Best movie of this year hands down!

Too many fans seem to be blown away

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

The only big name i recognize in here is Hedda Hopper, who had started with bit parts in the silent films, become pretty well known years later, and then started her own "woman about town" gossip column, now playing herself in later films. (Gotta see he in "The Women" !) In "Dark Hour", two old timers are watching over their neice "Elsa", played by Irene Ware. ( Ware was apparently Miss United States 1926. ) Elsa will inherit EVERYTHING when the uncles go, so they are concerned that she might some bad decisions... and then... something TERRIBLE happens... and everyone tries to figure out who dunnit! Picture and sound quality are pretty turrible... but it's not so bad. Based on a novel by Sinclair Gluck.. couldn't find any info about him; this seems to be the only thing of his made into a film. Directed by Charles Lamont. He had been around in silents since the 1920s, writing and directing. Worked with some of the biggies in comedy and drama. Dark Hour is "okay"... it's just like every single "thin man", or any who-dunnit ever written. nothing in the middle really happens until the last five minutes when everything comes together. It's not so bad.

A quick run-through of most of the plot suggests that this whodunit film might be an Agatha Christie creation, as complicated as the story is. There are five to seven suspects, depending on whom you count. And the murder occurs in the library of a large house. But though the underlying premise is okay, "The Dark Hour" is no Agatha Christie creation. Two brothers live together along with their various servants. A couple of other suspects live close by, together with a retired detective. A building fire figures prominently in the plot.It took two viewings to make sense out of the story. In the end it does all come together, though there is some conveniently coincidental timing in certain plot points. The main reason to watch the film is the ending. My guess as to the identity of the murderer was dead wrong. So the ending was a pleasant surprise, and I was able to go back and see the subtle clues that I missed. Near the end a major twist further adds to the film's enjoyment. Spine-tingling suspense erupts near the climax as an unknown person shines a flashlight into a darkened bedroom, and then fires a shot.Almost all the scenes take place on indoor sets, implying that this was a low-budget film. Production design is minimal. I'm constantly amazed at how old houses back in those days were built with such high ceilings, making rooms look cavernous. B&W lighting has a slight noir effect. The camera is largely static. Very little music occurs during the film, but I like the score during the opening credits. Sound tends to be scratchy and overall sound quality is poor, which makes dialogue hard to understand in a few spots. Acting is acceptable, my favorite performance being the actor who plays blustery Mr. Bernard.It's not the best whodunit out there by any means. The script could have been improved to enhance clarity. And production values are weak. Still, it's not a bad movie. The final twenty minutes or so are quite good, and render "The Dark Hour" worth at least a one-time viewing.

Chesterfield does it again--a tidy whodunit that, surprisingly, holds up pretty well despite its age. The race between the two detectives is quite droll and interesting; it shows, once again, that the fundamental lesson of integration between the old and the new still applies--regardless of decade and/or century. Of course, as the film was lensed nearly 70 years ago, some of the technical aspects of the plot do not age well. And, unless I missed something, I would have preferred a little more detail into the motive for the crime. Despite these minor quibbles, it was a relatively enjoyable 71 minutes, especially when Hedda Hopper was chewing up the scenery.l

This mystery film is unusual is that there are two quite different (old & retired vs. young & active on the police force) detectives on the case, & they are both competent & work well together. Usually, Hollywood would be expected to have at least one of them take the comic element, but here they are both serious & both effective! Aside from trying to guess "who done it?," the viewer also finds him/herself wondering which of the two detectives will solve the case first, & this aspect adds to the excitement. There are plenty of suspects here, & the film moves along briskly. Berton Churchill is especially good as the older detective, & reminds me of a smaller version of the great Sydney Greenstreet. I rate this 8/10.