movie.We have a reporter trying to chase down some gangsters in one night. Of course the technology is ancient but the old press room is here. The reporter gets into trouble along the way.The script is pretty bad here, and no where is it more obvious than in the times that people are hovering around in scenes jut watching with nothing to say or do. Lucille Ball really did not deserve a role like this one and the entire film is quite forgettable.If you really want to check out a young Lucy, she is very much the only reason to look at this one. There's lots going on, but the viewer path through this film is lacking.

dougdoepke At times director Landers shows imagination as in the sudden close-ups. Otherwise there's little snap to the proceedings, but at least he keeps things moving, along with a couple eye-catching car crashes. The crowded hours are more like a crowded and rather loose screenplay that fails to really engage. It's something about a newspaperman getting the goods on a rackets kingpin, but the narrative rolls around too much to establish itself. Actor Dix gets little chance to show his usual grit, while Lucy gets mainly five lines and twenty minutes of looking over Dix's shoulder. So for Lucy fans, it's like a teaser with no payoff. With McBride, Kendall, and Richards, the supporting cast features familiar faces from that era. Too bad they don't get a better chance to show their stuff. I wish there were something to recommend besides the clever twelve-hour bookends, but there isn't. All and all, it's a rather flat programmer despite the promising criminal elements.

MartinHafer While I have always liked Richard Dix, I must admit that this is one of the more ordinary films he made. Dix stars as a newspaper man--one that is frankly too glib and clever to be real. When a coworker is killed, Dix thinks a gangster is responsible and soon steals $80,000 from the crook. Much of the rest of the film is spent with the crook and Dix talking...a lot. Their tough banter seemed stagy and the film went no where for a very long period. By the end, I frankly didn't care who killed who--I was just bored and looking forward to another film.Dull writing, clichéd characters and a complete waste of Lucille Ball in a supporting role (she could have just as well been played by a ball of lint--the part was dull and shallow). While it's not a bad film, it's also not particularly good and seemed to be just another B-movie from RKO.

chris-48 Twelve Crowded Hours is a tidy, swift and enjoyable little "crime comedy". Richard Dix, who seemed much more at ease in these programmers than in "A" features, is good as the newspaper reporter trying to bring the mobster responsible for his editor's death to justice. He manages to temper the character's innate cockiness and make him likeable. Lucille Ball enthusiasts may be disappointed with her role here; even though she has a few funny lines, her Paula Sanders is drab. Coming off much better are Donald MacBride as the sour detective and Cy Kendall as the burly mob boss. (The type of higher-profile role he should have had more often.) A nice, breezy 64 minutes.