Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Interesteg What makes it different from others?

CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

JohnHowardReid Robert Armstrong (Larry Doyle), Maxine Doyle (Ann), Henry Kolker (Jonas), James Burke (Marvin), Guy Usher (District Attorney Johnson), LeRoy Mason (The Eel), Dell Henderson (hotel manager), Monte Collins (Dunn), Norman Houston (Whistler), James P. Burtis (Whalen), Sam Lufkin (Weeks), Otto Fries (pawnbroker), Sam Flint (Jerome Roberts, the publisher), Stanley Blystone (waiter), Herb Vigran (fingerprint man), Frfed Kelsey, Bruce Mitchell (policemen), Harry Strang (train depot tightwad), Lee Shumway, Rollo Lloyd.Director: RAY McCAREY. Screenplay: John W. Krafft, Rollo Lloyd. Adapted by William A. Johnston from a story by Tate Finn. Photography: Harry Neumann. Film editor: Carl Pierson. Art director: E.R. Hickson. Sound recording: John A. Stransky, junior. Producer: George Yohalem. Executive producer: Trem Carr. Copyright 28 February 1935 by Monogram Pictures Corporation. U.S. release: 12 February 1935. No recorded New York opening. 67 minutes. SYNOPSIS: After being fired from his job in Chicago, a top crime reporter talks his way into the employ of a tabloid in St Louis.COMMENT: A pleasant but rather action-less little movie, spun out with loads of talk. Fortunately, the players led by live-wire Robert Armstrong and the really super-cute Maxine Doyle do manage to sustain interest. Well, even my interest anyway. But I think everyone will admit that even James Burke has a spicy role. And the really-really good news is that production values are unusually glossy by Monogram's generally rather humble standards.

Paularoc I like Monogram movies - you can generally be sure of two things - (1) the movies will be entertaining and (2) there will be either a silly plot or a plot with big enough holes in it to drive a truck through. And this movie is no exception. Robert Armstrong's Larry Doyle is a cock-sure but good reporter for a Chicago newspaper. The police respect him (indeed, they give him a gun to show their appreciation for his help with a case) but his editor can't stand him. Larry spends his $50 bonus on treating his pals to a night on the town. His editor fires him but Larry goes on celebrating and winds up in St. Louis where he befriends a down and out but spunky young woman, Anne Ogilvie (played by Maxine Doyle). One of my favorite bits in the movie is where Larry secretly pays for the Anne's coffee and donut when she finds out she doesn't have enough money. Larry sees himself as the Anne's protector and because of Larry's moxie, they end up staying in a hotel suite (with two bedrooms). In spite of his former editor's trying to prevent it, Larry eventually gets a job on the St. Louis News. He is soon hot on the trail of the notorious criminal known as "The Eel." The rest of the movie doesn't make much sense but all's well that ends well. Armstrong does a good job but does not do the snappy reporter type as well as Chester Morris or Wally Ford. However, he does such scenes as that at the coffee shop better than they so it all evens out. I had never heard of Maxine Doyle and she did a somewhat surprisingly good job as Anne. A pleasant enough way to spend an hour.

Michael_Elliott The Mystery Man (1935) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Decent mystery from Monogram has Robert Armstrong playing newspaper reporter Larry Doyle who after a big story gets a revolver as a gift. Later in the picture he's in need of money so he pawns the gun and is later arrested for a murder that was done using the same gun. Now Doyle must prove that he actually pawned the gun and that the killer known as The Eel was the real murderer. THE MYSTERY MAN is a fairly entertaining movie, although the story I've just given really doesn't tell everything. This thing clocks in at just 61-minutes and the murder doesn't take place until around the 37-minute mark, which should tell you a couple things. For starters, there's a lot of early filler in the film that probably could have been left and and in all honesty it probably should have been left out. The only problem then is that you wouldn't be left with a movie. The second problem is that the solving of the case happens in the final twenty minutes and in many ways this was simply way too fast for the crime to be solved. With that said, fans of Armstrong as well as the genre should find the material good enough to keep you entertained through the short running time. As you'd expect, Armstrong has no problems playing the smart aleck reporter who is constantly rubbing people the wrong way until he's finally the one being pushed around. Maxine Doyle is also very good as the woman who ends up helping the reporter on his mission. The two stars have some nice chemistry together and their work certainly helps keep the film moving. The biggest problem with the picture is that there's a bit too much comedy and sadly the majority of it never works. Still, the majority of the people remains entertaining as long as you're not expecting THE MALTESE FALCOLN or some sort of classic.

MartinHafer This B-movie is from Monogram Pictures--a company known for low-budget and relatively low quality films. Now this isn't to say their films are not enjoyable--they are often VERY fun to watch--they just aren't particularly distinguished. In the case of "Mystery Men", it's obvious that the writing was poor--but somehow, despite many silly plot elements, the film was fun to watch.Robert Armstrong stars as a crime reporter. In the first of MANY irrational plot points, the local DA wants to show his appreciation for Armstrong's work...so he has a .45 caliber pistol awarded to him! Then, while he's on a trip to St. Louis, he meets a woman who is broke. Now what would you do in a situation like this? Well, you certainly would NOT pretend that she is your wife and then check into a hotel you cannot afford! Well, that is exactly what he does...and with no expectations of sex. Then, when he tries to get a job with the local paper and the prospective employer calls his old paper, what happens--yep, the old boss tells the St. Louis newspaper editor that the man in his office is a phony and the real reporter is back in Chicago!!! Huh?!? Then, when Armstrong eventually DOES get the St. Louis job anyway, he investigates a crime spree. And, when he sees the killer leaving with the money, what does he do? Yes, he pretends to be one of the gang and drives away with the loot! Can you see that none of this makes any sense? There are MANY more situations like this in the film--I am only naming a few. But, oddly, despite so many dopey moments, Armstrong manages to at least make it enjoyable and the film kept my interest...though it was a bad film from most respects.