"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.
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.