A big welcome to our new sponsor!

Is this how you deal with annoying relatives or guests who overstay their welcome?

 If so, be aware that murder is illegal, bodies are hard to dispose of... and that we know someone who can offer you a better option! We're proud to announce a another sponsor who makes it possible for the Shades of Gray team to bring you all the great content you find here!

Check out this sort ad, visit their shop, or give them a call! See if they can't improve YOUR life!

'The Law of the Tong' is saved by its interesting main characters

The Law of the Tong (1931)
Starring: Phyllis Barrington, Jason Robards, John Harron, Frank Lackteen, and Dot Farley

Director: Lewis D. Collins

Rating: Four of Ten Stars

An honorable Chinese gangster (Robards) has a chance encounter with a dancehall girl (Barrington) that ends up changing both their lives forever.

"The Law of the Tong" is a somewhat dull affair with a story that features a mix of interesting and inexplicably stupid characters, as well as equal parts halfhearted moralizing, nonsensical Orientalism, and underdeveloped intrigue.

The film would be unwatchable if not for a pair of interesting characters at its center--Joan (Phyllis Barrington), and Charlie Wong (Jason Robards). Wong is a Chinese gangster whose agendas and ultimate goal is utterly inscrutable. He is clearly operating a human smuggling ring, and he is involved in a gang war, but he claims that his objective is to bring poor Chinese people into the United States where they can enjoy the better life he has found. He is also never anything but courteous and respectful toward Joan and he goes FAR out of his way to help her and turn her life away from an inevitable slide into prostitution. Meanwhile, Joan emerges as a fascinating character when she become caught in the middle between her friendship with Charlie Wong and the nerdy, self-righteous undercover detective Doug (John Harron) who is going to get himself killed while trying to bring down Wong's smuggling ring. In a better, slightly longer film, there would probably have been more development of Wong and Joan... I for one would have enjoyed getting to know both of them better.

I think this film also shows that it's a shame Phyllis Barrington only made a dozen or so movies. She lights up the screen whenever she appears, and her charisma shines brightly both opposite Robards and Harron. 

And speaking of Harron: The third main character in the film, Doug, is interesting only insofar as he is not as bland and uninteresting as the supposed romantic leads in these sorts of films tend to be; otherwise, he is merely the catalyst that leads to Joan's fateful first encounter with Wong. I might have included Doug in the reasons that makes the film worth watching, but the usual blandness is replaced by self-righteousness augmented by stupidity. (He follows Joan to work at the dancehall and then gets outraged--OUTRAGED!--when she dances with customers.)

Aside from its underdeveloped main characters and story, this film is also harmed by the habit of having white actors in "yellow face" portray Asian characters. It's something that looks strange to modern viewers, and, as good as Jason Robards is as Charlie Wong, and Frank Lackteen is as the villainous Yuen, I've no doubt that there were equally talented actors of some East Asian extraction that could have filled those roles. (Heck, one only has to look to "The Secrets of Wu Sin" (1932) for proof of that. Both films are on the same double-feature DVD from Alpha Video.)

Perhaps the butler actually did it this time!

Sinister Hands (1932)
Starring: Jack Mulhall, Crauford Kent, Mischa Auer, Phyllis Barrington, Louis Nathaeux, Gertie Messinger, Fletcher Norton, Phillips Smalley, Lillian West, and James P. Burtis
Director: Armand Shaefer
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

A millionaire is murdered at a seance where EVERYONE (including the bulter) could have done it, and had reason to do it. It's up to homicide detective Herbert Devlin (Muhall) to sort through the suspicious characters and find the killer.


"Sinister Hands" is a decent little mystery that plays like an outline of an Agatha Christie novel. The first half sets up the future victim and all the people with reasons to kill him, and the second half is devoted mostly the detective interrogating the suspects as he tries to discover who did it, or trick the killer into revealing him- or herself.

There will be no great surprises in this film if you pay attention as it unfolds and if you've read/seen at least two or three other detective movies. (In fact, one of the things I found most interesting is completely trivial and not even related directly to the movie. It appeared that the characters were wearing unisex bathing suits at the pool party scene. I'd never noticed that men and women's swimwear was that close in style and appearance during the late 1920s and early 1930s. I also found it noteworthy that one of the suspects is a fake spiritualist named Yomurda. With a name like that, he can't possibly be the killer, can he? :D )

This is an entertaining little mystery film that is probably only of interest to big fans of the genre (like me) or those with a deep love of low-budget films from this era (which I also qualify as). It might also be a suitable second feature for a Bad Movie Night, because, while not exactly a bad movie, it is a film that time has passed by and which can give rise to much levity in the right company.

'Sucker Money' shows dark side of psychics

Sucker Money (1933)
Starring: Earl McCarthy, Mischa Auer, Phyllis Barrington and Mae Busch
Directors: Dorothy Davenport and Melville Shyer
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

When Jimmy (McCarthy), an actor-turned-newspaper reporter, infiltrates a group of confidence artists who are running an elaborate phony psychic operation, he gets more than just the material for a great expose: He finds romance in the form of beautiful Ms. Walton (Barrington), one of the targets of the bad guys, and he finds danger at the hands of the murderous leader of the gang, Swami Yomurda (Auer) when his cover is blown.

"Sucker Money" is a fine, fast-paced little reporter-saves-the-day-and-the-girl and self-declared "expose" film of the phony psychic racket (which, given the number of movies that were made with this theme during the 1930s and 1940s, I can only assume was quite widespread). The set-up is a bit weak--a criminal enterprise as elaborate and organized as the one presented in this film wouldn't turn to the want ads when it came to hiring new help--but that bit of nonsense aside, the film is engaging, well-acted, and well-filmed... even if it feels and looks a bit too much like a silent movie at times. (There's also the minor issue with the reporter wearing more lipstick and eyeliner than any of the women characters in the film when he's in his "acting mode". Perhaps that's to remind the audience that he's a ACTOR? Or maybe that was part of his disguise--"if they think I'm one of THOSE actors, the women won't come onto handsome ole me, and I'll get my story quicker"?

The weaknesses of the film are more than made up for by the evil Swami Yomurda (whose name is never said in the film, thank God.) Auer portrays a truly sinister and evil character, with strongly scripted actions to support him. He may be a fake psychic, but he has Svengali-like hypnotic powers, and he has no compulsion about ordering those under them to dispatch themselves by drinking poison. He does just this in the film's most startling scene. The scene alone makes the film worth watching, although the strong climax also makes it well worth your time, if you're a lover of old-fashioned crime dramas.




(Trivia: This is the second movie in which Mischa Auer played a crooked spiritualist named "Sawmi Yomurda." The first was 1932's "Sinister Hands," in which is also co-starred with Phyllis Barrington (her character in that film was a different one, however).

'Murder in the Museum' is a smokin' mystery

Murder in the Museum (1934)
Starring: John Harron, Henry B. Walthall, Phyllis Barrington, Donald Kerr, Steve Clemente and Joseph W. Girad
Director: Melville Shyer
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

When a city councilman is murdered while on a fact-finding mission to a local "museum of oddities", the police commisioner (Girard) emerges as the most likely suspect. However, crimebeat reporter Jerry Ross (Herron) sets out to prove his innocence in order to impress tthe commisioners niece (Barrington), a beautiful young lady he's taken an interest in.


"Murder at the Museum" is a nicely executed who-dunnit with an unusual and unpredictable setting of a Skid Row freak show. Everyone in the establishment has a dark history with secrets, but which of the them had enough darkness in their background to murder the holier-than-thou crusading councilman? And how was the crime committed?

In addition to its convincingly drawn seedy sideshow setting, the film is blessed with a fast-moving plot, well-crafted dialogue and a cast of talented actors. The characters are all engaging and interesting and the usual annoying traits of the stock character of the wise-cracking reporter who outsmarts the police are not quite as nerve-grating as they often are, both due to the writing and to the inherent charm of actor John Harron.

There is one odd bit in the film that made me curious about where Monogram Pictures might have received funding for the film. Smoking is a part of every day life, so characters smoking in a film do not cause me to throw hysterical fits the way it does some people, but there's a scene in the film that feels like it should be in a cigarette commercial. It is so strange and so out of place that I can't help but wonder if it's there at the demands of an investor. (I can't really say more about the scene without giving away part of the movie, but if you see the film you'll know exactly what I'm referring to.)

As far as I've been able to determine, "Murder at the Museum" is only available on DVD from Alpha Video, and the print they used had some unfortunate damage to it... like the key couple of seconds missing where a masked killer is throttling the life out of Jerry Ross. It's not unusual for old films from long-gone studios to be in bad shape, but it's something I feel obligated to point out when it disrupts the flow of the story.