Recap: Mathilde, the daughter of professor Stangerson, is the target of a murder attempt. She survives, barely, but the case is a mystery. Mathilde had gone to bed, locked herself in a room with barred windows. The professor and his assistant Jacques is in the room next by, they hear the screams and gunfire. When they finally are able to break into the room, Mathilde has passed out bleeding, and a mysterious handprint in blood are on the wall. But Mathilde is completely alone, and besides from the handprint, there are no traces after the murderer. Where did he come from, where did he go? From all over France people come to the castle to solve the mystery. The police are there of course, led by Inspector Larsan, known for solving unsolvable cases. Investigating judge De Marquet is there to lead the interrogations and reporter Rouletabille, who seems to have a little edge with Mathilde's fiancé Darzac. Together, and competing with each other, they work to catch the murderer, who still lurks about.
Comments: A simple mystery, with an obviously complex answer. This is apparently a classic, although by judging from this movie I can't really understand why. This version is not much to remember, and I do not know how true to the original it is. The movie has two parallel identities that try to compete for our attention. The first is obvious, the mystery. This is the overall plot and the foundation of the entire movie. It is too divided into two parts, first we need to catch/stop the killer then solve the mystery of how he did it. The problem is, when we hunt for the killer we get very few clues how to solve it, then when the movie feels like we can't hunt anymore (though we haven't caught anyone yet), it tells the answer. It gives very little room for speculation and guesses, which is the real entertainment when dealing with a mystery such as this.
This actually leads to the second part. The movie also wants to be a comedy. It is not very good at it though, and satisfies itself by being a little silly. Which leads to a feeling that you can't take it seriously, which lessens the experience of the mystery.
Had the movie focused on one part, to be either a mystery or a comedy, not both, it would have benefited greatly. Then it could have put all its energy into doing what it wanted to, not divide itself and only go halfway with two parts.
Still, it managed to keep my eyes open and was never boring. Therefore
5/10
Comments: A simple mystery, with an obviously complex answer. This is apparently a classic, although by judging from this movie I can't really understand why. This version is not much to remember, and I do not know how true to the original it is. The movie has two parallel identities that try to compete for our attention. The first is obvious, the mystery. This is the overall plot and the foundation of the entire movie. It is too divided into two parts, first we need to catch/stop the killer then solve the mystery of how he did it. The problem is, when we hunt for the killer we get very few clues how to solve it, then when the movie feels like we can't hunt anymore (though we haven't caught anyone yet), it tells the answer. It gives very little room for speculation and guesses, which is the real entertainment when dealing with a mystery such as this.
This actually leads to the second part. The movie also wants to be a comedy. It is not very good at it though, and satisfies itself by being a little silly. Which leads to a feeling that you can't take it seriously, which lessens the experience of the mystery.
Had the movie focused on one part, to be either a mystery or a comedy, not both, it would have benefited greatly. Then it could have put all its energy into doing what it wanted to, not divide itself and only go halfway with two parts.
Still, it managed to keep my eyes open and was never boring. Therefore
5/10