RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Nonureva Really Surprised!

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

MikeMagi Let's see if I have this right. A newspaper reporter and his girl friend are caught in a downpour. Their car is stuck in the mud so they stagger off to the nearest hostelry where they stumble on a murder. Most people would call the cops. But not our plucky newsman. He plants clues implicating himself as the killer so that he can cover the story from a unique angle. Of course, he has something that will prove his innocence. And of course...duh!!!!...that item mysteriously vanishes. Which means unless a miracle occurs, he's going to the chair. Okay, it was 1932 and movies were just learning to talk. But this has to be one of the dumbest ideas for a thriller, even for those early days. On the other hand, idiotic as it is, it's curiously entertaining.

kidboots When Wesley Ruggles put out a casting call for his movie "Are These Our Children" he found 3 bright stars. Eric Linden was given the leading role of the young braggart and won rave reviews. From then on he had a very up and down career (unfortunately mostly downs). He was dubbed "the tragic boy actor of the screen" and when given a meaty part often proved more memorable than the movie. Maybe this was the movie that started the "why don't I plant evidence so I can be convicted of the crime" cycle but films like "Circumstantial Evidence" (1936) and "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (1956) posed serious questions about capital punishment, whereas with "The Roadhouse Murders", it was simply a novel twist to a tired mystery plot.Chick Brian (Linden) a reporter on a muck raking paper (is there any other kind) is desperate to prove himself - even surprising women in their baths to get a sensational photo. His girlfriend Mary (sweet, petite Dorothy Jordan) is the daughter of the local police chief (Purnell Pratt) and as her father is not impressed with the brash Chick, they tend to meet on the sly. One of those times, they are caught in a downpour and seek shelter at the Lame Dog Inn and within an hour are embroiled in a double murder. Even though they see the murderers, Chick thinks it would be a swell idea if he with-holds evidence and plants clues showing himself to be the murderer, then he can send the paper sensational articles about life on the run and thoughts of a wanted man. To give Mary her due, she is not keen on the idea and only falls in with her idiot boyfriend when he convinces her that all she has to do is turn up at the trial with the pocket book and it will be champagne all around.Bruce Cabot, who easily gives the most dynamic performance in the movie as the brutal thug, starts following Mary around and - yes, you guessed it, manages to steal the pocket book!! What will our intrepid dumb-cluck do now!!! Even before Chick is caught, life on the run is taking it's toll - he starts to feel hunted and guilty!!!This was Linden's 4th movie. Even though he was versatile, his first 2 films gave him parts that were abrasive braggarts, in this he was a cocky upstart and with the next one "The Age of Consent" you guessed it - he wasn't the sensitive hero but "Duke" who loved fast cars and fast women, so is it any wonder his star faded so quickly. The maid's role was filled by the uncredited Julie Haydon - films didn't do right by her so she went to Broadway, to be the muse of George Jean Nathan and Noel Coward.

Michael_Elliott Roadhouse Murder, The (1932) ** (out of 4) The one thing this RKO film can say is that they did this story several years before Fritz Lang's BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In the film, a reporter (Eric Linden) and his girlfriend (Dorothy Jordan) are in a roadhouse when two people are murdered. There's enough evidence left by the real killers to make the search for them very easy but the reporter wants a story so he decides to take the evidence and leave news bits and pieces to make himself look guilty. The plan is for him to go on the run, cause a news sensation, go to trial and then bring out the real evidence to clear his name but of course nothing goes as planned. THE ROADHOUSE MURDERS wasn't the first film to do this story and while the Lang film wasn't the greatest movie out there it at least told the story a lot better than what we get here. I'll admit that I was entertained by the first thirty-minutes but there are just so many holes in the story and the two lead characters are so stupid that you can't help but find the entire thing annoying. One of the biggest problems happens right when the murders happen as the real killers see the reporter and the girlfriend yet do nothing to them. If these killers were worried about being caught then why on Earth do they let the witnesses live? Another problem is that this cub reporter isn't the brightest thing in the world so not for a second did I believe he could pull this off. Another thing that doesn't work is the direction because we never believe what we're watching. The idea of someone putting themselves in this situation is far-fetched to begin with but at least someone like Lang could use the suspension of disbelief but that never happens here. Linden isn't too bad playing the dimwit reporter but the screenplay just makes the character come off very annoying. The same could be said for Jordan who is good but her character is just too dumb. The supporting cast includes Bruce Cabot in his film debut playing the real killer and Phyllis Clare as his helper. Roscoe Ates of FREAKS fame has a small role here and actually steals the picture with his comic bit. At 72-minutes the final forty or so go by rather slowly because you're becoming so annoyed with the characters and it's a shame more attention wasn't given to the story. This was clearly just a "B" picture for the studio so they were just cranking it out when they should have tried fixing some of the problems and making for a good mystery.

MartinHafer Chick Brian (Eric Linden) is a young and very eager reporter. However, eventually you see that he's not only eager but amazingly stupid--too stupid to make this film work.Chick and his girlfriend, Mary (Dorothy Jordan) are caught out in a rain storm. The top to his car is broken and they seek comfort at the Lame Dog Inn (with an emphasis on the word 'lame'!). The place is almost deserted and soon, out of the blue, there are a couple murders. It seems that a couple did it (the guy was Bruce Cabot in his first film) BUT instead of Chick and Mary reporting what they've seen, Chick gets a brilliant idea(????). He deliberately covers up real evidence and makes it appear as if he might have committed the murders. Now what RATIONAL reason would anyone with at least half a brain have for doing this?! Chick thinks it will be cool to mess with the police and reveal the real crime after he exploits this in the paper. But, not surprisingly, once he's gotten himself implicated, extricating himself is a lot more difficult than he'd imagined (well, duh!)...and I just kept hoping that they'd send this idiot to Death Row. Anyone that dumb doesn't deserve to live! Plus, he's cocky and annoying to boot--I say fry 'em--especially because even if the moron could eventually prove he didn't do it, he'd surely go to prison for obstructing justice! My feeling is that any film that requires the audience to suspend this much belief is a movie not worth your time. Characters behaving THIS irrationally simply make this film a chore to watch or respect. The only case where a film with a somewhat similar plot is worth seeing is Dana Andrews' "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".