the leading man is my tpye

Overrated and overhyped

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The often filmed George M. Cohan play (adapted from a novel) is given a new, fresh look in the second of three sound versions, even more fast moving and thrilling than the above average 1929 version. Gene Raymond takes on the role of a novelist with writers block who finds that the supposed one key to his hideaway can't block a group of wacky intruders. He finds art really does imitate life, finding enough thrills in a 24 hour period to last him a lifetime.A spooky hotel, closed for the windy winter, is an instant hit for a great setting, with tree branches hitting on the windows, a ghostly woman in white gliding through the snow, sliding panels, black cats and enough old dark house atmosphere to provide more than enough chills and thrills. All it is missing is a dour looking housekeeper or sinister old lady, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other crazy characters abound. The lovable Henry Travers ("Mrs. Miniver", "The Bells of St. Mary's") is unforgettable as a woman hating hermit who likes pretending he's a ghost, and Eric Blore adds his usual endearing eccentricity to the role of a supposed professor. Dumb gangsters filled with a ton of malapropisms give the story a real Damon Runyeon feel, while Margaret Callahan is a very charming leading lady. Toss in Erin O'Brien-Moore as a dark femme fatal and in an unforgettable cameo, future Supporting Actor Oscar King Walter Brennan as a babbity train station master.It is the set, photography and chilly atmosphere that provides the greatest praise, mixing comedy, romance and melodrama at a break-neck pace. Even the roles of the local law enforcement in the final moments of the film keeps the interest at a peak, and Travers is given a great exit line. Remakes of the golden age of filmmaking were many, but certain ones rise about their lack of originality with creative design and know-how. This "Seven Keys" gets two thumbs up and for an 80 year old revisal of a much filmed theme feels like it might be worthy of repeat viewings.

One of Earl Derr Biggers' most popular novels (which had been turned into a play by George M. Cohan), "Seven Keys to Baldpate" was adapted for the screen no less than six times; this was the fifth time. And although the movie admittedly can't reach the REALLY high class of the famous 1917 version, where Cohan himself played the leading role, and after more than 20 years the story may already seem a little bit worn-out and much-used, it's nonetheless hilariously lively, funny and at the same time pretty suspenseful, with a neat cast (especially Gene Raymond as the fearless, wisecracking novelist) and an unusual, but really successfully balanced mix of - a gangster movie and a 'Dark Old House' mystery! The story has been altered a bit, and the supporting characters get more space for all kinds of jokes (especially the women-hater, 'hermit' Henry Travers); and the gangsters' slang and tough guy attitude make a wonderfully strange contrast to the cool and clever ways of the young novelist - and of course, to the classic settings with secret panels, candle-light and groaning staircases...With a running time of just a little more than an hour, this movie nicely keeps a good pace and leaves no room for boredom; great entertainment for lovers of the genre!

I had seen this movie several years ago and recall not liking it much but thought I would give it another try as I do like Gene Raymond and 1930s mysteries. Writer Bill Magee (Raymond) is on his way to the closed-for-the-season Baldpate Inn. Supposedly, there is only one key to the inn and Magee has it. Magee has to write a novel in 24 hours and requires the peace and quiet that a closed inn will give him (he should be so lucky). As is repeated often "there is only one key to the inn and I have it." The "I" is Magee and six other people. The movie drags at first but does pick up towards the end. Gene Raymond does a nice job and the there is a strong supporting cast (with the exception of the bland Margaret Callahan). My two favorites were Walther Brennan as the Station Agent (one could close one's eyes and still know it was Walter Brennan speaking as his voice was so distinctive) and Henry Travers as the Hermit. I thank the other reviewers for adding the fascinating information about the play and Cohan. I liked this movie better at the second watching but it sure isn't going make my "top 1,000 favorite movies" list.

Don't read this comment if you don't want spoilers for the film "Identity," (as well as for this film).There's a narrative device that I like a lot. It may have originated in the play that this film is based on. I think there may be a half dozen other versions and a couple dozen derivative versions. Its the notion that all the characters you see are invented in one mind as a sort of lucid dream that we witness. In the usual embodiment, at the end this is revealed. Alas, here that bit is left off.But in the basic version, a writer arranges to stay at a remote lodge, named "baldpate." He's alone and has the only key. His mission is to write a crime novel in 24 hours.Right there you have three clues. The first is that the lodge's name is head-related. Obviously, what we will see will be the novel as it is being written. In one case, a character is literally told what his name will be. (This notion was used obliquely in "The Shining.")As in "Identity" there's a business with keys. He has the only key to the place. But six other characters enter, and they have the only key as well!At the time this was written, there was the notion in popular psychology that the human mind consisted of seven personalities that needed to be harmonized. Jung would later take this largely superstitious notion into more acceptable notions. But that's where Biggers got the idea (in his story) that Cohan dramatized. Cohan's version had the writer as a wisecracking observer, partly inside the mystery, partly outside. This is a boring movie. But it and its predecessors are key milestones in narrative devices that dominate what we watch today.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.