An inventor is killed and a boring investigation ensues. A B murder mystery starring Bela Lugosi with wooden performances from most of the cast, save for two cringeworthy turns from Hattie McDaniel and Allen Jung as stereotypical servants. It moves along at a snail's pace and struggles to maintain even a little suspense. The biggest selling point of this today is not Bela; he's very subdued in this and therefore not that interesting. The main reason to see this is for the fascinating historical elements. We get to see some early television technology and get an idea of how people viewed the concept of television back then. It's fun to watch a group of stuffy old people in tuxedos and gowns sitting around in stiff Victorian chairs to see a demonstration of this newfangled invention called television. Worth a look for Lugosi completists or anyone interested in television history.
38 Reviews
Interesting Depiction of Television!
bsmith555229 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Murder By Television" is neat little murder mystery done on a low budget with some interesting ideas.
The plot centers around two competing television systems from James Houghland (Charles Hill Markes) and Dr. Henry Scofield (Huntley Gordon). Arthur Perry (Bela Lugosi) at first refuses to be Scofield's "man on the inside" with Houghland. But then he returns and is ready to accept the bribe.
Houghland has arranged a demonstration of his system which is able to transmit images from the four corners of the world. During the demonstration, Houghton suddenly collapses and dies and key documents relating to the system turn up missing.
Several suspects turn up and its up to Police Chief Nelson (Henry Mowbray) to sort things out. Perry is a chief suspect especially since he is observed hiding some mysterious documents. Houghland's daughter, June (June Collyer) and her boy friend are under suspicion as well, as Dr. Scofiield. When Perry turns up murdered, everything is thrown into confusion and then...................................................
Although the star of this film is Lugosi, and he does OK in a demanding role, the best parts of the film are when the marvelous Hattie McDaniel as the cook and Alleng Jung as the servant are on screen. They add an welcome element of humor to the story.
The sequences involving the demonstration of the television system, I found intriguing and strangely prophetic. The pictures are shown on a "big screen" TV not unlike those of today, and the transmissions from all over the world predict satellite TV transmissions of today. Very imaginative for a low budget 1935 mystery.
The Charlie Chan series was very popular at this time and this little film follows many of the kind of plot elements of those films...the gathering of all suspects in one room, for example.
Interesting and memorable for its depiction, whether accidental or not, of television systems almost 70 years in the future.
The plot centers around two competing television systems from James Houghland (Charles Hill Markes) and Dr. Henry Scofield (Huntley Gordon). Arthur Perry (Bela Lugosi) at first refuses to be Scofield's "man on the inside" with Houghland. But then he returns and is ready to accept the bribe.
Houghland has arranged a demonstration of his system which is able to transmit images from the four corners of the world. During the demonstration, Houghton suddenly collapses and dies and key documents relating to the system turn up missing.
Several suspects turn up and its up to Police Chief Nelson (Henry Mowbray) to sort things out. Perry is a chief suspect especially since he is observed hiding some mysterious documents. Houghland's daughter, June (June Collyer) and her boy friend are under suspicion as well, as Dr. Scofiield. When Perry turns up murdered, everything is thrown into confusion and then...................................................
Although the star of this film is Lugosi, and he does OK in a demanding role, the best parts of the film are when the marvelous Hattie McDaniel as the cook and Alleng Jung as the servant are on screen. They add an welcome element of humor to the story.
The sequences involving the demonstration of the television system, I found intriguing and strangely prophetic. The pictures are shown on a "big screen" TV not unlike those of today, and the transmissions from all over the world predict satellite TV transmissions of today. Very imaginative for a low budget 1935 mystery.
The Charlie Chan series was very popular at this time and this little film follows many of the kind of plot elements of those films...the gathering of all suspects in one room, for example.
Interesting and memorable for its depiction, whether accidental or not, of television systems almost 70 years in the future.
The longest 53 minute movie you'll ever see
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki12 November 2003
This could have and should have been a hell of a lot more fun than it is, but instead we're stuck watching a bunch of people standing around talking for an hour about some sort of "death ray" emitted by a new contraption called a television set. Not much happens here, it's just a lot of talk and standing around, and more standing around and more talking. Even Bela Lugosi (playing two characters!) doesn't have anything to work with here, nothing can save this mess.
It might hold slight appeal for those who are interested in an early look at both cinema and television, but horror fans and Lugosi fans will be bored to tears with this one. It's static and slow moving.
It might hold slight appeal for those who are interested in an early look at both cinema and television, but horror fans and Lugosi fans will be bored to tears with this one. It's static and slow moving.
Has a Couple of Good Points, But Only Fair Overall
Snow Leopard31 August 2005
Although the crime feature "Murder By Television" has a couple of good points, it is really only fair (at best) overall. Bela Lugosi makes the best of a somewhat atypical role for him, and at times the thoughts and speculations about early television are of some interest. Otherwise, the production, the characters, and most of the cast are all nondescript. The story just never fits together very well, and it also never really hits full gear.
Lugosi plays the assistant to an inventor who is supposed to have pioneered a form of early television that is full of valuable possibilities. The invention is coveted by a number of outside interests, and the murder mystery that results is caught up with the intrigue surrounding the invention. It sounds like an intriguing setup, and it could have been, but the script doesn't make very good use of it. Both the dialogue and the story could easily have been much better.
Lugosi adds presence to any role, and his is easily the most interesting of the characters for that reason, but he is still limited by the material. Besides Lugosi, the most talented performer in the cast is Hattie McDaniel, and she also is severely limited by her character, who is there only to provide some slight comic relief, which comes at the unfortunate character's expense.
This won't have any appeal at all for anyone who is not a fan of its genre, and even for those of us who usually enjoy these old B-features regardless of their quality, it is, unfortunately, only barely worth watching.
Lugosi plays the assistant to an inventor who is supposed to have pioneered a form of early television that is full of valuable possibilities. The invention is coveted by a number of outside interests, and the murder mystery that results is caught up with the intrigue surrounding the invention. It sounds like an intriguing setup, and it could have been, but the script doesn't make very good use of it. Both the dialogue and the story could easily have been much better.
Lugosi adds presence to any role, and his is easily the most interesting of the characters for that reason, but he is still limited by the material. Besides Lugosi, the most talented performer in the cast is Hattie McDaniel, and she also is severely limited by her character, who is there only to provide some slight comic relief, which comes at the unfortunate character's expense.
This won't have any appeal at all for anyone who is not a fan of its genre, and even for those of us who usually enjoy these old B-features regardless of their quality, it is, unfortunately, only barely worth watching.
There Are Some Things That Are Best Left Alone
cloudcover3155 April 2005
This movie is just bad beyond belief. The acting is horrid, while the cast is simply reciting lines with little feeling. I do wonder where they got these people. The actors just chop up the dialog like a salad. The television idea is just that, with no real sense of development in a hopeless, lifeless plot. The lack of a music track in 1935 is not uncommon, but some sort of musical score was really needed in a suspense movie of this type. I had wanted to see his movie for years. Now I can honestly say I am sorry did. As many a horror movie philosopher has said, somewhere in the middle of an endlessly dark night, "There are some things that are best left alone." This movie, sadly, is one of them. May it rest in peace.
Death by Boredom
sol12186 January 2005
(Some Spoilers) Dull whodunit about a televised murder that wasn't planed by the person putting on the show. James Houghland, Charles Hill Mailes,is an idealist when it comes to his new invention of being able to transmit a TV signal across the world.
Approched by agents from an unnamed country about buying his new technology he tells them to get lost which makes them very mad at him. Having a demonstration that evening of his new invention Houghland puts the people assembled there to sleep with a long and boring monologue about how we can now see events all across the world on his TV gadget without any relay systems.
As Houghland gets to tell us about the continent of Africa and it's inhabitants, as were watching this all on what looks like a 32 inch black & white TV screen, Houghland suddenly looks as if he's either having an attack of indigestion or that he slipped on a banana peal and dies! This believe it or not was the most exciting scene in the whole movie. It's determined that Houghland was murdered, even though there wasn't a mark on him, and the police are called in and seal off the mansion where this TV demonstration was taking place to prevent the murderer from escaping.
Bela Lugosi plays a duel role of sorts in the film by being identical twins who are so identical that they have the same first and last names: Arthur Perry. Perry being a top engineer to Houghland in helping him create his new TV invention was on the scene at the time of his death and is suspected of murdering him.
It turns out that it was his twin brother, also named Arthur Perry, who was there impersonating him the real Arthur Perry, and trying to cash in, by selling out Houghlands secret by getting an offer he couldn't refuse $100,000.00. This from a rival communication bigwig Donald Jordan, Charles K. French, and then going to work for him. Perry is soon exonerated of the crime of murdering his boss Houghland by being murdered himself by the person who murdered Houghland.
By now the movie is going nowhere with the cast just standing around looking off screen for directions from the obviously lost in space director. Then all of a sudden as if he rose from the dead Perry, the other twin brother, appears as if nothing happened to him! He was undercover in the mansion during the entire incident. It turns out that not only is he the one who helped Houghland in his new TV invention but is also a agent for what looks like the FBI and breaks the case wide open. By Perry exposing the killer Dr. Henry Scofeld, Huntly Gordon, who was working for a foreign government who wanted to buy Houghlands invention; but were given the finger by him instead.
Using an interstellar frequency, a death ray, Dr. Scofield activated it as Houghland was giving his televised speech that interacted with the TV signal that eventually killed him. With that Dr. Scofield is arrested and casually led away by two plain clothes policemen. Who looked like their going out to dinner with him instead of taking him into custody for murder! With the movie finally over we and the movie cast can now all get back to something far more exhilarating like breathing oxygen.
Unbeliveably boring film with a very restrained Bela Lugosi who seemed to have trouble, like everyone else in the movie, staying awake. The ending of the film where Bela, Arthur Perry, slowly and methodically reacted the entire scene of Houghlands death, that was secretly filmed by him, was as complicated as a class in advanced quantum psychic at Harvard University.
Approched by agents from an unnamed country about buying his new technology he tells them to get lost which makes them very mad at him. Having a demonstration that evening of his new invention Houghland puts the people assembled there to sleep with a long and boring monologue about how we can now see events all across the world on his TV gadget without any relay systems.
As Houghland gets to tell us about the continent of Africa and it's inhabitants, as were watching this all on what looks like a 32 inch black & white TV screen, Houghland suddenly looks as if he's either having an attack of indigestion or that he slipped on a banana peal and dies! This believe it or not was the most exciting scene in the whole movie. It's determined that Houghland was murdered, even though there wasn't a mark on him, and the police are called in and seal off the mansion where this TV demonstration was taking place to prevent the murderer from escaping.
Bela Lugosi plays a duel role of sorts in the film by being identical twins who are so identical that they have the same first and last names: Arthur Perry. Perry being a top engineer to Houghland in helping him create his new TV invention was on the scene at the time of his death and is suspected of murdering him.
It turns out that it was his twin brother, also named Arthur Perry, who was there impersonating him the real Arthur Perry, and trying to cash in, by selling out Houghlands secret by getting an offer he couldn't refuse $100,000.00. This from a rival communication bigwig Donald Jordan, Charles K. French, and then going to work for him. Perry is soon exonerated of the crime of murdering his boss Houghland by being murdered himself by the person who murdered Houghland.
By now the movie is going nowhere with the cast just standing around looking off screen for directions from the obviously lost in space director. Then all of a sudden as if he rose from the dead Perry, the other twin brother, appears as if nothing happened to him! He was undercover in the mansion during the entire incident. It turns out that not only is he the one who helped Houghland in his new TV invention but is also a agent for what looks like the FBI and breaks the case wide open. By Perry exposing the killer Dr. Henry Scofeld, Huntly Gordon, who was working for a foreign government who wanted to buy Houghlands invention; but were given the finger by him instead.
Using an interstellar frequency, a death ray, Dr. Scofield activated it as Houghland was giving his televised speech that interacted with the TV signal that eventually killed him. With that Dr. Scofield is arrested and casually led away by two plain clothes policemen. Who looked like their going out to dinner with him instead of taking him into custody for murder! With the movie finally over we and the movie cast can now all get back to something far more exhilarating like breathing oxygen.
Unbeliveably boring film with a very restrained Bela Lugosi who seemed to have trouble, like everyone else in the movie, staying awake. The ending of the film where Bela, Arthur Perry, slowly and methodically reacted the entire scene of Houghlands death, that was secretly filmed by him, was as complicated as a class in advanced quantum psychic at Harvard University.
Bela times two - with a television thrown in...
jwpeel-125 January 2007
When one watches an old B movie from one of the poverty row studios, you should go in cutting a little slack. This picture, even with that mea culpa, does not fare well. Bela Lugosi does an excellent job in the acting department, but up against the passionless talking automatons in this turkey, Huntz Hall would come off as Laurence Olivier.
The story is simple. Watching a TV broadcast, a man suddenly chokes and dies on camera. (He probably wanted to get out of this waste of celluloid as soon as possible.) Now, the room full of people are all suspects, and the cops close up the house until the crime is solved.
Besides moving along so slowly that the hour length seems interminable, this isn't the only sin the producers made on this curio. The usual banter with racial stereotypes is embarrassing to say the least. From the Chinese houseboy who rattles off Charlie Chan and Confucious sayings so badly you can't understand his words half the time, to Hattie McDaniell slipping up and even using proper English for a moment when the writing for her character has the usual "negro" speech patterns, it is a textbook example of how racist a time the 1930s were.
It is probably because of bad movies like this that Mr, Lugosi's career went into such a tailspin that eventually took his life. Yet, he does acquit himself nicely in the acting department here playing not only a scientist but his own twin (though the two Belas never share a scene due, I suspect, to a dismally low budget) The fact that the film is so horrendous and wastes a great opportunity to utilize the budding medium of television And even the solution to the mystery is the pits. I won't give a spoiler here, but there IS no way to spoil this ending. It was pitiful - along with the rest of this script.
On top of all this, the copies that exist are so bad and have many jump-cuts throughout. A true shame and waste of the legendary Bela Lugosi.
Finally, I wonder if this director had much of a career beyond this joke of a studio that most likely was owned by some theater chain (as many such studios did prior to the anti-trust laws.) He probably went into accounting or some other less creative field.
The story is simple. Watching a TV broadcast, a man suddenly chokes and dies on camera. (He probably wanted to get out of this waste of celluloid as soon as possible.) Now, the room full of people are all suspects, and the cops close up the house until the crime is solved.
Besides moving along so slowly that the hour length seems interminable, this isn't the only sin the producers made on this curio. The usual banter with racial stereotypes is embarrassing to say the least. From the Chinese houseboy who rattles off Charlie Chan and Confucious sayings so badly you can't understand his words half the time, to Hattie McDaniell slipping up and even using proper English for a moment when the writing for her character has the usual "negro" speech patterns, it is a textbook example of how racist a time the 1930s were.
It is probably because of bad movies like this that Mr, Lugosi's career went into such a tailspin that eventually took his life. Yet, he does acquit himself nicely in the acting department here playing not only a scientist but his own twin (though the two Belas never share a scene due, I suspect, to a dismally low budget) The fact that the film is so horrendous and wastes a great opportunity to utilize the budding medium of television And even the solution to the mystery is the pits. I won't give a spoiler here, but there IS no way to spoil this ending. It was pitiful - along with the rest of this script.
On top of all this, the copies that exist are so bad and have many jump-cuts throughout. A true shame and waste of the legendary Bela Lugosi.
Finally, I wonder if this director had much of a career beyond this joke of a studio that most likely was owned by some theater chain (as many such studios did prior to the anti-trust laws.) He probably went into accounting or some other less creative field.
Great cure for insomnia...
fibbermac11 August 2008
There are only two reasons for people to rate this film higher than a five. They are either Bela Lugosi fanatics who are blinded by his star power, or they're pulling your leg.
In it's favor, this film has the following curiosities:
Bela Lugosi in a rare non-horror leading role.
Hattie McDaniel in an early screen appearance (although running around yelling "Lordy, Lordy" doesn't showcase her future greatness very well).
A curious 1935 vision of television that doesn't seem to need cameras at the point of origin and can act as a "death ray" carrier wave. I guess that makes this a science fiction story, of sorts.
And occasionally interesting story-telling by reshowing the same scene using different vantage points to add information withheld earlier in the film.
Working against this film is:
The poor print quality (both picture and sound)of existing copies. Insulting racial stereotyping. (As implied above.)
Ridiculously inaccurate scientific predictions about television. (As implied above.)
Undeveloped characters, giving the audience a "who cares" feeling when someone gets murdered.
And a general weakness of the writing, acting, and directing.
Being a Lugosi fan myself, it pains me to write negative reviews of some of his films. But the truth is, it pains me to watch some of his performances as well.
I'm giving this film three stars, based on the curiosities mentioned above. If I were to rate it any higher, I'd be pulling your leg.
In it's favor, this film has the following curiosities:
Bela Lugosi in a rare non-horror leading role.
Hattie McDaniel in an early screen appearance (although running around yelling "Lordy, Lordy" doesn't showcase her future greatness very well).
A curious 1935 vision of television that doesn't seem to need cameras at the point of origin and can act as a "death ray" carrier wave. I guess that makes this a science fiction story, of sorts.
And occasionally interesting story-telling by reshowing the same scene using different vantage points to add information withheld earlier in the film.
Working against this film is:
The poor print quality (both picture and sound)of existing copies. Insulting racial stereotyping. (As implied above.)
Ridiculously inaccurate scientific predictions about television. (As implied above.)
Undeveloped characters, giving the audience a "who cares" feeling when someone gets murdered.
And a general weakness of the writing, acting, and directing.
Being a Lugosi fan myself, it pains me to write negative reviews of some of his films. But the truth is, it pains me to watch some of his performances as well.
I'm giving this film three stars, based on the curiosities mentioned above. If I were to rate it any higher, I'd be pulling your leg.
Watch Only For Lugosi
Rainey-Dawn20 October 2015
I will have to echo other reviewers on this film. Bela as always is great... he maintained his dignity and was wonderful in this rather so-so film. The movie has the potential to be a really good, cute mystery-thriller with a few good laughs thrown in for good measure - but it failed to reach that point. It's not a downright awful movie but it's not as good as one would hope it to be. It's somewhere in the middle ground. It is a slow film, I like some films that are slow but this one could have used a bit quicker pace with some interesting scenes added - like seeing the twins Dr. Arthur Perry / Edwin Perry together (both played by Lugosi).
Watch this film for Bela Lugosi. You will get to see him playing twins (duel roles) which in itself is fun - something a little bit different for Lugosi fans.
5/10
Watch this film for Bela Lugosi. You will get to see him playing twins (duel roles) which in itself is fun - something a little bit different for Lugosi fans.
5/10
Clunky old-time mystery
djensen19 July 2005
Essentially a locked-room mystery, this is about as bad as they get, even for the 1930s. Lugosi is weirder than usual as one of several businessmen interested in a new method of electronic television (which was nothing more than a novelty at the time) that allows broadcast around the world. Oddly prescient (it's even projected onto a large screen), the technology is otherwise hilarious, particularly in the explanation of the murder technique.
The acting is lame (especially the stereotyped servants), the staging hokey, the dialog boring, and the mystery ridiculous. Avoid this turkey unless you're just completing your tour of Lugosi's work or are interested in the 1930s vision of the near future.
The acting is lame (especially the stereotyped servants), the staging hokey, the dialog boring, and the mystery ridiculous. Avoid this turkey unless you're just completing your tour of Lugosi's work or are interested in the 1930s vision of the near future.
Restrained Bela gives this film class
kidboots2 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Bela usually gave so much more of himself than the script required. That's what made him so good. I laughed at one of the reviewers comments "Bela would appear in anything - as long as the cheque cleared". That's why I like Bela - he gave his all - from the most prestigious A film to the worst poverty row production. It also gave him the chance to play a diversity of roles - it was only later in his career that bad health and the need for money made him accept parts that were lampoons of his horror roles. Early in his career he alternated between chillers and quite normal people (the head of a film studio in "The Death Kiss" (1932), a really excellent programmer).
Houghland (Charles Hill Mailes) has been offered $5 million for the rights to his invention - a television station that can pick up transmissions from all over the world - but he refuses!! Richard Grayson (George Meeker) fiancée of June Houghland (June Collyer) is asked to keep a lookout for trouble.
Arthur Perry ???(Bela Lugosi) has been bribed with a fee of $100,000, to be the man on the inside and to try to find out Houghland's secret television blueprint. Houghland is preparing to give a short wave presentation. Just before it begins he is threatened by a shifty looking foreigner - Mendoza (Larry Francis), who threatens that if Houghland is not going to sell his invention the demonstration should not go ahead. It does go ahead - with a pretty boring song "I Had the Right Idea" - then Houghland gives a speech and shows that the demonstration is being shown similtaneously in Paris, London and China - then tragedy strikes as Houghland is killed via the television!!! The suspects are rounded up, suddenly everyone has a motive for killing the guy - the investigation is hampered by a Chinese houseboy, Charlie Chan's number one fan, and Isabella the maid (Hattie McDaniell). Perry is then found murdered, but June is convinced, along with Isabella that she had just seen Perry. She has - it seems the man who was murdered was Perry's twin but was using his name falsely. The real Arthur Perry is an F.B.I. agent and has an explanation for everything that has gone on. There are flashbacks used as Perry explains everything. It was hard to figure out which was the twin (you realized they were twins very early on, at the news-stand) as they both had to act suspiciously.
Claire MacDowall look very good as Mrs. Houghland. She had been in films from the earliest days and was a Griffith actress. This was one of June Collyer's last films. She was one of the most beautiful ingenues and had a career that began in 1927 with such prestigious films as "Four Sons" and "Me, Gangster".
Houghland (Charles Hill Mailes) has been offered $5 million for the rights to his invention - a television station that can pick up transmissions from all over the world - but he refuses!! Richard Grayson (George Meeker) fiancée of June Houghland (June Collyer) is asked to keep a lookout for trouble.
Arthur Perry ???(Bela Lugosi) has been bribed with a fee of $100,000, to be the man on the inside and to try to find out Houghland's secret television blueprint. Houghland is preparing to give a short wave presentation. Just before it begins he is threatened by a shifty looking foreigner - Mendoza (Larry Francis), who threatens that if Houghland is not going to sell his invention the demonstration should not go ahead. It does go ahead - with a pretty boring song "I Had the Right Idea" - then Houghland gives a speech and shows that the demonstration is being shown similtaneously in Paris, London and China - then tragedy strikes as Houghland is killed via the television!!! The suspects are rounded up, suddenly everyone has a motive for killing the guy - the investigation is hampered by a Chinese houseboy, Charlie Chan's number one fan, and Isabella the maid (Hattie McDaniell). Perry is then found murdered, but June is convinced, along with Isabella that she had just seen Perry. She has - it seems the man who was murdered was Perry's twin but was using his name falsely. The real Arthur Perry is an F.B.I. agent and has an explanation for everything that has gone on. There are flashbacks used as Perry explains everything. It was hard to figure out which was the twin (you realized they were twins very early on, at the news-stand) as they both had to act suspiciously.
Claire MacDowall look very good as Mrs. Houghland. She had been in films from the earliest days and was a Griffith actress. This was one of June Collyer's last films. She was one of the most beautiful ingenues and had a career that began in 1927 with such prestigious films as "Four Sons" and "Me, Gangster".
Good "Who Done It" film
unclerussie9 February 2005
Bela Lugosi was always an underrated actor; capable of different types of roles. This a good Lugosi "who-done-it movie. Like Bela's "Dracula", this film lacks a musical score; however the acting is very good and Bela's performance will please his legions of fans. He doesn't wear a cape or tends to his usual "mad scientist" lab here. Instead, Mr. Lugosi dons a tuxedo for most of the movie! The plot deals with something that was only a dream for a lot of people during the thirties; television. It's interesting how much television was on the minds of many people in 1935. In fact, TV would have been a part of the American lifestyle much earlier had it not been for World War Two. "Murder By Television" shows a glimpse of what was to be as well as being a good murder mystery from the mid-thirties. Recommended viewing.
Television - that deadly new invention
chris_gaskin12327 March 2006
Murder By Television is one of Bela Lugosi's more obscure movies but at least it is available on video and DVD. I quite liked this.
While doing a worldwide broadcast promoting that new invention called television, a man suddenly collapses and looks as if he could have had a heart attack. His death was certainly not caused by his heart, it seems he was murdered by a death ray. The police are put on the case and there are plenty of suspects...
This is a nice little horror/mystery, even though a little short at under an hour.
Watch it if you get the chance.
Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
While doing a worldwide broadcast promoting that new invention called television, a man suddenly collapses and looks as if he could have had a heart attack. His death was certainly not caused by his heart, it seems he was murdered by a death ray. The police are put on the case and there are plenty of suspects...
This is a nice little horror/mystery, even though a little short at under an hour.
Watch it if you get the chance.
Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
a.k.a. Murder by Boredom
AdamGott14 August 2003
This movie is one of those many movies that sounds much better than it actually is. The "death-ray by television broadcast" plot device was actually quite minor in this otherwise sub-par 'whodunit' quickie from poverty row. Overall a really poor example as I have seen much better from poverty row.
Bela Lugosi's role really isn't very interesting and he is much better when playing more bizarre characters (Murder Legendre - White Zombie, Dracula, Dr. Carruthers - The Devil Bat).
Bela Lugosi's role really isn't very interesting and he is much better when playing more bizarre characters (Murder Legendre - White Zombie, Dracula, Dr. Carruthers - The Devil Bat).
Great Fun!
christopher_greenleaf4 July 2000
I purchased this movie in 1984, when I was a teenager. It is a low-medium budget whodunnit and it's great.Bela shines playing the FBI agent hero and his greedy, manipulative twin brother.An early version of television proves to also be a conduit for the "Interstellar frequency, otherwise known as the death ray!".This film is fantastic fun and Bela oozes charisma throughout.You may also recognize a young Hattie McDaniel (Gone With The Wind).If you can find it, this a great little flick.
"Even though the eyes may see, the mind will not believe".
classicsoncall14 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Invoking the name of Charlie Chan at least three times in the story doesn't help this one get too far. I don't doubt that Chan could have come up with a solution to the murder mystery as well as Bela Lugosi, but his explanation might have been a lot more sensible. Scofield as the killer came way out of left field, but then again, so did the culprit in a lot of these era movies. Don't bother looking for clues along the way because nothing seems to tie together until the final scene brings it all home.
Here's something I couldn't figure out. How about that character who kept trying to break into the Houghland home. Why didn't he ever come under suspicion? After police chief Nelson (Henry Mowbray) ordered everyone to remain in the house, Nelson's men kept throwing the guy out!
Hey, how about that big screen TV - way ahead of it's time! But who knew that the radiation used to produce the picture could combine with Scofield's wave transmissions to create a 'death ray' - Yikes! How did Scofield figure that out? The biggest mystery here is how the film makers stopped laughing long enough to commit this picture to celluloid.
Lugosi fans will want to see this one, and he plays it fairly straight the entire way. That's probably the film's only recommendation, besides Hattie McDaniel in a few brief scenes providing comic relief as the Hougland maid Isabella. She might have been commenting on her role in this clunker when she exclaimed - "Is my face red"?
Here's something I couldn't figure out. How about that character who kept trying to break into the Houghland home. Why didn't he ever come under suspicion? After police chief Nelson (Henry Mowbray) ordered everyone to remain in the house, Nelson's men kept throwing the guy out!
Hey, how about that big screen TV - way ahead of it's time! But who knew that the radiation used to produce the picture could combine with Scofield's wave transmissions to create a 'death ray' - Yikes! How did Scofield figure that out? The biggest mystery here is how the film makers stopped laughing long enough to commit this picture to celluloid.
Lugosi fans will want to see this one, and he plays it fairly straight the entire way. That's probably the film's only recommendation, besides Hattie McDaniel in a few brief scenes providing comic relief as the Hougland maid Isabella. She might have been commenting on her role in this clunker when she exclaimed - "Is my face red"?
Horrible Film For Lugosi Fans, Slightly Interesting For Technology Geeks
verbusen30 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I came here after watching Bowery At Midnight and being thoroughly entertained, I wanted to know what else I missed from Lugosi after all these years of the standard 30 or so of his films that are wildly known of. I also didn't want to watch something too good in case I wanted to watch something with my wife later, so Murder By Television was chosen as my next film to watch. It's readily available online along with 90% of Lugosi's films since those are public domain material. I'm surprised at all the positive reviews as this is one of his worst films I've ever watched. I guess those are from die hard Lugosi fans? It's not that Lugosi is all that bad, although his accent is horribly thick in this one and he's supposed to be playing a federal agent, yeah OK, but the rest of the cast is horrendous. What really struck me was that for a film made in 1935 it really plays like a film from 1929 or 30. I know it's only a difference of 5 or 6 years but the quality of the film products greatly improved in that time frame even for poverty row productions, just not here. I was thinking it was made earlier and not released until 1935 but Hattie McDaniel dates it to around 1935 I guess. BTW, her role is terrible as a stereotype black maid, oh my god, this film is bad all around, with one exception; it shows actual television equipment from the 30's! So if you are a tech geek into that it's worth viewing for that. I don't think the actual television pictures are real but I'm pretty sure the camera with the rotating sphere is as I read that was one of the methods used to achieve a frame rate. The trivia on this film says it is real equipment from the University of Los Angeles and worth twice the price of the film's cost! Watch it to see Lugosi I guess and for the very early Television equipment and expect to be underwhelmed by the rest. BTW, what was the running gag about the guy who kept getting thrown out? I never caught the punchline to that and the guy was in at least 3 scenes! I was thinking he was a reporter but there had to be some kind of punch line there that is gone from the prints available, although as bad as this film is even with it's jokes maybe that was the only joke. 2 stars (out of 10) for the TV history alone. Ranks as one of my least favorite Lugosi films along with Vampire Over London (1952) which is also unwatchable after 1 time. The Ed Wood Lugosi stuff is much better then this, that's how bad we are talking.
"That Explains It!" "Explains What?"
davidcarniglia5 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Certainly a unique premise: Death By Television takes what in the 30s was a futuristic concept, and applies it as a murder weapon. It's even more intriguing than space travel would've seemed up through the 50s, as very few of us are John Glenns or Neil Armstrongs, but just about everyone is completely familiar with television. Having TV 80 years ago might seem as magical as projecting holograms from our smartphones would seem now. The technical aspects shown here, as others have noted, went far beyond early tv's capabilities.
The jockeying for the best tv technology would make sense as a good motive for murder. And then there's Bela Lugosi, who makes up for not playing a bad guy by playing his own twin. The mansion works well for the setting. I'd like to have seen more of the lab, though, to build up the plausibility of the 'death-ray' concept. All of these positive elements are diluted to an anemic death by a fairly obvious plot, laborious pacing, inconsistent tone, wooden dialogue, and forgettable performances (except Lugosi's). It actually starts out decently, as we're introduced to the emergent tv business, the main characters, and the fatal broadcast itself.
Then nothing much happens until Lugosi explains the deal to the cast. He has to tell us, because the movie really hasn't shown anything as far as plot development to latch onto. After the stage is set, so to speak, we're on our own. There's some comedy (hardly comic relief), camp, and just outright dumb stuff. At one point, as the characters mill about the parlor, the Chief and Schofield just stare at each other. And then they share a joke--isn't Schofield a murder suspect? (maybe it was Grayson...). This movie might be the longest hour on film. One unintentionally funny bit happens when Isabelle discovers Perry's (Lugosi's) body. I don't mean the stereotypical comments she's made to say, but rather, she literally disappears. Before the scene changes, and the others arrive, all we see is the dead body. It is interesting how Lugosi (as his twin character) recounts this and other scenes; as others have said, the multiple perspective device fleshes out the mystery. The remote-control murder stays within the realm of suspended disbelief, given the parameters drawn for the TV technology. It just seems that a lot more could've been done with the 'death-ray' capability--even if it's only presented as conjecture, which could build tension and fear.
Instead what builds is unconnected elements. In some films from the era of acceptable rascism, the non-white characters have a sort of ironic detachment that can give them a knowledgeable perspective; they know what's really going on. In Murder By Television, not only is Hattie McDonald's character childlike, the Asian character is not even given an oblique chance at a decent performance, as his 'Charlie Chan' lines are repetitive "honorable servant know nothing", etc., and fail to register. In other words, like most of the cast, he's merely boring. Probably the dumbest scene occurs in the kitchen when both of the servants wrestle the intruder. What's the point? The Chief doesn't seem to care about him either, despite the fact that he's dealing with two murders.
Maybe in this era before drive-ins even B movies had to have broader appeal; that explains the mixture of genres, but this didn't have to be such a mishmash. Watchable for insomniac Lugosi fans. 4/10.
The jockeying for the best tv technology would make sense as a good motive for murder. And then there's Bela Lugosi, who makes up for not playing a bad guy by playing his own twin. The mansion works well for the setting. I'd like to have seen more of the lab, though, to build up the plausibility of the 'death-ray' concept. All of these positive elements are diluted to an anemic death by a fairly obvious plot, laborious pacing, inconsistent tone, wooden dialogue, and forgettable performances (except Lugosi's). It actually starts out decently, as we're introduced to the emergent tv business, the main characters, and the fatal broadcast itself.
Then nothing much happens until Lugosi explains the deal to the cast. He has to tell us, because the movie really hasn't shown anything as far as plot development to latch onto. After the stage is set, so to speak, we're on our own. There's some comedy (hardly comic relief), camp, and just outright dumb stuff. At one point, as the characters mill about the parlor, the Chief and Schofield just stare at each other. And then they share a joke--isn't Schofield a murder suspect? (maybe it was Grayson...). This movie might be the longest hour on film. One unintentionally funny bit happens when Isabelle discovers Perry's (Lugosi's) body. I don't mean the stereotypical comments she's made to say, but rather, she literally disappears. Before the scene changes, and the others arrive, all we see is the dead body. It is interesting how Lugosi (as his twin character) recounts this and other scenes; as others have said, the multiple perspective device fleshes out the mystery. The remote-control murder stays within the realm of suspended disbelief, given the parameters drawn for the TV technology. It just seems that a lot more could've been done with the 'death-ray' capability--even if it's only presented as conjecture, which could build tension and fear.
Instead what builds is unconnected elements. In some films from the era of acceptable rascism, the non-white characters have a sort of ironic detachment that can give them a knowledgeable perspective; they know what's really going on. In Murder By Television, not only is Hattie McDonald's character childlike, the Asian character is not even given an oblique chance at a decent performance, as his 'Charlie Chan' lines are repetitive "honorable servant know nothing", etc., and fail to register. In other words, like most of the cast, he's merely boring. Probably the dumbest scene occurs in the kitchen when both of the servants wrestle the intruder. What's the point? The Chief doesn't seem to care about him either, despite the fact that he's dealing with two murders.
Maybe in this era before drive-ins even B movies had to have broader appeal; that explains the mixture of genres, but this didn't have to be such a mishmash. Watchable for insomniac Lugosi fans. 4/10.
Mediocre script plus low budget equals a time-passer at best
planktonrules4 December 2006
I am always amazed when I find yet another ultra-low budget film starring Bela Lugosi. While I do generally enjoy his films, they certainly were not 'high art' or very deep--and so many of them had downright crappy production values. Often it looked as if Bela would appear in ANY film provided the check cleared! You don't believe me, then think back to such horrid films as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA, ZOMBIES ON Broadway, GHOSTS ON THE LOOSE (with the East Side Kids) and MURDER BY TELEVISION!!! However, often despite the terrible budgets and overall cheesiness of the films, they were still often fun to watch--or at least to laugh at due to their ineptness. Unfortunately, MURDER BY TELEVISION is that rare low-budget Lugosi film that actually is kind of boring and static. Despite being a murder mystery, the film is amazingly static and uninvolving. Plus, the roles played by Bela just seemed terribly written and bizarre--and not in a great way. The only major plus this film has that raises it to almost-mediocrity is the idea of television being a topic of a film as early as 1930. From a purely historical standpoint, it is an interesting film.
Television may have been considered a medium, but this movie ranks a rating way beyond small.
mark.waltz10 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Take a script overloaded with technological terms that will make no sense to the average viewer and throw in pacing that moves like overweight turtles and snails, and you have essentially the most boring "Z" grade programmer ever made. A few minor amusing moments of stereotypical racist humor (featuring Hattie McDaniel as a pop-eyed maid as well as an Asian butler) and Bela Lugosi playing probably his least well defined character are the only things that will be of interest to most classic movie fans. Of course, the glitch in a scene which has Hattie disappearing into thin air ("Gone With the Wind"?) is of unintentional amusement as well.
The basic plot concerns the gathering together of businessmen interested in viewing a new invention called television and their excitement over the musical acts leads to shock when one of the businessmen, speaking on the advantages of T.V., suddenly falls dead. Of course, everybody is questioned, and of course, McDaniel shows fright as she faces the inspector's third degree. "Is my face red?", she asks one of the attendees after being interrogated. June Collyer is second billed (after Lugosi) for playing a do-nothing ingénue, while Lugosi, in his few scenes, is the only real element of class the film, basically becoming the string which ties the convoluted plot together.
The basic plot concerns the gathering together of businessmen interested in viewing a new invention called television and their excitement over the musical acts leads to shock when one of the businessmen, speaking on the advantages of T.V., suddenly falls dead. Of course, everybody is questioned, and of course, McDaniel shows fright as she faces the inspector's third degree. "Is my face red?", she asks one of the attendees after being interrogated. June Collyer is second billed (after Lugosi) for playing a do-nothing ingénue, while Lugosi, in his few scenes, is the only real element of class the film, basically becoming the string which ties the convoluted plot together.
Bela Lugosi's worst film?
kevinolzak1 August 2021
1935's "Murder by Television" is only recalled today due to the top billed presence of Bela Lugosi, fresh from the set of MGM's "Mark of the Vampire," but far below even the Poverty Row standard of Monogram's recent Lugosi vehicle "The Mysterious Mr. Wong." With a director in Clifford Sanforth who only stepped behind the camera on three more occasions, this threadbare quickie exploits the possibility of television but only as a weapon for a dishwater dull whodunit where the culprit is fairly obvious, and the entire cast of expressionless chain smokers seems completely unruffled by two deaths under one roof. Originally titled "The Houghland Murder Case," the new moniker merely confuses the unwary viewer into thinking a bit of science fiction may be afoot, as Prof. James Houghland (Charles Hill Mailes) is demonstrating his latest televised technology, worth millions to various unsavory characters shown at the picture's opening, when he suddenly grabs his chest and collapses dead during the broadcast. Lugosi is curiously cast as twins (18 minutes screen time), Arthur Perry the professor's assistant for several months, Edwin Perry his long estranged brother, suddenly turning up in the same suit of clothes to try to swindle a fortune for himself by selling out, only to turn up dead himself at the 38 minute mark. Never fear, the other Bela has all the evidence to reveal the killer, creating a fatal 'death ray' with his own scientific knowledge before being forced to stab the bad Bela to eliminate competition. The opportunity to play twins precedes Boris Karloff's Columbia triumph "The Black Room" by three months, but this poorly scripted fiasco wastes Lugosi's talents in either part, nor is there any satisfaction gained from figuring out which is which because they are never seen together in the same shot. A little seen, misshapen movie that fails to deliver on any of its gimmicks, looking and sounding like an early talkie without any music, it certainly deserves a nomination as the worst film of Bela's entire career.
The First Film about the Danger of TV
Hitchcoc7 November 2006
Slow moving, confusing, unsatisfying, dull. And these are the good things. A murder is caused by some unknown. It involves the premier of a television process that takes us all over the world through video. We have two Bela Lugosi's for the price of one. The plot is convoluted and hard to decipher. In the end, Lugosi two makes a long meandering speech, solving the crime. Listening to his accent laden diatribe is the highlight. When you get right down to it, the only thing of any value here is the title. There are lots of close ups of guilty looking people. The suspects stand around in a line like they are posing for a family portrait. There are also two racial stereotypes: a young Chinese man and that frantic woman from "Gone With the Wind," Hattie MacDonald. One speaks Charlie Chan English and the other runs around saying "Lordie, Lordie!" What a stretch.
A REAL time document
binapiraeus23 January 2014
This isn't the kind of movie for today's film fan who just wants old-fashioned mysteries with as much suspense and atmosphere as he can get, neither for those who are looking for sheer, funny entertainment - it's a REAL time document about the development of television (the enormous importance of which people simply don't think about anymore when they turn on their flat screen HD TV to watch a live football game or a thriller full of computer effects), about the fights between the few companies that existed then for every innovation of that new medium (which were of course worth millions at that stage), about the excitement that the first live broadcasts brought to people at that time.
It also displays a couple of more or less (in)credible technical and electrical devices like the 'criminal mind detector' or the 'death ray' - which may make us laugh today, but most certainly impressed the audience of the 30s enormously - we always have to take into account how people saw those movies that we've got the privilege to enjoy now, about 80 years later, BACK THEN! The pace of the movie itself is comparatively slow - perhaps deliberately made so in order to enhance the suspense that the audience felt THEN about that incredible live broadcast everybody was awaiting eagerly. The plot, seen as a murder mystery, is made quite complicated by the big number of suspects, and some dialogs may seem a little lengthy; but the philosophic Chinese house boy (a Charlie Chan fan) and the resolute black cook make up for that with quite some comic relief.
And then, of course, there is the movie's star - 'the center of attention', as he calls himself at one point humorously: Bela Lugosi. And he CERTAINLY proved once more here with his dominating, simply magnetic, sometimes seemingly dangerous, sometimes charming and gentleman-like performance that he was capable of playing a LOT of other roles than that of the vampire or the demented scientist!
It also displays a couple of more or less (in)credible technical and electrical devices like the 'criminal mind detector' or the 'death ray' - which may make us laugh today, but most certainly impressed the audience of the 30s enormously - we always have to take into account how people saw those movies that we've got the privilege to enjoy now, about 80 years later, BACK THEN! The pace of the movie itself is comparatively slow - perhaps deliberately made so in order to enhance the suspense that the audience felt THEN about that incredible live broadcast everybody was awaiting eagerly. The plot, seen as a murder mystery, is made quite complicated by the big number of suspects, and some dialogs may seem a little lengthy; but the philosophic Chinese house boy (a Charlie Chan fan) and the resolute black cook make up for that with quite some comic relief.
And then, of course, there is the movie's star - 'the center of attention', as he calls himself at one point humorously: Bela Lugosi. And he CERTAINLY proved once more here with his dominating, simply magnetic, sometimes seemingly dangerous, sometimes charming and gentleman-like performance that he was capable of playing a LOT of other roles than that of the vampire or the demented scientist!
bela lugosi in another howwa film
ksf-223 December 2019
Some fun big names in this one.... Bela Lugosi was in EVERY horror film in the 1930s and 1940s. Huntley Gordon, Charles Mailes, and George Meeker co-star in this who-dunnit from 1935. Henry Mowbray is "Chief Nelson", who has to figure out what's going on. and keep an eye out for Hattie McDaniels, a couple years before Gone with the Wind! the dead man had some new inventions on the brand new television broadcast media, and that could be the reason. and Charles Mailes was married to Claire McDowell, who play husband in wife in the film. pretty good stuff. Directed by Cliff Sanforth, who directed a whopping FOUR films, so there aren't any oscar awards in his list.
Enjoyably inept
JohnHowardReid26 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The meticulously incompetent director: CLIFFORD SANFORTH. Muddled, impossible-to-follow screenplay: Joseph O'Donnell. Based on hare-brained ideas by Clarence Hennecke and Carl Coolidge. Photographed on a dishcloth by James S. Brown and Arthur Reed. Amazingly non-edited by Leslie F. Wilder (hardly a single shot matches).
SYNOPSIS: Well, let's see now. Bela Lugosi evidently plays some sort of corporate spy who is willing to sell television secrets to a rival firm. Unbeknownst to us, he has a twin brother. This creates no end of confusion, both for the characters on the screen and the hapless audience. Although there is a hint that Bela might have a twin brother early on in the action, the movie is so scrappily edited that few viewers will take much notice of what seems an irrelevant close-up of a newspaper headline.
COMMENT: Last night, on an excellent Grapevine DVD,I saw a really dreadful film called "Murder By Television". It was so badly directed and ineptly put together, I actually found it quite entertaining. But few other people would share my enjoyment. Most people would say, "Why are we watching this terrible film? It's absolutely the most incomprehensible, time-wasting movie I've ever seen. Everything about it is bad. There's not one single redeeming feature in the whole production. Even the photography rates as incredibly awful. The movie looks like it was photographed on a dirty dishcloth instead of a roll of film. And Bela Lugosi is so unattractively lit, he looks positively senile!" But of course to me, the atrocious photography, the hammy acting, the impossibly muddled plot with its ridiculous dialogue, and the downright incompetent direction, rate as an almost endless source of constant amusement. I always wondered what would happen if a director decided to use constant close-ups of the backs of people's heads instead of shots of their faces. Now I know. Yes, a fascinating exercise in creative misjudgments on a grand scale.
SYNOPSIS: Well, let's see now. Bela Lugosi evidently plays some sort of corporate spy who is willing to sell television secrets to a rival firm. Unbeknownst to us, he has a twin brother. This creates no end of confusion, both for the characters on the screen and the hapless audience. Although there is a hint that Bela might have a twin brother early on in the action, the movie is so scrappily edited that few viewers will take much notice of what seems an irrelevant close-up of a newspaper headline.
COMMENT: Last night, on an excellent Grapevine DVD,I saw a really dreadful film called "Murder By Television". It was so badly directed and ineptly put together, I actually found it quite entertaining. But few other people would share my enjoyment. Most people would say, "Why are we watching this terrible film? It's absolutely the most incomprehensible, time-wasting movie I've ever seen. Everything about it is bad. There's not one single redeeming feature in the whole production. Even the photography rates as incredibly awful. The movie looks like it was photographed on a dirty dishcloth instead of a roll of film. And Bela Lugosi is so unattractively lit, he looks positively senile!" But of course to me, the atrocious photography, the hammy acting, the impossibly muddled plot with its ridiculous dialogue, and the downright incompetent direction, rate as an almost endless source of constant amusement. I always wondered what would happen if a director decided to use constant close-ups of the backs of people's heads instead of shots of their faces. Now I know. Yes, a fascinating exercise in creative misjudgments on a grand scale.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
