This is Robert Montgomery's film all the way. This fine American Actor/Director is at his best and obviously has a lot of fun as he plays a second story man who just happens to steal a valuable diamond at the same time a policeman is murdered by a deranged killer. The killing takes place on the sidewalk just below where Montgomery has made his heist and, as the film unfolds, Scotland Yard comes to the erroneous conclusion that the theft and the murder have been committed by the same person. This leaves Montgomery in a precarious position and he realizes that to keep from being blamed for the murder he will have to bring the killer to justice by his own wiles. He is working on all of this while, at the same time, romancing the daughter of the head of Scotland Yard. There is plenty of good old fashioned suspense in this film to satisfy any mystery fan. There are also several light moments as we watch the romance between the jewel thief and the daughter of the Scotland Yard chief unfold. Lewis Stone, perhaps remembered best as Judge Hardy in that venerable series does a great job as another high Scotland Yard official who is suspicious of Montgomery from the start and plays a bit of a cat and mouse game with the thief. The ending is very satisfying as all matters are tied-up neatly. Enjoy...........
Add a Review
-
reve-220 February 2000
-
BaronBl00d28 November 2005Well-done mystery/thriller with Robert Montgomery playing a jewel thief suspected of being a police serial killer. The plot adapted by Philip MacDonald from one of his own novels is tightly woven and executed very nicely by director Edgar Selwyn. Selwyn, for a 1934 film, uses lots of flair and style in creating a suspenseful pace and good atmosphere. I particularly liked the way he used his cast - all of whom do excellent jobs. Montgomery is in top form as the "hero" out to find the killer in order to exonerate himself of the heinous killing spree. Aiding him is a love interest played by Elizabeth Allan, a truly lovely actress as the police commissioner's daughter. Henry Stephenson plays her father in that very stiff upper lip fashion he was so accustomed to. Lewis Stone also rounds out the cast playing a police superintendent convinced Montgomery is guilty of the crime of stealing a valuable diamond and killing the bobbies. Forrester Harvey gives an inspired portrayal as a London cabbie in on the jewel heist. He has marvelous comic timing in a more subtle way than just being a buffoon as so typically used in films like this. But it is Montgomery's portrayal that really gives the film its steam and he is as charming as ever. This is one of those rare diamonds one comes across every now and then from the Golden Age of film-making. This is a first-rate mystery with excellent direction, good performances, and an interesting,convincing script.
-
Kittyman31 December 2008Some pictures I can watch again-and-again. This is one.
Set in London, it is a romantic, mystery thriller (with comedy elements). It is also a fascinating window on a world now seventy-five years removed. Its pace, plot, acting, and dialog are all excellent.
Robert Montgomery is most charming as a gentleman thief. Elizabeth Allan is exquisitely lovely as his romantic interest. She's somewhat reminiscent of Paula Prentice in looks and manner, and comes across as intelligent, vivacious, wholesome, natural, and honest. (Yum!) Also, Forrester Harvey, as Montgomery's Cockney cab driver stooge, does an excellent turn as comedy relief.
What really sets this movie apart from others, however, is the absolutely amazing chemistry and timing between Montgomery and Allan. I find it a joy to replay their scenes over-and-over to watch the many nuances that occur. It really is a great shame that they never again worked together.
Finally, the villain himself appears to be the evil twin (in dress and features) of the contemporary pulp-magazine hero "The Shadow." Could this just be a coincidence? Naa! I don't think so. -
Bucs196010 February 2003*SPOILER AHEAD* This is one of those films that comes out of nowhere and delights you. It makes you wonder why you have never heard of it before. Made in 1934, the dialogue is suprisingly modern and clever. It is reminiscent of "Raffles", in that the hero is a gentleman thief who gets involved with a mystery......in this case, a murder, of which he is the chief suspect. He must extricate himself without giving away his other activities. Robert Montgomery is quite suave in the lead, and Elizabeth Allen (his wife at the time) is very appealing as the daughter of the Scotland Yard director. Their word play is saucy and leads you to believe that Ms. Allen probably wouldn't blink an eye at his vocation as a jewel thief. The supporting cast is strong, especially Lewis Stone as the Yard Inspector who is hot on Montgomery's trail. The unveiling of the real murderer is unusual since he is never introduced into the story......he's just a guy with a grudge that we don't know anything about. Regardless, it is satisfactory, Montgomery wins the girl and all is well. A neat little movie which is well worth watching.
-
bkoganbing28 November 2005There's a guy in between the World Wars London who's going around knocking off London bobbies with a sword cane. Henry Stephenson and Lewis Stone can't figure it out at all.
One of the murders happens at a time when cracksman Robert Montgomery has stolen a very valuable diamond and Scotland Yard links the two crimes mistakenly. And they also link upper middle class society twit Ralph Forbes to the next one.
Montgomery realizes he can't fence that valuable jewel with the heat on so he tries by subterfuge to aid Scotland Yard. Of course this tangles him up with Elizabeth Allan who is Henry Stephenson's daughter in the film and Mrs. Robert Montgomery in real life.
Robert Montgomery is poaching a bit on Ronald Colman's territory, but he does a fine job as the thief. Henry Stephenson as always is THE quintessential English gentleman and Lewis Stone is a hard and driven inspector trying to catch the maniac.
The police do make mistakes here, but the mistakes are completely understandable and really the fault of both Forbes and Montgomery who step into it themselves.
By the way you know that this picture is before the Code because it is by no means clear that Montgomery will ever give up a life of crime. -
planktonrules16 June 2010Robert Montgomery is a gentleman jewel thief and in the films of the 1930s this would make him the hero...of sorts. However, his career is in jeopardy due to a serial killer named 'Mr. X'. You see, X has been killing and taunting police for some time and when one of Montgomery's burglaries happens to occur at the same place a copper is killed by X, the police now suspect that X and the gentleman thief are one in the same--which clearly are not. So, it's up to Montgomery to do what he can to help the police capture X--then, and only then, can they possibly sell the huge diamond. Things get complicated when the daughter of the police inspector on the case falls for Montgomery. By the end of the film, it's a life and death struggle between X and Montgomery--and guess who wins! In many ways, this film plays a lot like a Saint or Falcon outing, though with a higher quality budget. The overall product is enjoyable light entertainment--the sort they really haven't made in over 60 years.
By the way, couldn't you also see William Powell in the role Montgomery played? They both seemed to have a real knack for these sort of parts. -
dbborroughs27 May 2011Someone is killing police officers in London. When one of the murders occurs outside a house being burglarized the police think the two crimes are linked. However when the the wrong man is arrested and put on trial the thief steps into help him. This also puts him on the radar of the police who realize he knows too much. Complications ensue when the thief begins to fall in love with the police inspectors daughter.
Neat little murder mystery is a breezy but often tense affair. If the film works it's due in large part to the cast that is headed by Robert Montgomery and if filled out by great character stalwarts including Lewis Stone.
Also helping things is the great look of the film. Nice deep focus shots of dark and creepy places. I put the film on as a goof to fall asleep to only to find the skulking shadows and dark corners of London hooked me and kept me up until almost 1AM.
What a neat little film. -
Robert Montgomery stars with Elizabeth Allen and Lewis Stone in "The Mysterious Mr. X" from 1934.
A serial killer is going around London killing policemen. Unfortunately for Nick Revel and his band of merry men, a taxi driver named Joe and an insurance clerk named Hutch, the killer struck outside a home where the famous Drayton Diamond was stolen. Nick is the thief. But he's not the killer known as "Mr. X," who writes letters to the police just before he strikes. The police think the robber is the killer.
Nick and his cronies know that they can't return the diamond for the insurance reward or pawn it until the serial killer is caught. When a man is arrested, one Sir Christopher March, Nick knows he's the wrong man. He has an idea as to how the police can catch the killer. He figures if he testifies on behalf of March, he will be able to present his plan to the police.
March turns out to be the fiancé of Jane, the daughter of the police commissioner, and Revel and Jane are attracted to one another. Meanwhile, her father is suspicious of Revel.
Pleasant mystery, with a charming performance by Montgomery. Some fun moments, especially when an accomplice delivers the diamond to Revel and drops it in a glass of liquid. The end is quite exciting, with a very dynamic either set or location.
Good movie. -
Smug Actor Robert Montgomery Stars in this Jammed Packed Little Thriller that is Highlighted by a Number of Nighttime Killings and a Serial Killer that Announces His Crimes Beforehand to the Press.
There are Some Neat Side Characters and Our Hero is a Thief, but is Willing to Give Up a Life of Crime as Soon as the Boring Talkathon Begins with a Female. A Female, by the way, that Throws Her Finace Out as Soon as the Debonair Montgomery Shows Her Any Attention. Bad Boys are So Much More Fun.
This is a Worth a Watch if You Can Take the Gooey Banter Between Him and Her, that Becomes Almost Unbearable in the Kitchen Scene, Because the Movie Outside the Romance is Pretty Good Pulp. -
AlsExGal13 June 2010Robert Montgomery, always the class act, gets to do more here than MGM normally let him in the very early years of his career when they too often typecast him as a wealthy playboy. I always enjoyed him in those roles, but he was capable of so much more.
Someone is going about killing London policemen with a long sword in the absence of any other crime. Enter Robert Montgomery as the unlucky cracksman Nicholas Revel. He is unlucky because he steals a beautiful diamond at virtually the same time and place that one of the policemen is killed. The police unfortunately deduce that the cop killer, "Mr. X", is also the diamond thief and figure when they find the diamond and its thief they'll find Mr. X.
In yet another plot thread the daughter of police commissioner Fresham is engaged to a young man, Sir Christopher 'Chris' Marche, who is prone to nocturnal drunken adventures. During one of these benders he scuffles with a policeman minutes before Mr. X kills that policeman. With the young man's scarf clutched in the dead policeman's hands, Sir Christopher is instantly a suspect.
These threads intersect when Revel, a man with a profound conscience for a jewel thief and apparently better investigative instincts than the police, decides he cannot let Sir Christopher be blamed for a crime that he believes he did not commit. He has a theory on how to catch the real cop killer - and thus get himself off the hook too - but he needs to talk to police commissioner Fresham and tell him his theory. Knowing the commissioner will probably be at Sir Christopher's hearing, Revel concocts a plan to falsely vouch for Sir Christopher the night of the killing, and thus be able to simultaneously free Sir Christopher from suspicion and enter into conversation with the commissioner.
Some of this plan works out for Revel - and some of it doesn't. All in all it's a very interesting crime drama/romance from the 1930's. Lewis Stone as police superintendent Conner is also excellent here as usual, as he wages a passive-aggressive battle of wits with Revel. You see, Conner is on to Revel from the first time they meet and Revel realizes this. The film has a very satisfying precode ending, but not the kind you would normally think of when you mention precode.
Also, let me correct one common mistake. The leading lady here is Elizabeth Allan, a fine British film actress, not Elizabeth Allen the stage actress and wife of Robert Montgomery at the time this film was made. -
classicsoncall23 August 2016The story has a bit of the Lone Wolf flair to it, but in this case, the film's principal, Nick Revel (Robert Montgomery) is still a jewel thief until he's implicated in a murder that coincides with his latest heist of the Drayton diamond. For a 1930's mystery, this is a pretty good one that doesn't resort to the usual tricks like 'lights-out' scenes or revolving bookcases. It does involve Scotland Yard though, a rather standard element of films set in and around London.
So here's something I had to stop and think about. At one point, Inspector Connor (Lewis Stone) tells his good friend and Scotland Yard chief Sir Herbert Frensham (Henry Stephenson) that the police murders are being committed by someone using an eighteen inch blade. How would anyone determine that? Considering my own rather average sized body, a foot long blade would pass completely through me with an inch or two to spare. So why not another foot to spare? In fact, close-up scenes of a couple of the murders in progress revealed the killer using a bladed instrument like a sword that was considerably longer. So the eighteen inch murder weapon business was completely irrelevant.
Anyway, there's a bit of a romance story that goes with the territory here, as Revel has to convince the authorities that his diamond theft had no bearing on a murder committed at the same time in the same neighborhood. In the process, he falls for the daughter of the Scotland Yard inspector, replacing her fiancé of long standing. I liked Jane Frensham's (Elizabeth Allan) rationale - "I think you're the straightest man I ever met". If she only knew.
To lend some significance to the picture's title, Revel figures out that the locations of the bobby murders form an 'X' on a map of the city, and reasons that the next one will take place at Gates End Road. Lucky guess, as the murderer with eight bodies to his credit was going for a total of fifteen, one for each year he spent in prison courtesy of Inspector Connor. As for the Drayton diamond, that's how Nick Revel turns good guy; he sent it back to Scotland Yard!
Say, check out the sign in the pub - 'Guinness is good for you'. Product placement in movies goes back a long way! -
MikeMagi12 February 2015Modern directors who don't know how to make a movie in less than two hours could take a lesson from this fast-paced 84 minute thriller, shot in 1934. The tale centers on a killer who uses a cane-sword to skewer policemen, warning Scotland Yard of each murder before it occurs. Unfortunately, jewel thief Robert Montgomery happens to be heisting a diamond just as another bobby is slain -- and becomes the principal suspect. The only way he can clear his name is to catch the maniac, pausing from time to time to dally with Elizabeth Allan as the police commissioner's fetching daughter. As the mystery moves crisply along, there are no long tracking shots, lingering looks at people's faces or endless glimpses of scenery. Instead, Montgomery's bonhomie, Allan's saucy appeal, a clever, amusing script and tight editing make Mr. X a pleasure to watch.
-
mark.waltz3 March 2024Once again, the London fog among gas lit lantern streets is the star, with Scotland Yard working overtime on two crimes, a series of murders with police constables as victims, and a series of jewel robberies committed by the dashingly handsome Robert Montgomery. He is determined to remain out of suspicion, especially when he learns that the police both crimes are being committed by the same person.
The typical MGM elegance and a gothic atmosphere helps this one tremendously, aided by some terrific supporting character players. Elizabeth Allan (no relation to the Elizabeth Allen whom Montgomery married) is his elegant leading lady, with Lewis Stone and Henry Stephenson on the side of the law and Forrester Harvey and Ivan F. Simpson working with Montgomery. A little slow at times, but that definitely adds to the atmosphere. -
"The Mystery of Mr. X" is a dud as a comedy and mystery film. I haven't read the 1933 novel that it's based on ("X v Rex" by Philip MacDonald, pen name Martin Porlock). So, I don't know if some of the portrayals are as dumb in the book as they are here. The entire plot of this film is a red herring in the mystery of the killing of London bobbies. Scotland Yard is clueless as to the killer and motive. Inspector Connor (played by Lewis Stone) concocts his own red herring, tying one jewelry theft to several killings. After 5, then 7, then 9 killings, he doesn't see a pattern. What little humor there is in Nicholas Revel's jewelry theft and gang is lame. And, he apparently thinks nothing of deceit and perjury.
A typical mystery has clues as to the culprit and motive. The challenge and fun is to find them before the end of the story. There isn't a single one in this film. Oh, there are the two phony suspects - Jane's fiancé, Sir Christopher Marche (Ralph Forbes), and then Nicholas Revel (Robert Montgomery), but the story has not a single buildup of who the killer of all the London police might be. It just becomes known at the end, and there's nothing else in the movie that would lead one to know who the killer is or why. Yet that is the overall focus of this film.
Instead, we see Nicholas Revel and his little gang of jewel thieves. Revel is supposed to be the brains of this three-some, but he proves not to be too bright. Knowing that he is being followed, he still meets up with his accomplices Joe Palmer (played by Forrester Harvey) and Hutchinson (played by Ivan Simpson). And his plan on how to cash in on the reward for the jewel's return after he assumes the police catch the murderer, is balmy.
The fifth bobby killing happens right outside the place where Revel steals a large diamond. So Connor says they now have a definite clue. He tells the police captains, "You find the man who has the Drayton diamond, and you have the murderer of your comrades." Gosh, why were there no jewel robberies around all the other killings? Could Scotland Yard really be so dumb? Did Connor even try to find connections with the killings - or a pattern? Toward the end, Nick sees the X-pattern of locations of the killings on the map of London. Wouldn't that be rudimentary police procedure - looking for a pattern?
The acting and rest of the plot just aren't that good. Marche breaks off his engagement to Jane Frensham (Elizabeth Allan), and she's attracted to Revel right away. A romance aspect is typical for films like this, but this one is really weak. Yet it's enough to make Revel want to go straight after this? The ending itself is far-fetched, but Nick's struggle with the killer is the best scene of the whole film. And, isn't it far out that he could pick the precise street or locale in a section of London where the killer would strike next?
No, this film is a poor attempt at comedy and mystery, especially with multiple murders. Those who enjoy what I call caper comedies will find some very good films to watch. Five superb comedy romances with jewel theft come to mind. Two of those were British films, entitled "Raffles," after the name of the lead character. The 1930 film starred Ronald Colman and Kay Francis, and a 1939 remake starred David Niven and Olivia de Havilland. The three other great ones of these mixed genres are "They Met in Bombay" of 1941 with Clark Gable and Rosalind Russell; "The Law and the Lady" of 1951, with Greer Garson and Michael Wilding; and "The Pink Panther" of 1963 with Peter Sellers, David Niven, Capucine and Claudia Cardinale.
This film is just a muddle. It purports to be a comedy, romance and mystery, but is little more than a weak mixed bag of small, loose subplots jumbled together. None of them are good alone, and bunched together as here, they seem pointless. Fans of Robert Montgomery may enjoy this film just for the fun of it. He has one of the best smirking smiles of cinema. But real mystery fans of the masters like Agatha Christie, Dashiell Hammett, Arthur Conan Doyle, Daphne du Maurier, John Grisham and the likes will see through this clueless, mindless plot, as a dreadful red herring.
One last thing that is far out in this film is the Drayton diamond. The piece of glass that Nick looks at and holds as the diamond appears to be nearly two inches long. That would make it the size of the Second Star of Africa, which is in the Crown Jewels. If it was half the value of the larger Star of Africa (also in the Crown Jewels), it would have been worth about $2 million in 1934 ($35 million in 2020). The 5,000 pound reward offered in the movie, then doubled to 10,000 pounds would have been about $25,000 and $50,000 respectively, in 1934. In 2020, that reward offer would be more than $480,000 and $965,000 respectively. -
sambogart11 February 2003One of the many Robert Montgomery B movies that are fun to watch. It's what they used to show on the "Late Show" or maybe the "Late, Late show" before sign off. My enjoyment may have as much or more to do with nostalgia as good movie making, but give it a try. Turn off the cellphone, fix yourself a cup of hot chocolate and a bowl of popcorn, curl up on your sofa in the den and enjoy the movie.
-
GManfred7 May 2013This was an excellent pre-code mystery which cried out for a series starring the dapper, cosmopolitan Robert Montgomery. Could have been a second-story-man-turned-detective, or something along those lines. Always thought he had a charismatic presence on screen which commands your attention, and charisma is an elusive quality; either you have it or you don't.
He is paired here with Elizabeth Allan (not his wife, but same name) and there is a great deal of chemistry between the two (funny how important an ingredient it is to a successful picture). A sentence or two about the plot; Someone is killing bobbies in and around London, much to the chagrin of Scotland Yard. As another cop murder is taking place on the street, RM is stealing a precious diamond in an adjacent mansion. As he jumps out a window, he lands on the dead policeman, bloodying his gloves in the process. He leaves them at the scene - seemingly The Yard's first clue. For the rest of the picture he tries to extricate himself from the murder while hanging on to the stolen diamond.
Things go somewhat awry towards the end - apparently, the screenwriter was stuck for an ending and opted for one of convenience and unbelievability, but the picture was so good up to that point I decided to go with it and suspend disbelief. It was easy, as it is such an enjoyable movie. -
Producer: Lawrence Weingarten. Copyright 2 March 1934 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp. New York opening at the Capitol: 25 February 1934. U.K. release: 28 July 1934. Australian release: 12 September 1934. 9 reels. 84 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: A high-class jewel thief accidentally becomes the chief suspect in a Scotland Yard murder hunt.
NOTES: Re-made as Hour of 13.
COMMENT: All of Philip MacDonald's novels rate as highly recommended. Not only does the author come up with the most ingeniously gripping plots, but he manages to create colorfully realistic characters that are both involving yet off-beat; whilst a talent for conjuring a heartily suspenseful atmosphere abets his fast pacing and intelligent dialogue. This one is no exception. Screenwriter Howard Emmett Rogers preserves MacDonald's ideas, allowing Monckton Hoffe (a flavor-of-the-year playwright of the 1920s) to contribute some delightfully polished, snappy additional dialogue.
Hoffe is best remembered today for his 1926 Broadway play The Lady Christilinda (which was filmed in 1928 as Street Angel) and as the author of that Preston Sturges masterpiece The Lady Eve (1941), but he wrote a few other plays on my favorites list including the 1926 Many Waters, a play which satirizes plays, playwrights and players, not to mention the theatregoing public itself.
Anyway what we have here is a most presentable roman policier, slickly directed and very smoothly photographed. Only the title is a mite astray. There's actually not much mystery about Mr X - we're actually told who he is in the credits - and the subsequent unravelling of the plot bears little resemblance to its Hour of 13 re-make. The accent in fact is not so much on the comeuppance of Mr X but on the ingenuity of that charmingly resourceful thief, Mr Revel.
As played with suitable panache and style by Robert Montgomery, Mr Revel comes across as a fascinating anti-hero. This seemingly tailor-made role fits so snugly on Montgomery's adroit shoulders it really impresses us as the part Robert was born to play. Nobly assisted by Forrester Harvey (making the most of an uncustomarily large slice of the action in his customary role as a taxi-driver), Charles Irwin, and even Lewis Stone (who proves surprisingly able, particularly in his early scenes with our hero) - and most other members of the highly competent cast - Montgomery is only let down by his co-star, Elizabeth Allan. True, her acting is well above board, but her performance is undermined by harshly unflattering photography and her ridiculously unattractive Adrian-designed gowns.
It would be true to say that this movie doesn't look like a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Despite the hard treatment meted out to Miss Allan, I mean this as a compliment. Both photography and sets are far more realistic. Notice that Mr X is one of those rarities in which the art direction is not credited to Cedric Gibbons. Pye worked on this one all by himself, though there is a Gibbons kitchen, obviously left over from some other movie. -
view_and_review3 March 2024According to Hollywood women could not be trusted in the 30's. Specifically, I mean women couldn't be trusted alone with a nice, halfway decent looking man in the 30's. I can't tell you how many movies I've seen in which a man has intentionally or unintentionally left his wife, fiance, or sweetheart alone or with another man only to lose her. It usually only takes a few days, and in some cases only a few hours. Just watch "It Happened One Night" (1934), "Man of the World" (1931), "Other Men's Women" (1930), "Dinner at Eight" (1933), "Transgression" (1931), "Riptide" (1934) and sooooo many other movies from that era.
If a guy doesn't lose his woman outright, he will lose her unshakable love. What I mean is that if she doesn't fall completely in love with the new guy, she will at least be amorously confused. The ardent love she had for her man before will be reduced to a tepid, ambivalent love.
As the late B. I. G. Said, "Don't leave yo' girl around me, true player for real ask Puff Da-ddy."
In "The Mystery of Mr. X," a man went to jail for ten days, came back, and his fiance was lost to a charming American. But that's not what the movie was about.
"The Mystery of Mr. X" was about a killer who was killing cops in England and leaving his moniker: "Mr. X." He was slick, sneaky, silent, and deadly. He was killing officers with a rapier (a long, thin sword). One of the police he killed was right outside of an estate as Nicholas 'Nick' Revel (Robert Montgomery) was stealing the Drayton Diamond from said estate.
Incorrectly putting two and two together was Inspector Connor (Lewis Stone), the lead detective on the Mr. X killings. He surmised that whoever stole the Drayton Diamond was also Mr. X.
Later, Inspector Connor would make another mistake. He locked up Sir Christopher Marche (Ralph Forbes) for the police murders because one of his initialed handkerchiefs was found near a dead officer. Nick knew that Marche was innocent, so he did him a solid and provided him with a sworn alibi to get him off. The testimony Nick provided helped Marche escape a murder charge, but Marche couldn't escape the assault charge against him for punching an officer. For that he had to serve ten days in jail, and that's all the time Nick needed to steal Marche's fiance, Jane Frensham (Elizabeth Allan). I'm not saying that was his goal, I'm just saying that's what happened.
Per society rules, Jane had to show gratitude to Nick for helping clear her fiance of a murder charge. Gratitude came in the form of multiple dates and I don't have to tell you the rest.
And as for the Mr. X mystery; not only was it weak, they naturally had to make Nick the hero to make up for his stealing the Drayton Diamond AND to make him worthy of Jane. It was all bollocks.
Free on Odnoklassniki. -
gerrythree24 August 2016"The Mystery Of Mr. X" is the last movie directed by Edgar Selwyn, who had a career in theater and movies that could never be duplicated again. This movie is full of details that are more typical of a Broadway play than a movie. At the end, when the news photographers want to take a picture of Revel (Robert Montgomery) with Miss Frensham, he hesitates getting next to her and she pulls him closer. Earlier, after the police surround Mr. X, he tells superintendent Connor, "I hate you Connor! I hate you." The earlier part of the story shows that Connor justifies that low opinion, searching Revel's apartment without a search warrant, lying to Sir Christopher Marche and trying to solve the policeman murders by assuming the Drayton diamond thief is also the murderer. Throughout the movie, the dialog between Revel and Miss Frensham is literate and delineates the characters in an amusing and cheerful way.
Of course, there is no way this movie could ever be a stage play, since much of the action involves taxi rides, walking down foggy streets and other outdoors activities. This movie must have been a tough shoot, between the constant dialog (1,830 numbered subtitle segments in the closed captions) and the tracking shots for the studio lot scenes. The showdown in the warehouse building set at the end of the movie must have been really hard to stage and film, but Selwyn and company do a fine job at it.
I saw this movie on TCM and the print shown was worn, had frame damage in parts and looked like a 16MM dupe print. Not the best way to watch a movie that has many scenes shot in shadowed settings. IMDb reports that MGM shot a new ending after preview audiences disapproved of the original ending. Director Selwyn, in New York already, did not want to re-shoot the ending. I am guessing that Selwyn had his fill of working so hard to make this movie a great example of the MGM studio system at work. So Selwyn bows out as a movie director on the top, with a movie that should have been better known but got lost in the shuffle when the 1934 Production Code went into full force.
The Warner Archive should find a way to get "The Mystery Of Mr. X" out as a Blu-ray release using better print material that is given a makeover by the LOC Packard Campus.