Very well executed

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

You can witness elements of what will become the director's style, but overall the pace is fairly plodding and the story pretty lame and confusing. One immediately notices the experimentation with the camera, from the hand held shot at the beginning when the actor John Stuart enters the "house for let", to the many candle lit scenes as the characters mount the stairs and explore the house, to the quick cuts used later in the chase to add suspense.Additionally, the comic elements used during moments of tension foreshadow the director's later works. One shot, which he used again in The 39 Steps (1935), occurs when the two men discover the body and their screams are masked by a passing train's whistle. The suspenseful, harrowing chase, though clearly done with miniatures, is also a tried and true characteristic later associated with Hitchcock, to say nothing of the use of trains in his films in general.The story begins with "Stuart" entering an abandoned house, full of cobwebs. He soon meets another man, a rather odd cockney-accented Igor type, who says his name is Ben, and the two of them stumble upon a corpse. Rather oddly, "Stuart" is able to "control" Ben, and there are some really slow moments where not enough tension is built before the next thing happens. Plus, oftentimes what happens next is not enough of a payoff for our wait. There are also some seemly disconnected cutaways, e.g. to doors slamming etc., which show us that the great director was still finding his way in this film.Shortly thereafter, a young woman (Nora) falls through the rotted ceiling and onto the two men. She provides a clue, a telegram from her father which mentions necklace stolen by Sheldrake from a detective named Barton. Soon there is a knock at the door which "Stuart" goes to answer. After inserting a card with Number Seventeen scrawled on it, a man and a woman are revealed behind the door. They want to see the "house for let". As "Stuart" is closing the door, a second man, not connected with the man and woman, also enters.When all of them mount the stairs, "Stuart" tries to slow them so they won't discover the corpse, but Ben informs him that the body has disappeared. This leads the two men and woman, who is identified by one of the men as a deaf-mute (and looks a little like Mary Astor), to take control. They tie up "Stuart" and Nora while Ben hides in another room. Ben is then "strangled" by Sheldrake, the "corpse", who'd been hiding in the room. With far too many cuts back and forth between the prone Ben and Sheldrake, who's not sure Ben is really "out", Sheldrake removes the diamonded necklace from the loo (the director's humor was in tact back then;-) but unbeknownst to him, Ben pilfers it from him before he exits.What follows is a really poorly done fight sequence which allows Sheldrake's gang (the two men & the woman) to leave after tying up "Stuart" and Nora. A chase ensues with perhaps the most suspense the film can manage, though it feels somewhat overlong. A crash, a rescue in water, and a couple of not altogether unexpected twists end the film.

Leave it up to me to enjoy a quirky film like this. It's not perfect but it is certainly entertaining. I like this film - a lot. I've seen this film a few years back, forgot about it and finally ran across it in a film pack - very glad they added this one, it's good to see it again.The film is mainly in a "spooky old house" setting with wailing winds, great shadows, strange characters, a murder(?), a stolen necklace, a great chase, humor splashed about and a story that is simple but good. This is not an Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece but it's a fun one.Try to watch this film without taking it seriously - remember it's entertainment and artful in it's way (the cinematography and directing.) 9/10

Billy Wilder, a far greater filmmaker than Hitchcock could ever aspire to be, had a penchant for the name Sheldrake; he bestowed it on a Producer played by Fred Clark in Sunset Boulevard and almost a decade later he gave it to Fred MacMurray in The Apartment. In Number Seventeen Garry Marsh plays a character named Sheldrake and that, I'm afraid, is about as close to a genius like Wilder as journeyman Hitch ever came, despite the hype, PR and King's New Clothes element that clings to him like ectoplasm. If you're happy to go along with a plot that has a wind blow the hat off a character in the first minute and on retrieving it he decides, on a whim, to explore an old house with a For Sale/Rent sign in front of it, and then becomes embroiled with a disappearing corpse and a gang of jewel thieves then don't let me spoil your enjoyment. I'll be watching re-runs of 'Crossroads' which have more to offer.

For what it is, Hitch did passable job on this one, but not close to his potential. History has it that he did not want to make this film, and that is probably one of the main reasons it's as lame as it is. There are clear elements of Hitch technique and style all over, but even that is not enough to compensate for a lack luster film. I think, had Hitch approached this as a challenge rather than a contractual requirement, he could have made this into a film worthy of his skill. I enjoyed the film to see the characteristic Hitch touches that only he, at the time, was doing. For this reason, I believe this film is worth viewing. It is disappointing Hitch did not use this 'scary old house' vehicle to make something far more suspenseful and dire. Even though this is pre-WWII movie, much of the cool Film Noir elements are very under utilized.