Suspected crime boss Nate Girard beats a murder rap, and newspaper photog Kent Murdock is on the story. Girard and lawyer Redfield throw a party for the news men where Murdock romances a ...
See full summary »
Sherlock Holmes investigates when young women around London turn up murdered, each with a finger severed off. Scotland Yard suspects a madman, but Holmes believes the killings to be part of a diabolical plot.
Suspected crime boss Nate Girard beats a murder rap, and newspaper photog Kent Murdock is on the story. Girard and lawyer Redfield throw a party for the news men where Murdock romances a mystery woman who confronted Girard in front of him, but Murdock's fiancée Hester shows up. After they return to his apartment, have a fight, and she leaves, the mystery woman slips in and begs for his help. Police Inspector Bacon and the cops show up, looking for the mystery woman; Murdock hides her. Murdock goes with the cops to discuss the murder the woman is suspected of. Bacon explains (in flashback) how some photogs were setting up a shot with Girard and Redfield. When the flashbulbs popped, Redfield keeled over dead and the woman, Meg Archer, fled while the newsmen ran out to phone their papers. The newsmen (who were rounded up later as thoroly as possible) are taken into police custody, except for Murdock (who wasn't at the scene), who is given a cap on the sly by rival McGoogin. Altho ... Written by
D Jensen, Indiana
One of over 700 Paramount Productions, filmed between 1929 and 1949, which were sold to MCA/Universal in 1958 for television distribution, and have been owned and controlled by Universal ever since. See more »
At the newspaper photo shop department, when Meg comes looking for Murdock, she drops a key, presumably from Murdock's apartment. It was for Room 318, but in more than one shot, Murdock's apartment door clearly showed he lived in 315. See more »
What do you see in that dame?
What did I see in you? Oh... nothing. She just makes me curious.
Curious? Hmmph. One look at a skirt and you're curious. Why don't you get curious about me?
I did. That's why I proposed to you.
And now your curiosity's over, you want to call it a day.
See more »
Murder With Pictures finds Lew Ayres and Paul Kelly as a pair of breezy reporters who are tracking the same story, namely the acquittal of murder by gangster Onslow Stevens. It seems as though a key witness Gail Patrick is located and arrives too late to testify. Stevens is giving a bash and he invites the press to the party.
Where his high priced defense attorney Ernest Cossart is shot to death after apparently recognizing someone in the room. Suspicion falls on Patrick, but Ayres shields her and starts his own investigation with Kelly dogging his every move. A couple of murders later and it's all solved.
Ayres gives a nice account of himself in a film which if done at Warner Brothers would have starred James Cagney with Kelly in the Pat O'Brien part. The how is not terribly original, this particular murder gambit was used before and after still it is done with style. As for the motives, Murder With Pictures is a story of greed and revenge.
One cliché seems to be present a lot in these kind of films. The cops are always wrong and the hero always sorts it out. I've seen it in God knows how many films, but in real life I've seen it to be true. Not that the police are dumb, but what people have a problem being is flexible. More than cops will get wedded to a certain notion and then just won't change no matter how the facts are explained to them. In solving cases that's a natural barrier. In my former job with New York State Crime Victims Board I've seen it happen more than once.
It was also nice to see Gail Patrick for once not playing the second lead or the other woman. Murder With Pictures is a nice, fast moving and entertaining film and it's a pity it seems to have dropped into obscurity. The fact that it also has dropped into the public domain may gain it new viewers and fans who've not seen it as of yet.
3 of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?