Crappy film

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

It's one of the movies that Chester Morris starred in for Pine-Thomas, producers of good B movies for Paramount. Morris plays a private detective who has just married his occasional co-star Jean Parker, when they get involved in a missing person case in Reno.It's a decent effort, although director Frank MacDonald directs it with his budget clearly in mind, and Miss Parker seems to be doing a Paulette Goddard imitation. There are mild screwball overtones, and Morris is good at them, but there are too many suspects left in from Daniel Mainwaring's novel.Still, as with most of the Pine-Thomas productions, there's a good deal of pleasure watching actors and actresses either before they became famous (there's Rod Cameron away from the westerns), or past their glory days (Jack Norton, perennial comic drunk, plays a bar tender!), While by no means one of Pine-Thomas' better productions, it gets the job done.

Chester Morris stars as an investigator who finds lost persons. In his latest case, he found a woman (Jean Parker) and married her and is planning on a nice honeymoon in Reno of all places (nothing says romance than this city famed for its divorces!). Soon, however, Chester's pesky boss locates them and convinces him to take one more 'easy case'. Well, naturally the case is anything but easy and involves lots of peril. Can the couple manage to finish the case and survive at least long enough to consummate their marriage?There isn't anything especially deep or memorable about this film--it's a low- budgeted B-mystery and Hollywood made a bazillion of these back in the 30s and 40s. It's a bit better than many simply because Morris is so good in such roles and Parker is cute as his rather clueless bride--though I must admit that the plot is a bit more complicated and confusing than the norm.

In one of the first Pine-Thomas B films from Paramount Chester Morris and Jean Parker play a bargain basement version of Nick and Nora Charles in No Hands On The Clock. I'm thinking this might have been something that Bill Pine and Bill Thomas had in mind for a series, but Morris's next film was his first Boston Blackie.Morris is a detective specializing in missing persons cases and is hired to find the missing son of a ranch owner who enjoys the casinos in Reno and all they have to offer. Several murders later we find who's been responsible for a small crime wave including a fake kidnapping of the missing son in question.Dick Purcell has a nice role along with Astrid Allwyn as a known gangster whom the cops and the FBI think is responsible for all of this. Allwyn plays a very wise moll to Purcell, their scenes with Morris and Parker have some real bite.This definitely could have been a series had Morris not already signed for Boston Blackie.

The players here are wonderful, Chester Morris as his usually cocky confident self as PI Humphrey Campbell, Jean Parker doing a great poverty row version of Nora Charles minus the family fortune as new bride Louise Campbell, Rose Hobart looking like she's up to no good but you just can't catch her in the act, George Watts as Humphrey's flaky boss who is overly interested in hand puppets, Dick Purcell at his menacing best given his brief screen time, and I could just go on forever.So, you might say what was needed here were "more hands on the script". The title comes from the fact that the Darwin mortuary, conveniently located across from where the Campbells are honeymooning, installs a clock with no hands because, as the macabre little man running the mortuary states "death is timeless". The film starts out straightforward enough - Humphrey is on his honeymoon with his wife in, of all places, Reno??? That was the divorce capital of the U.S. back at the time this film was made, so things start out goofy and just get goofier. Turns out Humphrey only drinks milk, and loves to play the accordion, which he does as he and his bride settle into the honeymoon suite. Then Humphrey's boss Flack comes knocking at the door. Turns out he came all the way from LA to get Humphrey to interrupt his honeymoon and go looking for the missing son of a rich man, one that the FBI is looking for too, although they won't say why. Flack promises the pay off will be big and will only take a couple of hours, so Humphrey decides to take the case, although with Flack being a bit of flake you have to wonder why Humphrey would believe him. Well, it turns out things are more complex than that and eventually involve three murders, one of which looks like it's going to be pinned on Humphrey for awhile.The main problem with this goofy little mystery is that in several places one of the characters will spout off a slew off facts in rapid fire. Humphrey will seize on just one thing said and that will comprise the motivation of the next ten minutes of action without any further explanation. So you have to rewind and look for what was said that would be causing Humphrey to take a particular action. This confusing state of affairs goes on all through the film, and if it were not for the delightful and often comic delivery of the players it might ruin the entire experience.There is one great big plot hole involving Dick Purcell's character that is not explained in this movie as far as I can tell, and I watched it twice. It has to do with Red Harris' relationship to Humphrey and why Harris is useful to Humphrey in the first place. It looks like maybe they forgot to shoot at least one entire scene that would have sewed up all the loose ends.I'd still recommend this one, just be prepared to rewind a lot and maybe even watch it in its entirety a second time. If this thing had been put out by a major studio with the same story and exactly the same players and had the benefit of the direction, screenplay finesse, and editing talents they had at their disposal, I would have given this one an 8/10 and put it right up there with The Thin Man.