User Reviews

A student is killed at the top of a tower on a college campus. No one saw anyone come down from the tower and there was no place for the killer to hide. Charles Starrett plays Bill Bartlett a reporter who just happened to be on the scene of the crime. He's interested in a girl who becomes one of the suspects in the murder.She is working her way through college as a singer in a night club run by a gambler known as Blackie. As more deaths occur the reasons for the murder become less clear, especially as we learn about some of the suspects.

This is one of those movies thats just okay and under normal circumstances you'd turn off the TV and go to bed but because things manage to be just interesting enough you find you're staying up well past your bed time. Don't get me wrong its a good movie, but its nothing special, but once the first body is found and you realize short of flying no one could have killed him you end up pretty much hooked. I sat there trying to go to bed, yawning, and unwilling to turn off the DVD because I had to see how it was done and why (I knew who the killer was the instant the actor/actress appeared on screen). Don't watch this too late or you'll end up up 70 minutes past your bedtime.

Worth a rental, an hour of your time and a bag of popcorn. You won't remember it but you will enjoy it.

This little poverty row murder mystery has a good basis in its script - A campus could-have-been athlete is a slacker on and off the athletic field, failing in his studies, yet Lillian Voyne (Shirley Grey) seems to have a soft spot for him. This causes some jealousy from reporter Bill Bartlett (Charles Starrett). But then one night when Bill actually drives Lillian to go find said athlete, he is murdered in the campus bell tower just as the chimes have rung. Bartlett is nearby and blocks the only exit from the tower. Yet, when the police arrive, they find the campus slacker dead in the bell tower with a bullet in him, nobody else is in the tower, and there was no place from outside the tower that he could have been shot.

The film keeps things moving, and with fairly good production values, although I can spot a few scenes where the sets have been redressed and reused as different rooms entirely. And there are a couple of other murders that seem to be related to the first one. The problem is, as is common in these lower budget productions, that there are too many characters that don't distinguish themselves from one another, so that when anybody ponders a theory about who did what to who, I had no idea who they were talking about without backing up and rewatching parts of the film.

But the oddest characteristic of this film is that the police just let reporter Bill Bartlett barge in on the entire murder investigation. He tampers with witnesses, steals evidence from police custody to have it examined by a lab he trusts, and encourages a local criminologist to take the investigation away from the police because he has no faith in them, as if he has that kind of authority. If the accused has a good attorney he/she could probably get lots of evidence tossed just because of this busy body reporter breaking all of the rules.

I'd probably give this a 5.5 if that was possible because it is interesting.

I'm convinced that serious moviewatchers need to perform regular, frequent cinematic calisthenics. And that these must include some wading through old, forgotten 30's era mysteries. These unsung projects collectively are the foundation of many of the storytelling conventions we use today.

Mysteries from this era are true detective stories that "play fair" in allowing you to outguess the writer. It is participative viewing of the kind that persists in other forms in movie stories. Here it is pure. This example is a good one for your daily toneup.

It features a narrator which is literally a reporter, a typical trick. It also has an impossible murder, impossible as it turns out in several ways. There are the comedic cops as well as a co-detective doctor. (Doctors in that era were considered men of science.)

You'll have a hard time not guessing the murderer, but how early do you think you can?

Incidentally, this is set on a college campus. You'll not find it easy to relate to these students.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This film essentially begins with a gunshot being heard by a number of people that appears to be coming from the top of the local college bell tower. Sure enough, when the police get there, they find the body of a college student who died from a bullet wound to the head. Interestingly enough, they not only fail to find a gun, but they also soon discover that nobody was seen leaving the tower after the gunshot was heard. So, with very little else to go on, the police then begin to question everyone who either knew the college student or had any relationship with him. And it's during this time that they find what appears to be the murder weapon in the bedroom of a young college student named "Lillian Voyne" (Shirley Grey) who has no solid alibi on where she was when the murder occurred. What she does have, fortunately, is a boyfriend by the name of "Bill Bartlett" (Charles Starrett) who just happens to be an investigative reporter for the local newspaper and is very skilled in his job. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that I honestly wasn't expecting too much from this film due in large part to the time period in which it was made and the rather mediocre rating on IMDb. That being said, while I will admit that this movie is rather dated and it suffers in that regard, I still found it to be rather entertaining--with the numerous twists and turns along with the dogged persistence of Bill Bartlett being particularly enjoyable. On the other hand, considering the date this film was produced, there are a couple of inherent flaws here and there with the rather abrupt ending being particularly noticeable. But even so, all things being considered, I enjoyed this film, for the most part, and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

I guess college isn't quite the way it was in my day. Young men and women living in extravagant suites, in the lap of luxury. They also looked a bit old for college students. This is a bit soporific. It involves a woman who works at a nightclub who is studying for her law degree. Once again, people are kept in the dark about the realities of things. I've seen so many movies where the characters keep things a secret, even when they don't have to. A man has been murdered in a bell tower and there is an investigation. I can see no reason whey the principles in the movie are even suspects, but they are. The detectives and a reporter continually coming in contact as the body count rises. I'm still not sure of the motives and the cover-up. Reputation? Fear? Love? Not sure. It also ends a bit suddenly. I suppose the young woman is going to marry the hunk and give up that nonsense about having a career. It's the thirties; it's the depression. Oh, well.

Made me wish I was still drinking so me and my friends could take a shot every time they call the main character Bill!

Policing in the '30's was pretty loose. There didn't seem to be much consideration of crime scenes and evidence. This is not the first movie I've seen from that era in which evidence was handled carelessly. In "Murder on the Campus" the main character, Bill Bartlett (Charles Starrett), a reporter, stole, borrowed, co-opted a piece of evidence in order to try to exonerate his girlfriend Lillian Voyne (Shirley Grey). Whatever you call it, he illegal took evidence thereby compromising it. The evidence in question was two bullets fired from the killer's gun. At the time it was presumed that Lillian's gun was the murder weapon. There was no chain of custody or anything like it for the evidence, it was just sitting in Police Captain Ed Kyne's desk.

The movie began with a university student named Malcolm Jannings being killed on campus and no one knew who did it. Multiple people heard the gunshots coming from the college clock tower. His body was found in the university clock tower, but no killer was seen leaving the clock tower. How, then, was he killed?

On the case were Capt. Ed Kyne (J. Farrell MacDonald) and Bill Bartlett. Why a police captain would be willing to let a reporter tag along during a murder investigation is beyond me. Even after Bill swiped evidence from Kyne's desk Kyne laughed it off like it was nothing. And even when it became clear that Bill had a conflict of interest as his sweetheart was the primary suspect, Kyne had no problem with his presence in the investigation.

I had a problem with it. I had a problem with the entire movie in fact. The whole thing was poorly handled and the murders (yes murders) were dealt with too flippantly. I know part of the problem was the characters and the other was the murder mystery itself; putting the two together amounted to a net negative to me.

Free on YouTube.

Charles Starrett is a reporter trying to figure out how a guy could be shot in a bell tower while no one is around. He ends up investigating another murder and an apparent suicide. Shirley Grey plays his romantic interest. Edward Van Sloan plays a criminologist; after all, he has plenty of experience killing vampires. As usual, the cops, led by J. Farrell MacDonald, are imbeciles, and Starrett has to solve the mystery for them. The ending is somewhat clever, although by then, I had figured out who the killer was - but not the method. As a bit of trivia, I had never seen Grey before, only to discover she was born not too far from where I live. MacDonald looks and sounds like William Frawley.

I love these Thirties movies. Everyone reviewed the mystery but what interested me was the college life. Clearly, this was an expensive eastern private school, home of the Gentleman's C. In the Depression there were basically two types of college students--the rich and those on scholarships and/or just getting by on various part time jobs, often having to stop for a semester or year when the money ran out. As Johnny Carson used to say, you buy the premise, you buy the bit. So I think these rich kids were kept here by their parents because they were totally useless in the real world and there weren't any jobs in the Depression for people who couldn't do anything but hang out with their friends. It was cheaper to keep them in school than let them ruin the slim profit margin of their parents' businesses. They were perpetual students and perpetual slackers. I imagine they were in this college until they all had PhDs or they got sent abroad, whichever cost their parents less. The men would be old enough when WWII came along to get cushy war jobs via the old boys' network, and the women would marry, divorce, and remarry within the same network.

Now, our heroine was obviously the other type of student. She was taking forever to get through school because it was taking her forever to earn the money. And since nobody was shown in a class, one has to assume that slowed down her progress, too. She won't "marry well" because the reporter got in the way and reporters were notoriously poorly paid. I hope she dropped out and married him right away because if she wasn't going to marry a rich student, she was wasting her money at this institution of learning nothing.

The dead fellow in the bell tower seemed to have been someone's project. I didn't understand why he was at the school but if he only had two years of high school he would have fit right in, academically. He seemed to have been enough of a slacker to concentrate on athletics instead of his bell tower job or school so if he had lived he might have done well in the culture of the place but alas, his quest for the old school tie was cut short. Another five or six years of frat life and he probably would have been indistinguishable from his wealthy brothers.

The professors at this college seemed to have as little interest in education as the students, to judge by the small sample we are shown. Apparently the perks of being employed by the college of "couldn't care less" included having time for extracurricular activities.

Because much of the wealth in the Depression era came through illegal or marginally legal activity, there was plenty of that going on with the students and their associates. Because superficiality and wealth were valued, snobbery, pettiness, and revenge were rife.

Prohibition was just ending, so no more bootleg booze, but there was the excitement of dead bodies littering up the campus so that was diverting. These people were such dullards it didn't even cross their minds to be afraid in the middle of a crime wave! The leaders of tomorrow--which accounts for a lot of things....

Co-stars Shirley Grey and Charles Starrett. Grey was only in films for about five years, then family tragedies and declining popularity led her to retire. Starrett was the king of B parts in westerns from the 1930 to about the early 1950s. In the film, shots are fired in the bell tower, but no-one saw the murder happen. Then it goes all around the mulberry bush (there's an OLD saying...). corrupt cops. who knows who's telling the truth anymore. B stars, in a C movie, with a D script. Caught this one on Moonlight Movies channel. I guess there's a reason they don't show this one on Turner Classics. Not so good. Directed by Richard Thorpe, who had started in the silents. Written by Whitman Chambers, who had several novels turned into films.

Charles Starrett way before he became the Durango Kid in a slew of westerns stars in this drama set on a college campus. Murder On The Campus starts with a murder committed in the clock tower on the campus. Trouble is the victim was shot there are no powder burns to indicate close range and no one came or left within any decent time before or after.

Suspicion falls on coeds Ruth Hall and Shirley Grey. Grey supports herself through college working at a nightclub a big no-no for the time. Heaven forfend the scandal that might before the college should word get out about this. Starrett even admits to the investigating cops J. Farrell MacDonald and Dewey Robinson that in the case of Grey he's thinking with his male member.

Starrett has good instincts though no matter where they come from. The cops are going nowhere and on the faculty is noted criminologist Edward Van Sloan dusting off his Van Helsing persona for the part.

As a mystery it's not terribly hard to figure out who did it. This independent production is production valueless. But I did rather like the characters.

When the carillon in a college bell-tower starts pealing mysteriously, a corpse is discovered amid the bells, and a beautiful coed/nightclub singer (Shirley Grey) is accused of murder. It's up to ace reporter Bill Bartlett (Charles Starrett, later to become known as The Durango Kid) to solve the mystery of the Murder on the Campus and find the real murderer. As a bonus, this sprightly 1933 mystery, Murder on The Campus (AKA On The Stroke of Nine in the UK), directed by film veteran Richard Thorpe, offers up a delightful performance by J. Farrell MacDonald, who plays a not-so-tough police captain. He steals the show from the two nominal stars of the movie, which is rather easy to do, given their embarrassing lack of talent. Two other pros, Dewey Robinson and Edward Van Sloan (better known for his roles in Frankenstein, Dracula and The Mummy), also help keep the movie on an even keel. This movie was one of a series ground out by Chesterfield Studios, a now-forgotten movie-maker which was soon to be absorbed into Republic Pictures, the company built by Herbert W. Yates on the remains of six Poverty Row movie studios which owed his film processing lab large sums. However, during its brief stay with us, Chesterfield, originally a silent- screen studio, gave movie audiences a number of fast-moving detective B talkies, including Murder on the Campus. This 73-minute movie played fair with the audience, and though it can be picked apart for its cheap sets and ham-fisted editing, does have a good script and some funny dialog. And it gives you a chance to see the charming talent of J. Farrell MacDonald, carefully honed in three-hundred-and twenty-five films, including 25 by John Ford and 7 by Preston Sturges.

Veteran police captain J. Farrell MacDonald and young newspaper reporter Charles Starrett: Why are they such good friends? MacDonald is, as usual, the crusty police captain who suspects everyone and trusts no one...except, apparently, this cub reporter who follows him around on this case and is readily admitted to all interviews and interrogations, even though Starrett's character is quite frankly in love with the main suspect MacDonald is after. In any case, the two actors play well off of each other, and together they keep the story moving fast.

There's been a murder up in the campus bell tower; the murdered character was apparently something of an uncultured impostor who was only in the school because of his athletic prowess. (Little else is known about him except that he had been brought out to the college from some godforsaken outpost called Minnesota.) Chemistry student Lillian Voyne (Shirley Grey) had had an appointment to meet the victim right at the time of the murder. Did she do it? How could she have—the body was locked alone at the top of the tower! What about her friend, the suspiciously behaving Ann (played by Ruth Hall in a too small part)? And what is the part in all of this of the mysterious gambler Blackie Atwater? Can noted criminologist Prof. Hawley (Edward Van Sloan, looking very at home in the role) assist in solving the crime?

It's a pretty slick 70 minutes that doesn't hold a lot of surprises but does pack in some suspense. Well worthwhile for us fans of these B mysteries.

N.B. Those looking for a realistic depiction of college life in the 1930s are advised to stick with the Marx Brothers' Horse Feathers.

Poor casting sinks this vintage murder mystery that generates a modicum of suspense but generally lacks anything worth one's attention.

Charles Starrett makes for a bland leading man, playing a reporter who just happens to be located at the right place to nearly witness a murder of a student up atop a bell tower. He and the cops find the corpse but can't figure out how the unknown killer escaped with no one seeing him. Starrett is so bland I figured he must be the killer himself, but that was wishful thinking on my part.

Talky and dull, the whodunit plods along with wooden performances by the no-name cast. As a coed who moonlights at night singing in a nightclub, Shirley Grey is too old for the role and makes zero impression. Dialogue patter between Starrett and the dogged cop on the case (J. Farrell MacDonald) is uncreative on the order of saying things like "Go jump in the lake".

Movie doesn't pick up steam until the finale, when the murderer explains exactly how and why he did it and there's a bit of excitement, way too late to make up for the sleep-inducing earlier footage.