Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Lancoor A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Victor Jordan While this movie was made 20 years before "12 Angry Men", it isn't near the masterpiece. Edna May Oliver is exceptional as usual and the cast is fairly solid. While this movie provides some laughs it almost makes a mockery of the jury system. I labored to the end.Victor J.

dougdoepke That first part is a real hoot. Society matron Oliver is used to having her own way. So when she enters the rule-bound courtroom as a juror, the judge is driven to distraction. Oliver's superb, amusing rather than dislikable as she disrupts the constrained proceedings with her constant remarks. Thus, it's a high society presumptions versus a frazzled judge and the court's rules. So did Mrs. Gordon (Esmond) murder her husband or not. With one exception, the jury thinks so, and we know who the exception is. But how long can Oliver hold out. Here the movie reminds me of that heavy 1957 courtroom melodrama 12 Angry Men. Except this is done for comedic effect with an array of jury characters—the blonde chippie and her glandular admirer, a wisecracking Ken Murray, a stuttering Roscoe Ates, et al. The script includes some snappy lines and an occasional pre-Code innuendo. Note too, the gender-bending woman in a man's suit who's also a prude. And even though the dialogue seldom pauses, there's little action, while events themselves are pretty much confined to two courtroom sets. All in all, it's an entertaining programmer with a lot of character color, but not much diversion for the eye.

vincentlynch-moonoi The attraction here is the superb character actress Edna May Oliver. I have always thought that Oliver was more impressive in significant character roles in A films, and not quite as interesting in starring roles in B films, though she did quite a few of those. I was a tad disappointed here, particularly in the early scenes of the film where she overdid the snooty attitude of a society dame, Later in the film it seemed more reasonable.The story here is, essentially, "Twelve Angry Men", but with humor. The crux of the film, however, is the mostly humorous peccadillo of each member of the jury. Talk about stereotypes...but that's what brings most of the humor to the film.Of note in the cast is Ken Murray. As a kid back in the 1950s, I remember Murray showing his "home movies" of the stars. I thought he was a big blow hard then, and I think so even more after watching him in this film. Hambone. Also in the cast is Guinn 'Big Boy' Williams, whom we are more used to seeing in Westerns.Of course, it's politically incorrect now, but the stutterer is quite funny.Although this is a B picture, for 1932 the production values were quite good. The ending is clever, though the film ends just a little too quickly...must have run out of money.Recommended for buffs of the really old films or fans of Edna May Oliver...and to compare it to "Twelve Angry Men". However, if you don't like really old films,this won't be your cup of tea.

small45-670-264771 It's too bad that real trials aren't like the one depicted in this film. The trial and jury deliberations shown in this film are completely unrealistic, but what does that have to do with good movie making? I love Edna May Oliver's rendition in the Hildegard Withers series, which this film is NOT part of. It is, however, a worthy precursor of her later sleuthing roles.The film is something of a comic version of 12 Angry Men. A single juror votes not guilty, then, using appeals to the prejudices and passions of the other jurors more than reason, persuades other jurors to change their vote to "Not Guilty" until the final scene where the innocence of the accused is "proved". A fast wrap up has the jury declaring, in voice over on the end credit, that they find the defendant "Not Guilty".You won't find realistic situations anywhere in this film. What you will find is an acting tour de force by Edna May Oliver, excellent characterizations by the rest of the cast, an excellent period piece of the early 1930's.This is not a film for everyone. It is a film for true cinephiles. Not a classic, but a classic example of early talkies.I'm sorry I could not explain it's appeal better, but it's appeal is ephemeral. Good acting, good humor, good story - good, good, good. Good enough to make it's flaws worth ignoring.