Manhattan Tower (1932) User Reviews

Obscure but good

[Derutterj-1 · 7/10 · 16 February 2009]

Surprisingly entertaining B-movie about intertwined lives during a typical day in a downtown office tower. The cast is attractive, and there's a suitably despicable villain who gets what he deserves. Starts out looking like it's going to be a Grand Hotel knock-off but only one story is covered. Later a hint of the bank run of American Madness is thrown in sketchily. Like other such contemporary lower case pictures with similar styles & themes (such as Hotel Continental from the same year, which really IS a Grand Hotel knock-off), it has no street exteriors --saving money -- and moves satisfyingly fast with second-tier actors showing their stuff. But this one is distinguished by a really unusual scene-changing device making use of the skyscraper's vertical architecture really well. Made by a no-name company with a Gower Gulch list of techs and creative talent behind the camera.

I had no idea this type of production could be so good.

Inexpensive does not have to mean poorly done

[danzeisen · 7/10 · 3 September 2011]

This was a surprisingly good movie, and given the obvious limitations of the production, well done. Acting was good, but as another reviewer indicated the real gem is the story, and the writing. Had never heard of this movie and thought it to be another "Grand Hotel" rip off. It was a pleasant surprise to be proved otherwise!! I can't help when viewing the tipsy party guy of thinking of Foster Brooks. Wonder if this was any influence on him? OK, as another reviewer has stated the final fight scene is unrealistic in its depiction of a fist fight. The bad guy gets his just reward. Interestingly though he meets his fate all the loose ends are not tied up into one neat package, kind of like the way life works for most of us. A good movie that proves that low budget does not have to be poorly done.

Nearer the Top Than the Bottom

[boblipton · 6/10 · 17 May 2017]

Take some exterior and lobby shots of the Empire State Building. Add in some touches of Rockefeller Center. Blend plots from GRAND HOTEL and SKYSCRAPER SOULS, and sift out the more blatant Pre-Code elements and you've got MANHATTAN TOWER, a very pleasant little B movie.

It's a well-constructed movie, with a goodly number of second-ranked players which focus around Clay Clement, a womanizing executive, Irene Rich as his wife, tired of his cheating and anxious to get a divorce so she can marry Hale Hamilton, who is also concerned about buttressing a shaky bank. Director Frank Strayer does a fine job of mixing major and minor characters, and cinematographer Ira Morgan of some offers some fine camera-work. Editor Harry Reynolds does some fine work, even though some of his cuts don't quite work; his moving wipes achieved by taking the camera up through floors gives the unfortunate sense that the shutter has stuck midway between frames. Once you get used to the effect, you'll likely admire the technique, while understanding why it didn't catch on.

Nonetheless, it's a nicely concocted movie, with some good talent, including James Hall in his last movie, elegant Irene Rich (unfortunately slow in her line readings) and a stuttering Walter Brennan. It's by no means a great work, but it will pass an hour of your time very pleasantly.

Despite some deficiencies caused by its low production values, it's still a heck of an entertaining film.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 22 July 2010]

Earlier in 1932, the basic idea of "Grand Hotel" was 'borrowed' by the film "Skyscraper Souls" starring Warren William. Six months later, a tiny independent studio then 'borrowed' the idea from "Skyscraper Souls" and made "Manhattan Tower". However, despite the recycling of the basic idea, all these films are marvelous entertainment.

Now I am not going to say that "Manhattan Tower" was a great film. Its plot and dialog were amazing, but there were also a few obvious deficiencies caused by the low-budget and relative inexperience of the cast and crew. After all, Remington Pictures is the epitome of a 'Poverty Row studio'--a tiny studio that often didn't even have their own production facilities but rented it from a major studio. To do this, most of these tiny companies actually filmed at night using these rented sets and equipment! So, in light of this, I'll cut the film some slack, as it was meant as a B-movie all the way. So, when a few of the actors seem to have difficulty with their lines and the final fight scene is poorly choreographed, I chalk it all up to the charms of such a slight picture company.

So if you look past these minor problems, you'll find a terrific film. The writing was definitely the star here, as the film was chock full of wonderful dialog, plot twists, soap opera and suspense. And, the ending is just wonderful...even if the fight did come off as a bit dopey (real people don't fight that way). See this film and afterwords, if you can, try "Skyscraper Souls"--it's much like this film but with better acting and more glitz.

Party still going on

[AAdaSC · 6/10 · 16 November 2019]

This is yet another story from 1932 about the lives of various people within a building. In this film, which borrows heavily from "Skyscraper Souls" (1932), the young lovers are played by Mary Brian (Mary) and James Hall (Jimmy) and they do a better job than their counterparts in "Skyscraper". Indeed both Mary and James don't have to learn to respond to a different name. It's been made easy for them by calling their characters Mary and Jimmy. I wonder if this was to help James and his drinking. It's sad to notice that he looks a fatter version of himself in "Hell Angels" two years previously. My wife and I both recognized his face but thought it must be a fatter actor that looks the same. Nope. Again, it is sad to learn of his drinking problem and fate and to then find out that this was also his final film. We both feel sorry for him and really like him now.

As for the story, stick with it. The dialogue is funny in parts, the acting is fine and the director uses some interesting techniques. It's always interesting to see the period's fashions and there is even a zeppelin on show hovering above the tower. Noel Francis (Marge) makes good use of her role as the tarty secretary - check out her party dress - and secretary Nydia Westman (Miss Wood) has a funny scene when someone steals part of her lunch. The villain of the piece is played by Clay Clement. And his name in the film is Mr Burns. Just think of Mr Burns from "The Simpsons" and you've got a similarly heartless man at the top.

However, it's a poverty row film and there are no real surprises to the tale. In the overall 'building' genre of films from 1932, this one sits in the middle. The best is "Skyscraper Souls" and the worst is "Grand Hotel".

It's only money?

[lor_ · 30 October 2023]

This is a highly entertaining artifact from my favorite year for movies: 1932! Taking plot twists and inevitability of peril over the top, it's a fascinating drama about the inhabitants of the fictional NYC skyscraper, all hurtling to an amazing climax. The details and coincidences here, not to mention strange comic relief, is the apotheosis of specifically Depression Era filmmaking.

Many stories overlap, and the movie uses a strange style of editing that appealed to me tremendously: scenes flow from one to the next with the device of the frame moving vertically, as the screen shifts from one floor to another, quite different to watch than the usual vintage device of a horizontal wipe. Literally we are moving from one in the 102-floor building like in a doorless elevator. The actual elevators in the building are monitored by men with castanet-type clickers, making an unusual noise throughout the movie as they monitor the capacity of elevators ready to move.

Central story is about a hard-working couple saving up to get married: Mary Brian a secretary for the film's heavy Mr. Burns, played with immense evil intent by Clay Bennett, and James Hall as Mary's boyfriend, a hot-headed manager working in the building's power department. Burns ends up embezzling Mary's nest egg (which is shared by Jimmy), while he's seducing her empty-headed, mean-spirited party girl fellow secretary played delightfully (in pre-Code dirty fashion) by Noel Francis; Hale Hamilton as Whitman, the bank executive who is in love with Mrs. Burns (Iris Rich in an emotional performance), and subject to horrible blackmail from Clay; plus other employees like Nydia Westman who is a real scene-stealer as Whitman's secretary.

Westman inadvertently starts a panic run on Whitman's bank that leads to a thrilling climax that captures the near-paranoia associated with the Stock Market crash just a few years before. It's a modest film but amazing in its own way.

Manhattan Madhouse

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 28 July 2023]

Manhattan Tower is a 102 story building that is essentially a city unto itself. Which means that it has all the problems that a small city has. Today's problem is a greedy womanizing manager of National Products Corporation named Kenneth Burns (Clay Clement). He is flat broke because he gambled his money away on bad stocks. His wife, Ann (Irene Rich), wants a divorce from him so that she can start a new life with David Whitman (Hale Hamilton), but there's no way Kenneth is going to let his meal ticket go.

Coinciding with Mr. Burns is Mary Harper (Mary Brian). She's Mr. Burns secretary and he can't keep his hands off her, much to the dislike of her fiance, Jimmy Duncan (James Hall). Fighting off Mr. Burns--or rather downplaying Mr. Burns' grabbiness because she wants to keep her job--became the least of her problems after she drained her bank account and gave it to Mr. Burns to invest. She didn't know he was loose with money and she was clearly too naive to give it much thought. The money she lost wasn't just her own, it was hers and Jimmy's to start a new life together.

Now Jimmy had two reasons to hate Mr. Burns.

Going on concurrently with the aforementioned was an attempt of the tower bank to stave off its biggest clients from withdrawing their money. If they withdrew then the bank would collapse. Dave Witman was going to try to quietly convince the bank's biggest clients to stay, but the genie got out of the bottle.

It was quite a madhouse in the Manhattan Tower, but you got the impression that everyday was a madhouse. I thought the romantic excursions of Mr. And Mrs. Burns were superfluous considering so many movies in the 30's had that element. It's almost like it was a requisite part of any script. Romantic trysts aside this was a good movie with plenty of entertainment and even a little suspense.

Free on YouTube.

"The Sweetest Girl in the Movies"

[kidboots · 8/10 · 19 January 2014]

....that's what they called Mary Brian from her first film appearance and, years later, she was never able to shake it. Sound posed no problem for her and she was never without work even though for a time she was popping up in these little independents - like "Manhattan Tower", a poor man's "Grand Hotel". Making his last film appearance was James Hall who, a few years previously, had looked such a sure star bet with leads in "Four Sons"(1928) and "Hell's Angels"(1930). But alcohol and promiscuity got in the way until a contemporary reviewer of "Manhattan Tower" commented on Hall's "flabby" appearance. He certainly didn't look like the same actor of a few years previously. He plays Jimmy an electrical contractor at Manhattan Tower, a huge steel office block, a city within itself with it's own bank and a big tourist attraction. Poverty row didn't always mean cheap and the opening scene is really impressive with it's imposing shots of looming skyscrapers and dazzling foyers. Rolling scenes are made much use of to change the scene from floor to floor. Frank Strayer did some interesting innovations before he found a steady job with "Blondie".

Jimmy loves Mary (Mary Brian, looking her usual fetching self as a brunette) but Mary's boss, Mr. Burns, seems to like Mary too - he won't let a little thing like his wife stand in his way. Similarly plotted to "Skyscraper Souls" Jimmy and Mary are almost in sight of their dream home but impatient Mary is keen to double her money on the stock exchange and she gets encouragement from her boss who only wants her nest egg to cover his own impending bankruptcy. If she has any hesitation her supervisor, Mr. Hoyt (Jed Prouty) has a cautionary tale of starting married life in debt and not being able to catch up. Who knew that Prouty (he of the "Jones" family) was capable of such an in-depth performance as the put upon accountant who reaches the end of his tether when there is a run on the bank.

The rest of the cast is top draw - Irene Rich plays Mrs. Burns, fed up with her philandering husband and finding a more loving partner in Hale Hamilton but frightened of divorce. Last but not least the gorgeously decadent Noel Francis as the secretary who is happy to fool around during office hours. And if Universal had "a good cast is worth repeating", Remington could counter with "A Remington Cast is Worth Knowing"!!!

Worth a look!!

High ambition meets low competence

[cherold · 3/10 · 14 June 2018]

I don't know what to make of the rave reviews of this movie on IMDB. They *all* praise the story, which is really awful.

I wanted to watch this movie because of curiosity about the director, Frank Strayer. He directed the early movies in the Blondie series and he was surprisingly adventurous for a b-movie director (one entry was even a musical). I was surprised that someone with so much artistic ambition was so forgotten.

Manhattan Tower may be a good explanation of why.

The movie starts very well, establishing the hustle and bustle of a skyscraper, with workers and business people toiling away and with birds-eye looks at the hectic streets below. There are quirky and original shots, most notably the way traveling through the elevator shaft is used to indicate height in the building.

Unfortunately, the movie is painfully dull, involving a bickering couple and a sleazy executive. The story is as thin as gruel, both unpersuasive and completely predictable (hence my confusion at the IMDB reviews). The acting is abysmal. The financial stuff is a bit unclear. The comic relief of the drunk guy and the pill-popping receptionist fails to work.

This, perhaps, is the difference between someone like Lewis Milestone and someone like Frank Strayer. They both liked to play with the camera, but the former understood that trick shots are nothing if you don't have a solid story behind them.

Entertaining Product of its Time

[dougdoepke · 15 August 2020]

Entertaining period piece, but little more. It's 1932 and neither banks nor the stock market are trusted, thanks to the financial crash of '29. On the other hand, the shots of Manhattan Tower resemble a soaring temple to the movie-makers confidence in both business and the future, despite the recent calamity. The tower shows level after rising level of bustling business people, also providing a good chance to catch ladies fashions of the day as they hustle in and out of offices. Too bad there's no glimpse of the impoverished masses that truly epitomize the age.

The plot concerns the free-wheeling industrial executive Burns who's not above using other people's hard earned cash to float his own misbegotten investments. These shenanigans eventually culminate in a run on a cash strapped Tower bank and hardship for the workers. At the same time, Burns chases anything in skirts, his beleaguered wife be darned. So how will things straighten out.

It's a low-budget, indie production with a largely lesser-known cast except for Bryan and Hall, and a few glimpses of an early Walter Brennan. The acting's okay, though, as others point out, the fistfight is amateurish, along with a cheaply done featureless sky in scenes from atop the tower. Also, the comedic scenes with the pill-popping secretary and the silly wandering drunk tell the audience that despite serious intent, it's only a movie after all. Besides, the occasionally clever innuendo provides all the chuckles needed.

Overall, as a product of its time, the cheap flick succeeds importantly in giving us a one-sided glimpse of that stressed out time in a largely entertaining way.

(In Passing-- in the year following this movie's release, namely 1933, Congress passed the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance legislation that insured bank deposits up to an elevated amount. The practical effect was to prevent 'bank runs' such as occur in the movie. Now depositors could rest easier if a bank got in trouble.)