Very disappointing...

Sorry, this movie sucks

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Really enjoy a well-done murder mystery, and this was a good one. And I always thought Warner Oland was the best Charlie Chan - even though he was Swedish. Lots of reviewers recap the plot so there's no need to rehash, but the plot here is intricate and it's not easy to pick out the murderer.This film in particular of the Chan series has a lot of dialogue and it pays off to pay attention as the story unfolds. That way you won't get fooled by a red herring, as I did. This picture is pretty old, so old that many in the supporting cast are unknown to modern audiences, except perhaps Alan Mowbray and a very young Ray Milland. The female lead was Drue Leyton, whom I am not familiar with but was very good and convincing in all her scenes. For some reason she made only 10 films, the last in 1939.This is also the last CC movie made without a number 1 son. Key Luke does not appear until the next picture, "Charlie Chan In Paris (1935). "Charlie Chan In London" is a good, solid whodunit of the type no longer made in Hollywood, or anywhere else for that matter.

Although primitive in some ways, this is one of the better Charlie Chan mysteries for many reasons--the main one, perhaps, is that this viewer did not easily deduce the identity of the murderer until late in the film. It also presents Chan as a figure of no little dignity, especially when confronted with a slammed door, or a racial slur, or assumptions that he is ignorant. "Excuse, please," says Charlie Chan, and through methodical thinking and quiet assurance, proves himself completely able to do what others cannot. Another reason I enjoyed this film is the absence of stupid humor crammed into the later films, gag stuff that plays down to the audience or featuring funny characters that are not funny, such as Harold Huber in City of Darkness, on screen far too long and insufferable. For Chan fans, this one is a keeper

I found this to be one of the duller of the entries in the Chan series, though there are many I haven't seen yet.First of all, there is Charlie Chan himself, Warner Oland, with his pinched English, fake epicanthic folds, and slouching figure. He doesn't even get to wear a Panama hat in this one. I wish he had something more going for him, like Sherlock Holmes' ability to read what Charles Sanders Peirce called an "index" -- the residue left by history on an object or a kind of behavior. Holmes could glance at somebody's tattoo and say something like, "That particular shade of pink is used only on Hotel Street," or tell from a man's walk that he was a retired sergeant of Marines. Can Charlie Chan do any of that? No. No, he can't. He can't do anything but shuffle around. If you're going to be limited to shuffling around and piping up with inscrutable proverbs, Sidney Toler did it better.There is a notable absence here of Chan's usual sidekicks -- either an Enumerated Son or a frightened African-American or both. They might have folded a lighter element into this plot.And the plot is pretty dreary. An innocent man is to be hanged for a murder and Charlie Chan has some sixty-five hours to visit the estate where the crime took place, interview the half-dozen suspects, and come up with the identity of the real criminal. There follows an additional murder and an attempt on Chan's life. Otherwise this is nothing more than a B murder mystery that might keep children entertained. No reflection on fans of Chan, but I think that was the audience they had in mind. If adults find this enjoyable, that's fine. Humble reviewer make no value judgment on adult viewer discernment.Among the recognizable faces in the cast are those of Alan Mowbray and Ray Milland. Milland is hardly recognizable. I think he was actually to grow more handsome over the next five or ten years.

I had fun with this. Like 'Chan in Egypt' and '..in Paris', it's early sound, it's creaky, it's filled w/ some over-acting(dig the scared blonde limey maid), it's slow.It's also interesting, centered around a involving, well-plotted mystery, and of course, one of the great characters of the thirties-Charlie Chan. This time he's in London to try and save a man on death row, he has 3 days to beat the hangman's noose. He does, but barely.I enjoyed watching Oland work. I have no problem w/ him as the Chinese detective, though he is quite obviously Swedish. (As a fan of Charles Bronson, I know-you can see Chuck playing scads of Apaches or Mexicans in his earlier movies. He was Lithuanian. I don't see the difference, to be honest-if it's okay for Bunchinsky to play Apache Warrior #2, it's okay for Oland to play Chan, you know?) The bad guy you won't spot that early on, either. I thought that the suspense was well handled, heck they even trot out the red-herring 'Butler did it' routine, the gathering all the likely suspects into one room, etc etc. Hits all of those clichés head on. And knows what to do with them, too.Do check this out if you are a fan of the series, or mysteries from the era.*** outta ****