OK, I'm reviewing this film for one reason only...I really liked the leading lady. She was stunning, truly drop dead beautiful. Amazingly, she is almost a dead ringer for Fay Wray! I'm a huge Fay Wray fan so I noticed this right away. The movie is really average at best, the only real reason I kept watching was to see more of lovely Grace. There wasn't much of a plot and the rest of the cast were pretty lame. The strange thing about some of these old movies is the simple fact that had they added a couple of good shootouts or brawls, they would have managed to hold one's attention much better. I recall some movies much worse than this one that stick in my memory because they offered a couple of nice action sequences. Maybe the budget wouldn't allow? Anyhow, this one is worthwhile if you want to see a remarkable beauty. "What a Gal!" ...indeed!
11 Reviews
The Transparent Movie
wes-connors13 July 2009
Perky gal reporter Grace Bradley (as Sue Walker) and police detective Roland Drew (as Jerry Brown) butt heads, banter romantically, and try to solve a series of murders connected to a gambling racket. This low-budget crime drama begins with its highlight, as officer Drew attempts to pull over Ms. Bradley for speeding; the "chase" effectively introduces the lead characters and their relationship. Later, Bradley shows some female muscle when she decks Drew; with pain and pleasure, he remarks, "What a gal!" Despite the promise of the title, there is no "Invisible Killer"; perhaps, this refers to poisoning, the killer's favorite murder method - "odorless and tasteless, works on the membrane of the nose and mouth." The story is as engaging.
*** The Invisible Killer (11/14/39) Sam Newfield ~ Grace Bradley, Roland Drew, Boyd Irwin
*** The Invisible Killer (11/14/39) Sam Newfield ~ Grace Bradley, Roland Drew, Boyd Irwin
More of the same from Poverty Row
Red-Barracuda22 July 2011
The Invisible Killer is typical fare from Poverty Row. It's a mystery with a slightly misleading title and even though it has a short running time, there isn't many thrills to be had. This one is basically about a series of murders connected to a gambling racket. A couple of policemen from the homicide unit join forces with a lively girl journalist to solve the case. No surprises then. Even the killing method is not original even if it may seem bizarre enough to have to be. The murder method is a tiny poison pellet launched via a phone receiver when it is picked up by an unfortunate victim. This ridiculous killing method was used in the earlier movie Murder At Midnight (1931). You would have thought once would have been enough for such nonsense!
Another Boring Reporter in Love With Cop Thing
Hitchcoc1 June 2015
There isn't much to say about this. The young woman reporter keeps scooping the police department. She is tireless and keeps on the move. Her dippy police boyfriend is always a step behind and she takes advantage. The bad guys are a bunch of organized crime guys from a gambling syndicate. They have been running things with the help of bribes. Now the new DA has had enough and calls them all in. During the investigation, there is a lot of in-fighting and the bad guys start to use poison in various forms to kill the investigators and some of their own rats. The girl is always around and is way more competent than anyone in the department. I would imagine the movie viewers of the thirties would have found this charming, but it was hard for me to get through.
The also made boring rubbish in the 30s, after all...
Coventry19 September 2021
In my head, it always seems as if every movie made in the 30s and 40s is good and worth seeking out. Stuff like "The Invisible Killer" prove that dreadfully boring, rubbishy, and utterly pointless movies have always existed. Apart from a man who picks up the phone and spontaneously drops dead, there's absolutely nothing interesting happening here. Heck, even that scene itself is fairly lame. There's only talking, talking, talking. Endless talking. Whenever they are not bickering with an over-ambitious and intrusive female reporter (Grace Bradley), two police detectives must look for a killer within an illegal gambling ring. 62 minutes rarely lasted this long.
Spunky lady journalist has the nerve NOT to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen!
planktonrules14 December 2015
This film is pretty much what you'd expect from a murder mystery film from Monogram--a spunky reporter (in this case she's a lady) and insanely difficult and complicated murders.
Sue Walker (Grace Bradley) is a reporter who wants the guys to respect her, so, like Lois Lane, it means being brash and trying to scoop everyone else on a case involving gamblers. And, like MOST B- mysteries of the age, that means she will end up investigating a murder case like she's one of the cops! In this case, folks are dying...but the coroner isn't sure how. They've been poisoned but who and how are they doing it?
Overall, the film is exactly what you'd expect from such a film--the usual clichés and the usual suspense. No real surprises here and certainly not a film for those who cannot cut it a lot of slack. Passable low-budget entertainment and nothing more.
Sue Walker (Grace Bradley) is a reporter who wants the guys to respect her, so, like Lois Lane, it means being brash and trying to scoop everyone else on a case involving gamblers. And, like MOST B- mysteries of the age, that means she will end up investigating a murder case like she's one of the cops! In this case, folks are dying...but the coroner isn't sure how. They've been poisoned but who and how are they doing it?
Overall, the film is exactly what you'd expect from such a film--the usual clichés and the usual suspense. No real surprises here and certainly not a film for those who cannot cut it a lot of slack. Passable low-budget entertainment and nothing more.
If it wasn't for Grace Bradley, there would be an invisible audience.
mark.waltz4 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
She's got a powerful right hook, that feisty investigative reporter Sue Walker (one time Paramount starlet Grace Bradley), involved in a series of connected murders centered around a gambling ring. When police detective Jerry Brown (Roland Drew) tries to get her to stop showing up everywhere he's working while trying to find out the truth, she slugs him in the jaw then tells the people standing by to send him the bill for the property damage. Gambling establishment owners tell her that she should follow the theory of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, she cracks that she's none of those three little monkeys. Obviously the writers knew that she had the way with the line because she gets the best ones in the script.
If it wasn't for her, this would definitely be a lower ranked poverty row programmer, coming from the early days of Producers Releasing Corporation, and while without her this would not have ranked as pretty rotten cinema, it's pretty ordinary. I didn't recognize any of the supporting actors, all beneath the obscure level, and perhaps that is a good thing because you feel like you're actually watching a real crime unfold because you're not distracted by familiar faces. But the title is definitely misleading, with the victims always being shot immediately after answering a phone call. So don't expect any science fiction elements in this. Save those for the Karloff and Lugosi films, or perhaps Zucco and Atwill. None of that happens here.
If it wasn't for her, this would definitely be a lower ranked poverty row programmer, coming from the early days of Producers Releasing Corporation, and while without her this would not have ranked as pretty rotten cinema, it's pretty ordinary. I didn't recognize any of the supporting actors, all beneath the obscure level, and perhaps that is a good thing because you feel like you're actually watching a real crime unfold because you're not distracted by familiar faces. But the title is definitely misleading, with the victims always being shot immediately after answering a phone call. So don't expect any science fiction elements in this. Save those for the Karloff and Lugosi films, or perhaps Zucco and Atwill. None of that happens here.
You've seen it all before story of a female reporter battling a police detective to be the first to catch a killer. Its not bad. But it just sort of lays there.
dbborroughs17 January 2006
The plot concerns the police and a spunky girl reporter battling to solve murders connected to a gambling syndicate. Its a run of the mill affair that really isn't anything special, at least not the sort of special the title Invisible Killer might imply. The "killer" of the title is given the short end of the stick since the film is more concerned with the spunky (ie annoying) girl reporter and her battle with a homicide detective to flush out the murderer. If you've seen any film with a spunky girl reporter and a harden police detective you'll know what to expect from this movie. While I can say that this trip down the well worn rut of a plot isn't bad, I also have to say that is completely unremarkable and the sort of thing that's not likely to remain with you long after the credits roll. Its like eating your favorite dessert only discovering half way through it has almost no flavor, its not bad but it doesn't have what makes you love to eat it. Not bad, not good, just sort of is.
Murder over the... phone
binapiraeus3 April 2014
Now, don't expect too much from this Poverty Row 'cheapie'; it was made by PRC, one of the poorest of the poor - and yet this murder yawn DOES have some very nice points for fans of the genre: a quite realistic depiction of the gambling racket with all its crossing and double-crossing, a pretty inventive murder method, and a VERY entertaining 'love-hate' relationship between a tough cop and an even tougher girl reporter, who's always a step ahead of the police...
You think you've seen all that before? Well, but probably not in THIS literally DRASTIC way: Sue, who's a true-bred police reporter and would risk ANYTHING (even her life) for a hot murder headline, even goes so far as to knock her flatfoot 'boyfriend' out when he wants to keep her from digging deeper into that dangerous gangster story!! All in all, Grace Bradley as Sue is the very core of the otherwise pretty average movie - one of the greatest (and yet one of the least known to the wider audience) reporter heroines of classic crime movies - which leaves us all with a REAL mystery: WHY didn't she become a big star?? She would most CERTAINLY have deserved it.
You think you've seen all that before? Well, but probably not in THIS literally DRASTIC way: Sue, who's a true-bred police reporter and would risk ANYTHING (even her life) for a hot murder headline, even goes so far as to knock her flatfoot 'boyfriend' out when he wants to keep her from digging deeper into that dangerous gangster story!! All in all, Grace Bradley as Sue is the very core of the otherwise pretty average movie - one of the greatest (and yet one of the least known to the wider audience) reporter heroines of classic crime movies - which leaves us all with a REAL mystery: WHY didn't she become a big star?? She would most CERTAINLY have deserved it.
Always specify "Grace" before you say "Bradley"!
JohnHowardReid26 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Let me say at once that any movie in which Grace Bradley appears is a must-see movie. That said, however, I wouldn't want to sit through "The Invisible Killer" more than three or four times. Apart from the feisty, super-lovely Bradley, the cast line-up is most definitely fourth-rate. The second lead, Roland Drew, was normally a bit player, but received the top role in "Hitler, Beast of Berlin" (1939), even though he didn't play Hitler! In 1940, he was back to playing bits, many of them uncredited! His final film role was in Anthony Mann's "Two O'Clock Courage" (1945). What he did after that, I've no idea. He died in 1988. Admittedly, director Sam Newfield (billed here as "Sherman Scott"), does keep the screenplay moving along with reasonable rapidity, but the climax is tame and, worse still, the title turns out to be a cheat. Available on an excellent Grapevine DVD with the even more disappointing "Murder by Television".
Not so bad thirties crime mystery
searchanddestroy-17 November 2023
But from a director as Sam Newfield, don't expect too much please. Prepare your software to watch this grade Z movie destined, I presume, to remote countryside or small Texas or Oklahoma towns. It is fast paced, not boring at all but predictable, as you can easily guess. I was prepared for this picture and I also know Sam Newfield's style, that means nothing special, just a lame plot for a corny directing and acting. This could be any small budget director's work. Only destined to die hard goers of this kind of stuff. From time time, it's not so unbearable to watch this. But only from time to time.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
