A reviewer needs to give really old movies a lot of latitude. That is particularly true regarding visuals and sound, but also to a lesser extent the story. Hitchcock was perhaps an exception. But a lot of latitude still allows one to critique on points that any filmmaker should have been aware of, even in those days.
The most significant problem here is a plot that is rushed. I can accept that 1930s Hollywood is responsible for the conspicuous absence of pauses between lines of dialogue. This is typical of films back then; it conveys the impression that the runtime is being clocked with a stopwatch.
But in this film some scenes don't connect well, and I'm left with the impression that connecting scenes may have been cut out. How else are we to explain Inspector Gunby's assumption that Larry is innocent? Then there's that scene where Larry appears at the window at Mary's home; how did he get there from his escape location? How did he manage to get from Mary's home to Monte Carlo? None of these actions are explained. Were connecting scenes edited out? If yes, why? If, on the other hand, this is the way the scriptwriter wanted the plot to play, then it's a poorly written script. Either way, the film, at barely sixty minutes, appears forced into a runtime straight-jacket.
Production values are acceptable for the era. B&W photography is about what one would expect, grainy, and with the use of static camera shots. Casting could have had more diverse looking females. Acting was a bit exaggerated at times, not unusual for early talkies.
I suppose one could say that "Monte Carlo Nights" is a suspense film; there's a little, not much. The ending contains a slight story twist, but one that is not satisfying. The overall whodunit resolution here is disappointing. Other whodunit films from the same era are better.
The most significant problem here is a plot that is rushed. I can accept that 1930s Hollywood is responsible for the conspicuous absence of pauses between lines of dialogue. This is typical of films back then; it conveys the impression that the runtime is being clocked with a stopwatch.
But in this film some scenes don't connect well, and I'm left with the impression that connecting scenes may have been cut out. How else are we to explain Inspector Gunby's assumption that Larry is innocent? Then there's that scene where Larry appears at the window at Mary's home; how did he get there from his escape location? How did he manage to get from Mary's home to Monte Carlo? None of these actions are explained. Were connecting scenes edited out? If yes, why? If, on the other hand, this is the way the scriptwriter wanted the plot to play, then it's a poorly written script. Either way, the film, at barely sixty minutes, appears forced into a runtime straight-jacket.
Production values are acceptable for the era. B&W photography is about what one would expect, grainy, and with the use of static camera shots. Casting could have had more diverse looking females. Acting was a bit exaggerated at times, not unusual for early talkies.
I suppose one could say that "Monte Carlo Nights" is a suspense film; there's a little, not much. The ending contains a slight story twist, but one that is not satisfying. The overall whodunit resolution here is disappointing. Other whodunit films from the same era are better.
