... and that seems to be what lots of people complain about with this film, all because Mill Creek inappropriately included it in a public domain pack of 50 horror films when this is actually a crime/newspaper caper film. But don't take it out on Pat O'Brien, Neil Hamilton, Louis Calhern and company, because that was a decision made 75 years after this film was made!
The title is probably what got it included, and the title itself is a bit of a mystery for there is nothing of cosmos or craziness in this film. Instead it is about the murder and set up for disgrace of an honest DA (Wallis Clark) by gangsters, and how his newspaper columnist friend (Pat O'Brien) tries to solve the crime and redeem the name of his deceased pal, if for nothing else than for the sake of his widow and son.
The acting of the well known names here is very good. Little Majestic Pictures must have shot the works as far as budget to get so many relatively big names. But the screenplay is another matter. Sure, the plot as a whole makes sense, but there are holes in the plot that make no sense! Pat O'Brien's character seems to be psychic as far as figuring out almost immediately who the trigger man is. How? This is never explained. When the DA's good name is smeared the janitor at the rooming house where his body is found has a whole story about how the DA came there regularly for months to shack up with a lady not his wife and drink heavily. OK, so the janitor is lying. But if he is lying, why not lie completely? Instead he gives a totally accurate description of the girl who was one of the co-conspirators in the DA's murder. Why? You never see this janitor again, so maybe for doing such a bad job of lying for them, the mobsters fit him for a cement overcoat. We'll never know. There are lots of other plot holes too, but these are two big examples.
There is lots of precode naughtiness here, including language and sexual inuendos, and one almost graphic sex scene for the day of two unwed people in bed together. However, the total darkness and the fact that the scene is almost too prolonged takes away from its punch.
Overall, not a bad way to spend 70 minutes.
0 out of 0 found this helpful