MartinHafer This film begins with a slick blackmailer (Henry Daniell) approaching a young wife (Loretta Young) and telling her he has letters from Young's husband (Franchot Tone) to a married woman. The letters are VERY indiscreet and they were written years before Tone's marriage. But, considering Tone was cavorting about with a married lady, the letters could destroy his career. When Young later meets with the blackmailer for the payoff, she witnesses a man and his wife walking about the cliff. Well, the wife apparently fell soon after and people thought the man killed her--but Loretta knows that he's innocent. But, to go to the police, she might have to explain why she was there. It's a ridiculous coincidence, but it turns out later that her husband is to prosecute the accused killer! A bit later, the blackmailer's accomplice (his wife) contacts Tone. She, too, hopes to blackmail money from Tone for the letters. However, after going to meet her, a murder occurs and it sure looks like Tone killed one of the blackmailers! And, since Tone and Young haven't talked about the letters, both are being bled by these leeches. What's to happen next?! Overall, this isn't a bad film but it suffers from some problems. First, common sense would say that Young WOULD talk to her husband about the blackmailers and the two would work together--but they don't. In fact, several times during the film you find it hard to believe what the characters do--such as when Young meets with Daniell late in the film and the insanely bizarre ending (this made no sense at all). Second, the movie is a bit too mannered and talky--too many folks in tuxes talking around the subject instead of dealing with the crimes directly. As a result, the film is a bit cold and uninvolving when it should have been more exciting. Still, it's worth seeing and isn't a bad film at all--it's just that it should have been better.By the way, Henry Daniell played a wonderful blackmailer. He's even juicier in such a role in "The Suspect"--a dandy film and one of the best films of the 1940s.

calvinnme ...and you may find it so too. Not because the film is bad, but because the film starts out with a truly evil person tormenting a very good person (Loretta Young as dutiful wife Lady Helen Dudley Dearden) relentlessly and even seeming to enjoy it. Lady Helen must pay two thousand pounds to a blackmailer to prevent him from revealing love letters that her husband wrote years before they were married to a woman who was married at the time - to the blackmailer. Lady Helen's husband (Franchot Tone as Sir Alan Dearden) is about to be made attorney general, and any scandal would wreck that chance. So she pays. However, this decision to pay up soon embroils her in a murder case - not as a suspect but as a witness. After she comes forward to tell what she knows to free an innocent man of one murder, she unknowingly implicates her husband in another murder. The blackmailer then reenters her life and torments her some more. Yes, the ending is a bit fantastic, but getting there is an interesting ride with this being a very satisfying thriller. The central theme is how hard it can be to prove a negative and how much people - and the legal system - often want to believe the worst. Hard to believe that Loretta Young is only 23 at this point. She has all the poise and sophistication of a woman quite a bit older than that. But that was true all the way back to her silent days so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I'd recommend this one highly, just don't be surprised if you find yourself hissing at the blackmailer villain in this one like in the old silent days. He really is an awful character.

inspectorfernack There are many times that "The Unguarded Hour" feels like a stage play on film, but is that so bad? There are long scenes in which not much happens, but within which certain plot points are revealed. Is that so bad?No. Not at all!This movie sparkles. Roland Young puts in one of his best performances, particularly evinced by the "what if" scene in which he questions Tone over what happened on "the night in question."Loretta Young is, well, young and alluring -- and she can flat out act, too.And Henry Daniell is an absolutely perfect scoundrel. He doesn't overplay his part, but he is scary nonetheless.This is a beautifully constructed film..with just the right "Tone."

Mart Sander Loretta Young always managed to bring a certain cool quality to her movies and has come to epitomize the feminine beauty and elegance of the 1930s. It's hard to tell if The Unguarded Hour would've turned out quite as well without an actress of her charm to divert the viewer from the plot holes. The story itself is very entertaining and amusing, once you come to accept their motives and not ask questions such as "why on earth doesn't she tell everything to her husband and get it over with?" But of course, a woman of such beauty and elegance (there, I said it again) can't be wrong, can she? And we wouldn't have had a movie to start with.If you manage to get a hold of this rarely seen gem which hasn't been released on DVD as yet, you're quite sure to spend a very enjoyable time, trying to guess the perpetrator of the villainy and feasting your eyes on the rosy cheeks and elegant gowns of the damsel in distress.