City in Darkness (1939)

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

I really like Harold Huber, I really do. He was one of the best character actors of the 1930s until his passing in the 1950s. He was even really good and great in his previous Chan roles and also in the Mr. Moto films in supporting roles. But here...WOW. Director Herbert I. Leeds also previously helmed the Mr. Moto entry "Danger Island" the same year. The buddy relationship in that film with Peter Lorre and Warren Hymer worked there perfectly because the movie never lost focus that MOTO was the main character and the chemistry between Lorre and Hymer clicked beautifully. It seems like Leeds was attempting the same for Sidney Toler and Harold Huber but Huber's comedy is overbearing, really unfunny and completely out of place. Huber is basically the main character of the film and is given free rein to go wild while Toler is left to clean up the mess (bless you for being a trooper with this, Mr. Toler). And the absence of Victor Sen-Yung in favor of Huber's bumbling annoyance is another mark against this one. Another problem is that the murder victim isn't that interesting, nor are a good amount of the suspects who have their own sneaky self- interests to hide. Whenever the Chan films emphasized espionage rather than the basic murder mystery, the results were a largely mixed bag but here, it's a real slog to sit through. Not even Lon Chaney Jr's brief presence was enough to enjoy. The historical aspect of the rising European tensions on the eve of World War Two make this film interesting from that perspective but the potential to make the usual fun popcorn Chan movie went down the drain with Huber being pushed to the forefront. Avoid this one.

Too much idiocy. Too much bad acting. This is kind of propaganda that would have benefited the wrong side. They talk about Neville Chamberlan on his way to try to negotiate for the good of the French people. We all know how that turned out. Usually there is some charm in these things. Not so here. There are contrived forces battling one another, trying to get significant people out of France. That loudmouthed French policeman is insufferable. There is also a lot of confusion as to what the whole goal was and why one person was a bad guy and the next was a good guy. I have to admit to almost dozing off. One reason is an almost total lack of comic relief.

The "City in Darkness" is Paris, where Charlie Chan and a group of colleagues from the last Great War are gathered for a reunion on the eve of the next one. As the picture opens, a newsreel-style sequence presents a fascinating and frightening summary of European events of 1938—as they appeared from the vantage point of early 1939. In this setting, with war imminent and preparations mounting, the nighttime blackout in effect occasionally helps the story along—such as the scene in which Mr. Chan, captured and tied up in a shop's back room, manages to surreptitiously switch on an outside light, knowing the police will come and pound on the shop door and thus rescue him. The plot itself concerns the murder of a shady character named Petroff—and the usual number of suspects who may have had reasons (personal or political) for doing away with him. There's a shop owner (Leo G. Carroll) who makes and sells fake passports on the side; a young couple (Richard Clarke and Lynn Bari) trying to catch the last boat for America for six days; a "business associate" (Noel Madison) of Petroff's who slides in and out of the picture; and butler and patriot Antoine (Pedro de Cordoba).C. Henry Gordon is a natural as the prefect of police, the old friend Chan has come to visit. Sidney Toler is solid if rather subdued as Mr. Chan. Instead of assistance from number two son, however, this time around Chan has to deal with…Harold Huber as a bumbling inspector who hopes to solve this case to impress the prefect. His accent is thick, his gestures are exaggerated, and whenever he is on screen he interrupts loudly, whoever else may be speaking. It's a comic role—but, for my taste at least, it's a bit too much. I'm all for broad humor but in this case it only partially works and it distracts from an otherwise rather serious movie.It's certainly an interesting setting…but overall I'm not sure they didn't concentrate too much on the picture's timeliness and neglect to polish the dialog and plot.

By his fourth film in the series, Sidney Toler had settled into the Charlie Chan role quite nicely. In many ways, this is a fascinating film to watch because of its historical value--as it talks about the events leading up to WWII as well as the assumption that the Munich Agreement would avert war. As a history teacher, this is great stuff--a real insight into Europe on the eve of war.However, despite the interesting backdrop of Paris as it prepares for war, the film ultimately is destroyed by one man--Harold Huber. This was Huber's third Chan film--having played a French inspector in Monte Carlo as well as a New York inspector. The problem in this film wasn't his accent (here and in the previous film, Huber was fine with his fake French accent), but how incredibly obnoxious and stupid his character was. This film did not feature a Chan child but most of the blundering was done by Huber. This might have worked had they not made Huber five times stupider than any of the Chan children. Plus, Huber came on so strong and was so dominant in the film that you really wanted him to die, as he completely over-shadowed Toler. Because of this, this might just be the worst Chan film that Fox Studios made. Watchable but annoying.