tedg Cinematic archeology is what this is all about. The film has lost all its appeal as the hooks have gone out of style. But we can see major chunks that have evolved to what we have now.The basic setup is the fold of a reporter as a detective, a miraculously simple concept in narration, as his job is to 'get the story.'He has an easy hookup with a perky girl, though cleanly post-code.Our reporter is an adventure-loving party man (which then meant an occasional drunk) who cannot keep money and who hates authority.The environment is one in which police are inept and essentially invisible, and 'the paper' runs the town behind the scenes. You can easily see the seeds of noir here.Oh, and we have a stereotyped villain, a mystery man who calls himself The Eel and who calls to taunt police (represented by the DA).Good digging here, if you have the patience.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

MartinHafer This B-movie is from Monogram Pictures--a company known for low-budget and relatively low quality films. Now this isn't to say their films are not enjoyable--they are often VERY fun to watch--they just aren't particularly distinguished. In the case of "Mystery Men", it's obvious that the writing was poor--but somehow, despite many silly plot elements, the film was fun to watch.Robert Armstrong stars as a crime reporter. In the first of MANY irrational plot points, the local DA wants to show his appreciation for Armstrong's work...so he has a .45 caliber pistol awarded to him! Then, while he's on a trip to St. Louis, he meets a woman who is broke. Now what would you do in a situation like this? Well, you certainly would NOT pretend that she is your wife and then check into a hotel you cannot afford! Well, that is exactly what he does...and with no expectations of sex. Then, when he tries to get a job with the local paper and the prospective employer calls his old paper, what happens--yep, the old boss tells the St. Louis newspaper editor that the man in his office is a phony and the real reporter is back in Chicago!!! Huh?!? Then, when Armstrong eventually DOES get the St. Louis job anyway, he investigates a crime spree. And, when he sees the killer leaving with the money, what does he do? Yes, he pretends to be one of the gang and drives away with the loot! Can you see that none of this makes any sense? There are MANY more situations like this in the film--I am only naming a few. But, oddly, despite so many dopey moments, Armstrong manages to at least make it enjoyable and the film kept my interest...though it was a bad film from most respects.

secondtake The Mystery Man (1935)Well this is a fast hoot, and not a good movie by any means. It has a chipper tone and some comic twists, but the acting, the acting. The core idea is good--a news reporter with a thankless editor gets caught up in a story while on leave from his Chicago paper. But the St. Louis newspaper won't believe he's a reporter, and he gets stranded and eventually accused. Luckily his buddies back home help out, and even better, a pretty girl is also stranded and helpless and good for moral support and some cleverness in the nick of time. Coulda been something.It's not like 1935 is too early for a snappy, intelligent crime detective caper film. We've already had a string of absolute classics from Warner Bros. in the early 30s, and we're seeing the beginning of the "Thin Man" series with its high level of sophistication. But this is a B-movie through and through, and I guess there is only so much talent to go around. You would do better plodding through the worst of the Mr. Moto or the Charlie Chan films than this one.

dongwangfu This uneasy cross between a "Front Page" style newspaper yarn and a cops and robbers movie was entertaining at times but never really dramatically engaging. It was made less than a decade after the stage version, and only a few years after the Menjou/O'Brien version of Front Page. The comedic elements in the first part of the movie, as well as some funny ironic dialog come out of the interactions between news hound Larry Doyle, his editor, and his fellow reporters, come from that style of film. Halfway through, we leave that movie and enter into a crime flick, with a decent ingénue mistaken for Mrs. Doyle (played by an actress who was really named Doyle, by the way) and a case of mistaken identity leaving the reporter holding the bag. The resolution is not very clever, and the light tone of the first part of the movie means we're never really worried something bad will happen in the second. I mean, if it had been made in the 1970's, that may have happened, but in 1935, no way.There's a really neat moment at the end, though, that illustrates how in the 1930's everyone knew that newspapers could make or break elected officials, and how the publishers could influence what was published. I don't know when we lost that breezy cynicism about money and media, but I prefer it to the sacred cow of editorial independence that characterized the movies about the media I watched growing up. Doesn't really save the movie, but it is an interesting difference from things 75 years ago.