How sad is this?

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

****SPOILERS***When the attempt to declare Cassie Denham, Sarah Padden unable to take care of her finances as well as herself failed she turns the tables on her greedy relatives including her shyster nephew Grason,Gavin Gordon, who tried to get her committed. That's by her inviting them to stay the weekend at her place in the Catskill Mountains "Graylock" in order for them to get a piece of her three million dollar fortune.It's at "Graylock" that things start to get a bit creepy with a number of the guests including Garson ending up dead with Cassie suspected in murdering them. It turns out that Cassie has hidden't the three million dollars somewhere in the house and is using it a bate to get the real killer to expose him or herself as well by killing off all his competition for the money. That in order to do the job of knocking off all of her greedy relatives for her. The big surprise is what Cassie has planned at the very end of the movie in setting the place on fire, yes she has fire insurance, and see who's the one who'll run into to the place to get his or her hands on the money, the three million, hidden there. That would expose the killer and exonerate her at the same time.***SPOILERS***Were also giver hot shot reporter Bob White, Wallace Ford, and his pretty assistant Nora O'Brien,Marian Marsh, a chance to do their thing in the movie for more or less comedy relief. In the end the killer or killers are finally exposed or smoked out by them freaking out when the mansion 'Greylock" is put to the torch by Cassie and after being arrested by the police lead by Sheriff William Boggs, George Guhl, who invited himself in and admit their involvement in the murderers. The biggest surprise of all in Cassie's three million dollar fortune that she had hidden turned out to be confederated or funny money dating back to the Civil War! That Cassie's parents kept in the hope that the South will rise again!

This is the kind of film, where you will really have a hard time deciding if you like it or not. Basically it is nothing more than a very, very clichéd murder mystery, but it is fully aware of that and make no secret about it. And that is what almost saves this one. But only almost.There is nothing here that we haven't seen dozens, hundreds of times: old rich lady with greedy relatives, who are all sweet and lovely with her in one minute and try to put her in an asylum the next. We have the ambitious, but pretty much clueless local sheriff, the clever reporter (Wallace Ford), who does all the job the police should, his pretty assistant and all those other stock characters that pop up at all the similar films. Did I mention the old house, filled with hidden corridors? And that the old lady decides the invite all the would-be heirs to her house at midnight? Sounds familiar? Sure it does.But what makes this one stand out is that it is not just completely aware of its clichéd nature, but actually makes fun of itself all the time. And these in-jokes provide easily the best moments of the movie. The scene where Ford states, that he can't die, as he is the handsome young hero or when they even go as far as mentioning their most obvious inspiration, The Cat and the Canary (which had a hugely successful remake two years before this came out), referring to its similar invited-at-midnight theme...? Priceless! But my personal favorite is probably when Ford states that "There comes a time in every murder mystery, when all the corpus delicti are missing and it generally happens just past the middle of the picture." Guess what happens in the movie and when. But we even know who's going to be the first victim, way before the actual murder takes place. This self-reflection really works fine.The problem is that beside this the film has nearly nothing to offer. The screenplay is pretty badly written: the opening scene at the court already puts our expectations pretty low (the wisecracking lady is pretty funny, but the lawyer's complete lack of evidence make the whole scene very awkward), no surprises, no suspense, the characters are mostly very shallow (after they get killed, you will have a hard time remembering who some of the victims were) and even the motives are rather pointless. And while the actors are OK, there aren't any memorable performances.Too bad. With a bit more effort, it could be a little gem, like the rather similar, but far superior One Frightened Night (1935 - also starring Wallace Ford), which worked wonders with its similarly minimal budget. But this way, this hardly passes as a time-passer.

Perennial second-from-the-left-cop-in-the-station-house, George Guhl, has a featured role, would you believe, in Monogram's 1941 tale, Murder by Invitation, which turns out to be a sort of Mrs Longfellow Deeds Meets the Cat and the Canary. With halfway competent direction and a halfway appropriate budget, this may well have turned out as sleeper of the year. The money is there all right, but Phil Rosen's direction is strictly from hunger. The picture's potential is unrealized. Obviously left largely to their own devices, the players do what they can to salvage the film. Although inclined to over-act, I thought Sarah Padden carried off the main role with a fair amount of conviction, although other reviewers disagree. George Guhl was a big letdown, and I was also disappointed that Marian Marsh was simply just another pretty blonde in this outing and no longer the charismatic charmer of Beauty and the Boss.

No doubt prompted by the success of Elliot Nugent's 1939 remake of THE CAT AND THE CANARY, Monogram's MURDER BY INVITATION is a spit polishing of dusty doings distinguished by a cagey awareness of its own derivativeness. Like the imperiled teens of Wes Craven's SCREAM, the dramatis personae here – heirs to a sizeable legacy - enter into danger with full knowledge of the rules of the game - with comic star Wallace Ford (FREAKS) even cracking: `I'm the handsome young juvenile of this story – he never gets hurt.' Supporting the ever-watchable Ford is a cast of faces familiar from the Poverty Roll payroll: Sarah Padden (THE MAD MONSTER), Dave O'Brien (THE DEVIL BAT, REEFER MADNESS), Minerva Urecal (THE CORPSE VANISHES) and John James (DEVIL BAT'S DAUGHTER), as well as Marian Marsh (Trilby to John Barrymore's SVENGALI) and Gavin Gordon (Lord Byron in THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN). A former Edison camera man turned prominent silent film director (ABRAHAM LINCOLN), Phil Rosen exhibits little enthusiasm for George Bricker's scenario, and seems grateful that the conventions of the murder mystery allow characters to remain seated for long stretches at a time. French cameraman Marcel Le Picard also shot the low-rent SPOOKS RUN WILD and VOODOO MAN.Not a must-see film, but undemanding fun for fans of the murder mystery - and Wallace Ford never disappoints.