Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Cody One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

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.

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".

dbborroughs A reporter on the copy desk tries to get a chance to break a big story he has a lead on. When he tries to run it down he ends up bursting in on the girlfriend of the publisher of the paper as she's bathing. Deciding to relax with his girlfriend after a trying day he ends up stuck in the rain in his car with its top down. Getting a room at a roadhouse the couple thinks they hear a shot. Going to investigate they find two dead bodies and two people rifling through a desk who tell them "they know and saw nothing" before they climb out a window. Our hero sensing a big scoop then tries to bend the crime to his advantage and sets himself up for the murder so that he can write about it. The problem comes when he's unable to prove his innocence when he needs to.This early talkie is an okay, if clichéd, little film once it gets going. The early scenes in the newsroom seem to be steals from the Front Page and its over lapping dialog in a mad attempt to exploit the then novelty of sound film. Once the murders occur and the plot is in motion things are enjoyable even if we've seen it all before.The problem with this film is that its plot has been done countless times before and since. You know whats going to happen the question is do you care enough to see how they do it this time. Complicating matters is the acting which is often stilted and seemingly out of date and artificial. The behavior of the City editor at the opening is very unnatural. Coupling the odd acting styles with what now seems to be very silly dialog makes matters worse. I wasn't sure if I was laughing at or with the film. There are a few times when all of the problems in plot,acting and dialog come together to produce some big "they didn't mean that" sort of laughs.If you like old mysteries and don't mind one thats a bit past its freshness date I'd give it a try. If you don't want your movies stilted I'd stay away.