This is an interesting C film made on a tiny budget and directed by the run of the mill Phil Rosen, who made 142 films including such things as Charlie Chan and Shadow pictures. The film is a shameless attempt to exploit President Franklin Roosevelt's name at the box office. Roosevelt suggested an idea for a mystery story, six authors then wrote stories on that theme, which were published successfully, and this film takes inspiration from them (presumably without authority or without paying) and opens with a lot of ballyhoo about being 'the President's mystery'. And just in case anybody had any doubts, that is the title of the film too. It's called rubbing it in and also 'going for it'. Maybe they made a few bucks. However, having made all of those cynical observations, I can add that the film (which is not even a mystery story, by the way) has a serious message, which is treated with just enough restraint not to be a fantasy. Henry Wilcoxon plays a high-powered cartel lawyer who leaves his old life behind and sees the light. She takes the form of Betty Furness, who jumps from being 'Miss Brown' to 'darling' in about one second's screen time, so that an entire wooing and romance must have been left on the cutting room floor. But then, they don't really worry about such things in C pictures. On with the action. He decides to fight the cartel. The cartel send their bully boys round to wreck a factory, Wilcoxon is square-jawed and heroic and saves it, despite being in a framed rap for murder, indeed in jail for it, and the little guys struggle against the big guys in a very thirties way. There is lots of workers' action going on, speeches, incitement, dirty tricks, fistfights. The whole Great Depression looms large, Roosevelt is the hero, and the grit is gritty. It may be low-budget, it may be corny, but it is thoughtful, and avoids being propaganda, believe it or not. In the thirties, cartels may have been in people's imaginations a lot, but these days cartels are in people's faces, and we know they are no fantasy. Today's rogue traders and scheming moghuls make struggles to close down some canning factories in the interests of a monopoly, as in this film, look tame indeed. Sociologically and economically minded people would find this particular film relevant to their concerns, and it keeps you watching, so you can have some fun while you are worrying about society.
14 Reviews
"I started out fishing and ended up thinking."
classicsoncall23 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I saw an obviously truncated version of the picture with a running time of about fifty two minutes whereas the original length states eighty minutes. That's quite a bit of missing footage and may account for the question mark ending. It seemed to me that the hero Blake (Henry Wilcoxon) saved the Springvale Cannery by rallying the townfolk while his nemesis George (Sidney Blackmer) basically did the same thing by bringing in outside agitators to stir up the locals. So either way the citizens got their cannery back by pulling together against the corporate moneyed interests and their slick lawyers.
The hitch in the story occurs when James Blake is accused of murdering his wife after closing out all of his investments and bank accounts. You have to admit it did look suspicious that he disappeared even though he was testing a theory posed by FDR on whether someone with millions could simply vanish with all that money. Back in the Thirties it might have still been possible, but then again, John Corzine lost a billion dollars about a year ago and says he doesn't know where it went and it doesn't look like he's been called on it. So who knows.
Anyway, actor Wilcoxon who I haven't seen before, was fairly effective using the old Clark Kent ruse with the glasses to appear like two different characters. Betty Furness appears as his country sweetheart in an unconvincing role, perhaps offering a clue as to why she made a bigger splash in the world of consumer affairs. Though the story's a bit muddled it's entertaining enough nevertheless, and there's even some unexpected comic relief from Blake's butler Roger (Barnett Parker) who amuses with his upper crust style.
The hitch in the story occurs when James Blake is accused of murdering his wife after closing out all of his investments and bank accounts. You have to admit it did look suspicious that he disappeared even though he was testing a theory posed by FDR on whether someone with millions could simply vanish with all that money. Back in the Thirties it might have still been possible, but then again, John Corzine lost a billion dollars about a year ago and says he doesn't know where it went and it doesn't look like he's been called on it. So who knows.
Anyway, actor Wilcoxon who I haven't seen before, was fairly effective using the old Clark Kent ruse with the glasses to appear like two different characters. Betty Furness appears as his country sweetheart in an unconvincing role, perhaps offering a clue as to why she made a bigger splash in the world of consumer affairs. Though the story's a bit muddled it's entertaining enough nevertheless, and there's even some unexpected comic relief from Blake's butler Roger (Barnett Parker) who amuses with his upper crust style.
F.D.R., don't quit your day job...
F Gwynplaine MacIntyre24 April 2003
"The President's Mystery" isn't really a mystery, but it's a well-made B-picture with an interesting premise. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was fond of reading murder mysteries. On 12 May 1935, at a White House luncheon, FDR offered his lunch guests an idea for a mystery: How could a millionaire disappear and start a new life for himself, under a new identity, yet manage to take his wealth with him? One of the guests at that luncheon was magazine editor Fulton Oursler, who wrote mystery stories under the pseudonym 'Anthony Abbot'. Intrigued by FDR's idea, Oursler contacted five other authors (including S.S. Van Dine, creator of the popular Philo Vance mysteries), and they set out to write a novel that could answer FDR's question. This was published as "The President's Mystery Story", with FDR listed as co-author (although he contributed only the premise). It is not a very good book, due to its patchwork structure: the various chapters are written by different authors of radically different styles and widely varying talent. But largely due to its novelty appeal and FDR's personal popularity, "The President's Mystery Story" became a best-seller.
This movie is the film version, with a title card in the opening credits explaining FDR's participation. The screenplay was written by Lester Cole and the grossly overrated Nathanael West, who brings none of his own sardonic viewpoint to this movie.
Industrialist James Blake (the underrated actor Henry Wilcoxon, who later submerged his career into C.B. DeMille's) has messed up his personal life and he wants to start over in a new identity ... but he doesn't want to lose the fortune he's already compiled. He hits upon a very clever plan which might actually have worked in the 1930s, but which nowadays (with computer databases and biometric I.D.) couldn't possibly succeed. Blake locates a crooked investment firm run by two con men (one of them is played by Charles Williams, the meek little actor who played Eustace Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life"). Claiming to have enough evidence to put the crooks in prison, Blake bullies them into abandoning their investment firm without dismantling it. Blake then secretly takes over the brokerage without any paperwork to document the transfer. Operating in the open, he then proceeds to invest his own fortune in the crooked brokerage house ... thus neatly robbing himself! (But how does he withdraw the money after he deposits his cheques?)
Because Blake is publicly perceived to lose his fortune, nobody is surprised when he vanishes ... an apparent suicide. He establishes a new identity with plausible ease (again, this was before high-tech I.D.) and it looks like he's accomplished his goal. But then something goes wrong...
There are several good performances here, most notably Wilcoxon's, Sidney Blackmer's and a comic turn by Barnett Parker in his usual silly-ass Englishman mode, and a performance by the underrated John Wray. Byron Foulger gives his usual inept performance as a milquetoast. Betty Furness is dull and unattractive, as usual for her.
I'll rate this movie 5 out of 10. FDR's participation is almost nonexistent, and co-screenwriter Nathanael West's influence on the material is minor. But this modest film has some genuine merits and an unusual story; I recommend it.
This movie is the film version, with a title card in the opening credits explaining FDR's participation. The screenplay was written by Lester Cole and the grossly overrated Nathanael West, who brings none of his own sardonic viewpoint to this movie.
Industrialist James Blake (the underrated actor Henry Wilcoxon, who later submerged his career into C.B. DeMille's) has messed up his personal life and he wants to start over in a new identity ... but he doesn't want to lose the fortune he's already compiled. He hits upon a very clever plan which might actually have worked in the 1930s, but which nowadays (with computer databases and biometric I.D.) couldn't possibly succeed. Blake locates a crooked investment firm run by two con men (one of them is played by Charles Williams, the meek little actor who played Eustace Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life"). Claiming to have enough evidence to put the crooks in prison, Blake bullies them into abandoning their investment firm without dismantling it. Blake then secretly takes over the brokerage without any paperwork to document the transfer. Operating in the open, he then proceeds to invest his own fortune in the crooked brokerage house ... thus neatly robbing himself! (But how does he withdraw the money after he deposits his cheques?)
Because Blake is publicly perceived to lose his fortune, nobody is surprised when he vanishes ... an apparent suicide. He establishes a new identity with plausible ease (again, this was before high-tech I.D.) and it looks like he's accomplished his goal. But then something goes wrong...
There are several good performances here, most notably Wilcoxon's, Sidney Blackmer's and a comic turn by Barnett Parker in his usual silly-ass Englishman mode, and a performance by the underrated John Wray. Byron Foulger gives his usual inept performance as a milquetoast. Betty Furness is dull and unattractive, as usual for her.
I'll rate this movie 5 out of 10. FDR's participation is almost nonexistent, and co-screenwriter Nathanael West's influence on the material is minor. But this modest film has some genuine merits and an unusual story; I recommend it.
Good little drama thats not a mystery, is a welcome relief from the B-movie programmers
dbborroughs4 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The film begins with a scroll telling us that the President's mystery is the question of whether a man could disappear utterly with five million dollars in his possession and not be found. The idea was come up with by FDR at a luncheon with a magazine publisher, hence the title. A story was written around the idea and published. This film takes the idea and uses it for a springboard for a different story. The story of the film concerns a high profile lawyer who is disillusioned with life, he hates his job and he has nothing in common with his wife. After he is sent to Washington to kill a relief bill in Congress, he goes fishing in the hope of unwinding. There he runs into the effects of the bill he killed. Unhappy with the pain and suffering he caused he decides, after reading the magazine story The President's Mystery, to disappear and then go back and help the town he had harmed.
This is a breezy little movie thats a great deal of fun. Its a joy to be completely mislead as to whats going on with a film. Since there "Mystery" is in the title you really do expect there to be some murder or robbery or something, but it never comes. By the time you realize that there is no mystery you're hooked anyway. How will it all come out? You really do want to know. The plotting is closer in many ways to a Film Noir, except that the story isn't at all bleak. It reminded me of Impact with Brian Donlevy for some reason.
This is a good little movie to make an effort to find. Certainly its under an hour running time wouldn't make it the only choice for a night at the movies, but as part of a night of moldy oldies this will fit the bill nicely.
This is a breezy little movie thats a great deal of fun. Its a joy to be completely mislead as to whats going on with a film. Since there "Mystery" is in the title you really do expect there to be some murder or robbery or something, but it never comes. By the time you realize that there is no mystery you're hooked anyway. How will it all come out? You really do want to know. The plotting is closer in many ways to a Film Noir, except that the story isn't at all bleak. It reminded me of Impact with Brian Donlevy for some reason.
This is a good little movie to make an effort to find. Certainly its under an hour running time wouldn't make it the only choice for a night at the movies, but as part of a night of moldy oldies this will fit the bill nicely.
How Republicans must have hated this!
djpass-128 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Mild spoilers. How Republicans must have hated this! It might seem innocuous today, but this is very much a story about the little guys being screwed by big business. Blake lobbies successfully to defeat a bill that would help small businesses stay afloat during the depression. Already disenchanted with his life, he decides to start over when he sees the effect his work has on a small agricultural community. The version I saw ran 94 minutes, much of it exposition. The latter half of the movie seemed rather rushed. The relationship between Blake and Charlotte doesn't develop, it is just presented without explanation. All in all, a pretty good 30's film.
FDR pitches a story idea
bkoganbing30 September 2011
Reading some of the information about how The President's Mystery came into being it seems like that story would make a far better film than The President's Mystery itself. Even if I had seen the director's cut which was originally 80 minutes. Sad to say about 3/8 of this film seems to have been gutted and I had to fill in a lot of blanks.
Another president named Warren G. Harding had a campaign song that came about just about like this film. At the famous Republican convention of 1920 several prominent songwriters did a collaborative effort and came up with a campaign song that featured such gems as "we need another Lincoln to do our country's thinking, Mr. Harding we're behind you". None of the writers which included Irving Berlin and George Gershwin took copyright credit.
Here Franklin D. Roosevelt pitches a story idea about whether a rich man could liquidate his assets and just disappear. Six prominent authors of the time and their names are listed on the credits of The President's Mystery wrote a collaborative story. Of course when have that much variety in the mix the result can be bland.
This film can't make up its mind whether it's a screwball comedy, a murder mystery, or in the end a Capra like populist song for the common man. Henry Wilcoxon is our protagonist who does liquidate his assets and leaves an unhappy marriage with Evelyn Brent and moves down south and finds a company town where the cannery is shut down and everyone on relief as they called public assistance back in the day. He gets the place started again, but some old enemies in the person of Sidney Blackmer try to defeat his plans. It turns out someone murdered Evelyn after Wilcoxon left town and he's looking good for it.
Betty Furness is the country girl who wins Wilcoxon and Barnett Parker is his former butler who saves the day.
The film was shut on a nickel and dime budget by the even tighter than usual fisted Herbert J. Yates and Republic Pictures. Since the overhead was cheap, FDR's Warm Springs Foundation for Infantile Paralysis I'm sure got a nice check from Republic where the picture credits say all profits went to.
Maybe the film might be higher rated if we could see the whole thing, but we have to go with what we have.
Another president named Warren G. Harding had a campaign song that came about just about like this film. At the famous Republican convention of 1920 several prominent songwriters did a collaborative effort and came up with a campaign song that featured such gems as "we need another Lincoln to do our country's thinking, Mr. Harding we're behind you". None of the writers which included Irving Berlin and George Gershwin took copyright credit.
Here Franklin D. Roosevelt pitches a story idea about whether a rich man could liquidate his assets and just disappear. Six prominent authors of the time and their names are listed on the credits of The President's Mystery wrote a collaborative story. Of course when have that much variety in the mix the result can be bland.
This film can't make up its mind whether it's a screwball comedy, a murder mystery, or in the end a Capra like populist song for the common man. Henry Wilcoxon is our protagonist who does liquidate his assets and leaves an unhappy marriage with Evelyn Brent and moves down south and finds a company town where the cannery is shut down and everyone on relief as they called public assistance back in the day. He gets the place started again, but some old enemies in the person of Sidney Blackmer try to defeat his plans. It turns out someone murdered Evelyn after Wilcoxon left town and he's looking good for it.
Betty Furness is the country girl who wins Wilcoxon and Barnett Parker is his former butler who saves the day.
The film was shut on a nickel and dime budget by the even tighter than usual fisted Herbert J. Yates and Republic Pictures. Since the overhead was cheap, FDR's Warm Springs Foundation for Infantile Paralysis I'm sure got a nice check from Republic where the picture credits say all profits went to.
Maybe the film might be higher rated if we could see the whole thing, but we have to go with what we have.
The President's Mystery review
JoeytheBrit21 April 2020
A millionaire believes he has successfully disappeared with his fortune intact, but his past comes back to haunt him. The only movie to boast a co-writing credit for a serving President (Franklin D. Roosevelt) is a socially conscious but scrappy affair from Republic. The 'remastered' version I saw was missing almost half-an-hour from the original running time - and it shows. At least it's different.
About as subtle as a nudist at a Baptist picnic!
planktonrules27 November 2017
The background for this film is given in a prologue. Apparently, the President himself (FDR) challenged several writers to come up with a story that is believable about a rich man disappearing and staying incognito despite having millions. This movie, apparently, is the result of the challenge and Franklin Roosevelt is listed among the writers of this film! Sadly, the story is NOT believable and seems like a politically motivated bit of public relations. For this, and that is all, the story is mildly interesting.
James Blake (Henry Wilcoxon) is a mega-millionaire who has little to do with himself as he's loaded with money and his holding run themselves. One day, he goes on a fishing trip and discovers a small town in trouble...in trouble thanks to industrialists like himself. So, he decides to pretend to be just a regular Joe and moves to the town in order to re-start its dead canning industry.
Unfortunately for Blake, his less than loving wife has been accidentally killed...and folks think HE is responsible. This means that remaining in disguise might be a good idea...though he doesn't have access to his immense fortune.
The film comes off like a Depression era fairy tale--with some stereotypes and obvious messages are inserted liberally. I think had the story been less heavy-handed and more believable, it could have worked, as one of the best films of the 1930s was "The Millionaire"...a film from 1931 starring the wonderful George Arliss. It's also about a man who is essentially like Blake--who goes back to work and gets his hands dirty because being a millionaire is so dull and non- productive.
James Blake (Henry Wilcoxon) is a mega-millionaire who has little to do with himself as he's loaded with money and his holding run themselves. One day, he goes on a fishing trip and discovers a small town in trouble...in trouble thanks to industrialists like himself. So, he decides to pretend to be just a regular Joe and moves to the town in order to re-start its dead canning industry.
Unfortunately for Blake, his less than loving wife has been accidentally killed...and folks think HE is responsible. This means that remaining in disguise might be a good idea...though he doesn't have access to his immense fortune.
The film comes off like a Depression era fairy tale--with some stereotypes and obvious messages are inserted liberally. I think had the story been less heavy-handed and more believable, it could have worked, as one of the best films of the 1930s was "The Millionaire"...a film from 1931 starring the wonderful George Arliss. It's also about a man who is essentially like Blake--who goes back to work and gets his hands dirty because being a millionaire is so dull and non- productive.
"If you ain't got nothing to live for, you're better off dead."
utgard145 June 2017
Nice programmer with a fascinating backstory. Based on a plot idea (really just a theoretical question) from then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It's about a rich man with an unhappy life who, after reading the Roosevelt magazine article that lead to this very film being made (how meta!), decides to liquidize all his assets and skip out on his terrible wife to go become a socialist reformer in a small town. Naturally a pretty young woman is behind this gentleman's sudden ideological transformation. After he sets his plan into motion, something happens that threatens to unravel it all.
The Roosevelt connection is interesting, especially if one has read about the President's struggles and personal life around this time. It makes one wonder if anybody in 1936 thought it was strange that a sitting President would be mulling over ideas about middle-aged rich men disappearing and setting up new lives to get away from their problems. Beyond that, I think it's a good B movie with an intriguing premise. The performances are all solid and the direction is creative here and there. It creaks and groans at times, no doubt a mix of its Poverty Row pedigree and the quality of available prints today. It's worth a look but probably more so for the historical elements than because it's particularly entertaining as a mystery film.
The Roosevelt connection is interesting, especially if one has read about the President's struggles and personal life around this time. It makes one wonder if anybody in 1936 thought it was strange that a sitting President would be mulling over ideas about middle-aged rich men disappearing and setting up new lives to get away from their problems. Beyond that, I think it's a good B movie with an intriguing premise. The performances are all solid and the direction is creative here and there. It creaks and groans at times, no doubt a mix of its Poverty Row pedigree and the quality of available prints today. It's worth a look but probably more so for the historical elements than because it's particularly entertaining as a mystery film.
There's no president in the story, only a tribute to a man who helped with the story.
mark.waltz11 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Proving that he was a regular fellow, Franklin D. Roosevelt dabbled in a bit of creative writing to contribute to the story with Samuel Hopkins Adams in this story of a wealthy man (Henry Wilcoxin) fed up with being one of the richest men in the world, how it affects his personal life, and the lack of freedom and privacy he has to do what he wants. So he cashes out everything and disappears, ending up in a small town, where, guess what happens, he becomes an adviser to some of the happenings going on, loosing his freedom and privacy, while the rest of the country wonders what happened to him, especially when his wife is murdered and he is accused of the crime.
This storyline sounds like something that would embarrass Frank Capra, and while the acting and dialog are sound, it is the execution of the structure of the plot that raises eyebrows. A bit too much happens over the course of an hour, like an over-exaggerated version of that bad morning that starts off with you stubbing your toe, unable to find your keys or wallet, not having hot water, etc. So while you give kudos to the president for pursuing a dream outside politics, you can't help but wonder how things could have turned out had he toned down the dramatics a bit. He tosses in some comic relief with an effeminate butler (was there any other kind during the golden age of movies?) who ironically ends up saving the day.
This storyline sounds like something that would embarrass Frank Capra, and while the acting and dialog are sound, it is the execution of the structure of the plot that raises eyebrows. A bit too much happens over the course of an hour, like an over-exaggerated version of that bad morning that starts off with you stubbing your toe, unable to find your keys or wallet, not having hot water, etc. So while you give kudos to the president for pursuing a dream outside politics, you can't help but wonder how things could have turned out had he toned down the dramatics a bit. He tosses in some comic relief with an effeminate butler (was there any other kind during the golden age of movies?) who ironically ends up saving the day.
Unconvincing, But I Like It Anyway!
JohnHowardReid28 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
An unconvincing drama which fails dismally to convert a thinking audience to its inflammatory anti-big business point of view, but is nonetheless quite entertaining despite a whole slew of loose plot ends which, if properly tied up would see the hero sent to jail for a far longer term than the villainous tycoonwho would probably escape conviction anyway when his smart lawyer quickly destroyed the credibility of all the people's witnessescriminals or even worse, professional liars, the lot of them!
Henry Wilcoxon, who seemed to make a career of giving indifferent performances in big pictures, and really impressive portrayals in "B" films, is not unexpectedly, at his best here. He receives hearty support from pretty Betty Furness, and heavies Blackmer and Brent, but it is Barnett Parker who walks away with the acting honors, thanks to indulgent writing. Wade Boteler also makes the most of a rare big scene opportunity, while Clem Bevans makes his mark in a key instant-information sequence.
By his usual humble standards, Phil Rosen's direction is remarkably polished and even accomplished. Production values are solid too.
Henry Wilcoxon, who seemed to make a career of giving indifferent performances in big pictures, and really impressive portrayals in "B" films, is not unexpectedly, at his best here. He receives hearty support from pretty Betty Furness, and heavies Blackmer and Brent, but it is Barnett Parker who walks away with the acting honors, thanks to indulgent writing. Wade Boteler also makes the most of a rare big scene opportunity, while Clem Bevans makes his mark in a key instant-information sequence.
By his usual humble standards, Phil Rosen's direction is remarkably polished and even accomplished. Production values are solid too.
a timely story for today
kidboots20 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Everybody seemed to have a hand in this story, there was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who suggested it - S.S. Van Dine (Philo Vance's creator), Rupert Hughes, Nathanial West, but the idea wasn't new. In 1933 Paramount's "The Woman Accused" starring Nancy Carroll had much publicity about the collaboration of ten authors (Vicki Baum, Zane Grey, Irvin S. Cobb etc) on the screenplay. With both films it was a case of two many cooks spoil the broth. "The President's Mystery' wasn't bad and it did have a role for the sultry, under-rated Evelyn Brent. She had such a varied career with stardom in America and also in Britain in the 20s. By the early 30s her days of heady stardom were over, although many fans wondered where she was. Actually she was becoming a character actress in independent productions like "The President's Mystery".
Jim Blake (Henry Wilcoxon)is disillusioned with life. He is sent to Washington by the firm he founded - he now thinks George (Sidney Blackmer) is running it like a cheap racket. They want him to kill the Senators bill to reconstruct trade. His wife Ilka (sultry Evelyn Brent) is having an affair with George and is quite pleased Jim will be out of town, as George's wife Patty is going to the boat races. Jim comes home to take a well earned fishing vacation.
During his trip he sees "ghost towns" - towns shut up through unemployment. One little town has just had it's cannery closed and it's future is grim. Under a new name Jim "Carter" is persuaded by Charlotte Brown (Betty Furness always brought an intelligence to her roles) to come to Springvale an reopen the cannery.
He is reading a magazine and happens to read "The President's Mystery" which poses the question - "can a man liquidate his entire fortune and disappear"?? - Jim does that as well as faking his own death!!! Meanwhile his wife has insisted on a rendezvous with a by now disinterested George, who sends a henchman, who in turn roughs her up and accidentally kills her. When Jack's car and "body" are found in the river, people assume he has killed himself and his wife because of bad investments.
As Jack "Carter" he is now head of the Springvale Cannery. When George pays a visit to see if he can buy the cannery out, he recognises Jack and brings in the law to have him charged with murder!!! With Blake out of the way George hires some "roughnecks" to stir up trouble. With the help of a friendly sheriff Blake escapes and is able to calm the angry mob.
Recommended.
Jim Blake (Henry Wilcoxon)is disillusioned with life. He is sent to Washington by the firm he founded - he now thinks George (Sidney Blackmer) is running it like a cheap racket. They want him to kill the Senators bill to reconstruct trade. His wife Ilka (sultry Evelyn Brent) is having an affair with George and is quite pleased Jim will be out of town, as George's wife Patty is going to the boat races. Jim comes home to take a well earned fishing vacation.
During his trip he sees "ghost towns" - towns shut up through unemployment. One little town has just had it's cannery closed and it's future is grim. Under a new name Jim "Carter" is persuaded by Charlotte Brown (Betty Furness always brought an intelligence to her roles) to come to Springvale an reopen the cannery.
He is reading a magazine and happens to read "The President's Mystery" which poses the question - "can a man liquidate his entire fortune and disappear"?? - Jim does that as well as faking his own death!!! Meanwhile his wife has insisted on a rendezvous with a by now disinterested George, who sends a henchman, who in turn roughs her up and accidentally kills her. When Jack's car and "body" are found in the river, people assume he has killed himself and his wife because of bad investments.
As Jack "Carter" he is now head of the Springvale Cannery. When George pays a visit to see if he can buy the cannery out, he recognises Jack and brings in the law to have him charged with murder!!! With Blake out of the way George hires some "roughnecks" to stir up trouble. With the help of a friendly sheriff Blake escapes and is able to calm the angry mob.
Recommended.
Only of interest for one reason
Leofwine_draca18 March 2017
THE PRESIDENT'S MYSTERY is a 1936 potboiler solely of interest for having a story written by none other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, the only time a film in history can boast being written by a president as such. Whether it's a good story or not is another question, one that only the viewer can decide.
The film's protagonist is a millionaire who has made some bad decisions in life, leading him to decide to just disappear and reappear elsewhere with a new, assumed identity. Intrigue proceeds to follow him. There's some mystery and comedy but the film never really succeeds in either genre, instead coming across as bland and instantly forgettable.
The film's protagonist is a millionaire who has made some bad decisions in life, leading him to decide to just disappear and reappear elsewhere with a new, assumed identity. Intrigue proceeds to follow him. There's some mystery and comedy but the film never really succeeds in either genre, instead coming across as bland and instantly forgettable.
Some Good Work In The First Half
boblipton26 July 2019
Henry Wilcoxon is a Wall Street lawyer. Sidney Blackmer of National Can sends him down to Washington to kill a bill that will guarantee loans to local canneries. When he comes back, he goes fishing and finds Betty Furness in charge of a closed cannery in a dying town. He returns home, where wife Evelyn Brent is happy with their life, even though she's carrying on an affair with Blackmer.
So Wilcoxon turns his assets into cash and disappears. Brent is accidentally killed by Blackmer's chauffeur, who covers it up with an accident. Soon enough, the conclusion is that Wilcoxon went bust, killed his wife and committed suicide; in reality, he's helped to reopen the Furness' cannery as a cooperative. They're about to ship out the first batch, when Blackmer shows up in town put the squeeze on.
It's a good set-up for the situation, which was proposed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in an interview; he was known to be a mystery fan. He asked if a man could disappear with $5,000,000 with liquid assets. There's a scene with Wilcoxon reading the result in a slick magazine. the first half is an interesting piece of work, with some strong acting by all hands; the second half turns into a more standard work of New Deal fiction, the type of thing best left to Frank Capra.
So Wilcoxon turns his assets into cash and disappears. Brent is accidentally killed by Blackmer's chauffeur, who covers it up with an accident. Soon enough, the conclusion is that Wilcoxon went bust, killed his wife and committed suicide; in reality, he's helped to reopen the Furness' cannery as a cooperative. They're about to ship out the first batch, when Blackmer shows up in town put the squeeze on.
It's a good set-up for the situation, which was proposed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in an interview; he was known to be a mystery fan. He asked if a man could disappear with $5,000,000 with liquid assets. There's a scene with Wilcoxon reading the result in a slick magazine. the first half is an interesting piece of work, with some strong acting by all hands; the second half turns into a more standard work of New Deal fiction, the type of thing best left to Frank Capra.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
