A Disappointing Continuation

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Despite its come-on title, this movie does not add up to one thrilling picture. The main problem lies in the very amateurish script by Joseph Hoffman who presumably dusted off something from his early attempts at screen writing before he left Fox in 1941 and ended up at Monogram in 1942. Anyway, whenever it was written is not the point. The sad fact is that it's packed with some of the most feeble wisecracks it has ever been my misfortune to come across. Director William Beaudine is no help either – except for one scene in a movie theater which is not even a quarter as bad as the rest of this movie-to-avoid! Producer A.W. Hackel's movies were so lacking in entertainment values that from 1934 through 1936, he often declined to take a credit. Re-issue title: Horace Takes Over.

John Beal had an interesting career on stage and screen. He did many Broadway shows, and it's no wonder if this kind of thing he was being given. This particular film, "One Thrilling Night," is from Monogram, one of the poverty row studios.It concerns honeymooners who will only have one night together before the husband, Horace (Beal) leaves for the service. Unfortunately the newlyweds check into the wrong room. There's a dead guy under the bed and intruders, Frankie (Tom Neal) and friends are in and out looking for money hidden by the dead man.Wanda McKay is the hapless bride and she's quite pretty. According to the men reviewing this, she more than made up for any story problems. The acting is fine, the print was bad, and to me, the movie looked cheap. I'm sure it was. While I found the premise funny, I didn't think it was that well executed. Beal actually started out as a young leading man I believe at MGM and then leading man and finally to character parts. I met him once at a function honoring someone - it was so long ago I can't remember who was being honored. A nice man, active in the business until a few years before his death.

Monogram combined it's standard lowbrow crime/action with comedy for this film, which is a bit weak on the comedy side. It has it's moments, but you can't help but think the situation is ridiculous. A newlywed couple with only a day before the husband is shipped off to service in WWII chooses to travel instead of doing what a newlywed, presumably virgin couple with only a day would actually do. There is a subtext of lustful desire being thwarted, but it is obviously muted due to the era.Through no fault of their own they get mixed up with gangsters who have been in their hotel room trying to kill enemies. Mix-ups with a missing body, police ineptitude and misidentification of the groom as gangster kingpin keeps this running for most of the film. This might have worked better with a cast and director who could pull it off, but it falls a bit flat here, though not entirely.It has classic elements of 1930s screwball comedy, though a little late for Monogram in 1942 to begin cutting their chops. It's fun as a period piece, but far from great cinema.

In this instance, it be. The trade papers seldom had anything good to say about product from the minors for a couple of reasons; there was seldom anything good to say about it, and since the minors spent little in the way of advertising money in the trades, the reviewers got a free shot at expressing how they really felt without being called to task by the editor or publisher because Louis B. Mayer didn't like their comments. "One Thrilling Night" actually had a premier showing at a Hollywood theatre as opposed to the trade reviewers dropping by the studio screening room to see it or, as was often the case, being reviewed at a theatre months after it was released. Monogram was not high on the "trades" priority list. It was screened on June 28, 1942 and, ordinarily, it would have been released a few days before or afterwards. The reviews were so out of the norm, that the film was held back long enough for all an all-new pressbook and posters and ad mats to be made incorporating the reviews and the release was held up until August 8, 1942. "Boxoffice" said if it had come from a major company, it would be loudly and quickly acclaimed as a "sleeper"; "Film Daily" called it clever, fast and fautlessly played---as good as anything Monogram ever turned out; David Hanna, in the L.A. Daily News, said it was one of the most creditable films ever to come from Monogram and augered well for the future of this alert and enterprising studio; in a rather breezy fashion, "Motion Picture Daily's" reviewer tabbed it a sleeper and advised to give it some racing room at the head of the stretch as it had speed, a style of its own and finished strong; and "Showmen's Trade Review" called the direction of William Beaudine like a cut gem with no situation that interferes with another. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda also from "Variety" and "Movie-Radio Guide. Hold on one cotton-picking moment, what is going on here? All this about a film directed by William (One-Shot) Beaudine; produced by A. W. Hackel of the Supreme (company name, not a description) westerns with Bob Steele and Johnny Mack Brown circa 1934-1936 and father of some exploitation pics only a notch above those from Kroger Babb and the widow Houdini; a film with the dour and dull John Beal, usually found playing a preacher in the limberlost, doing a comedy turn and B-western and serial regulars such as Ernie Adams, Lynton Brent and Pierce Lyden playing funny gansters? Well, dang if the reviewers weren't about half right, albeit slightly overboard probably from being somewhat giddy and surprised at finding this behind the Monogram logo and over-reacted. All in all, well worth finding and watching and, maybe, being surprised. And Wanda McKay, as the frustrated bride, in a 1942 silk slip with one strap hanging didn't hurt it none nuther.