In 1921, a young man, having read Mark Twain's classic novel of the same title, dreams that he himself travels to King Arthur's court, where he has similar adventures and outwits his foes ... See full summary »
Emmett J. Flynn
Thirteen women who were schoolmates send to a swami for their horoscopes. Little do they realize that Ursula, a half-breed Asian, is using her hypnotic powers over the swami and them to ... See full summary »
Tom Collier has had a great relationship with Daisy, but when he decides to marry, it is not Daisy whom he asks, it is Cecelia. After the marriage, Tom is bored with the social scene and ... See full summary »
Racketeer Tony Gazotti is thankful that lawyer Jackson Durant helps him beat a murder rap, but Durant just does it for the thrill of it and refuses payment. Durant's defense of mobsters ... See full summary »
W.S. Van Dyke
The Woman in Room 13 is a 1932 American mystery film directed by Henry King, written by Guy Bolton and Max Marcin. Cast: Elissa Landi, Ralph Bellamy, Neil Hamilton, Myrna Loy. Released on May 15, 1932, by Fox Film Corporation.
First of all, I've heard a lot about Will Rogers over the years and I've always enjoyed his songs. But this movie seems to be a pretty mediocre vehicle for his talents.
First of all, you have Rogers himself, who is uh...... not a Connecticut Yankee by any stretch of the imagination. They should have just called it "An Okie in King Arthur's Court" or something. I mean, he's even doing tricks with the lasso, which I know is a Rogers trademark, but it's pretty loose with the interpretation on Twain's book. Of course since this is a light comedy all the satire of Twain's book is gone, but that's to be expected. But Rogers as the Connecticut Yankee is just not right.
Another thing was the look of the film and the directing, which I found to be very lackluster. I haven't checked but it would not surprise me to find that the director was heavily involved in silent films. It is just a movie that feels like a B movie even though you have Rogers who was a pretty big star at the time. The production values are not up to what you would hope for from MGM, looks more like a Gene Autry movie.
There are a few fun scenes, and it is worth watching for anybody who just wants a look at Rogers' comedy on screen. Basically a kiddie movie though without much to offer adults and would probably bore most modern children.
5 of 22 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?