"Someone here in this room is murderer". And with those seven words, Charlie Chan (Warner Oland) proceeds to unravel the story's mystery and identify the killer, in typical whodunit protocol. In this particular story, the sister of a death row inmate appeals to Chan for help. But time is not on their side, as the brother is scheduled for execution in a matter of hours.The puzzle solution is one of the better ones in the Charlie Chan series. The killer was not even in my top tier of suspects. The surprise revelation ups my opinion of this film. However, I will say that the plot does not reveal the motive for the murder until near the end. So one could argue that the writers were not playing fair with the audience. And there's one plot point that's not explained at all. Suspects are well-defined, and not too many or too few ... seven, if I recall correctly.Casting is all right, I guess. But the acting is a bit overdone, especially the young actress who plays a bug-eyed hysterical maid. Production qualities are above average for the series. Lighting is especially effective.Costumes are lush, not surprising since the setting is a wealthy English estate where the main entertainment is a fox hunt. But those expensive fur wraps the ladies wear are enough to make me wish the poor animal would come back to life and strangle the lady to death; a justifiable homicide, if you ask me.As the polite Chan would say ... thank you so much.

Warner Oland is "Charlie Chan in London" in this 1934 film and, as others have pointed out, this is a very good entry into the series.Chan is about to leave London after working for the government when a young woman, Pamela Gray (Drue Layton) begs for his help in saving her brother (Douglas Walton) from being hanged for a murder he didn't commit. And there are only about 2-1/2 days left before his execution. It's a troubling case, due to the evidence and the fact that Pamela's fiancée (Ray Milland, very young) doesn't believe in her brother's innocence.Chan goes to the country home where the murder took place; after another murder (made to look like a suicide) he's sure that one of the people he's encountered is the true murderer.Oland is in top form here, and the film boasts not only a fine cast of British actors (Alan Mowbray, E.E. Clive) but a great atmosphere. Though I'm more used to Sidney Toler for some reason (I was introduced to the Chan films in Boston, and apparently that's what was shown), Oland is very good in the role. Toler is an older, more sardonic Chan. Oland, crawling through windows and coming out from underneath a desk is definitely sprier! Very enjoyable.

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.

You have to understand that I love these mystery movies from the 30's and 40's, hence the 8/10. It's fun to just suspend disbelief and watch the films for what they are. Get a bowl of popcorn then sit down in your comfy place and let your mind go back to a time before all of the special effects and CGI, before political correctness, and enjoy the show. There are terrific gems to be found in these old films. If you are like me then pick up the DVD; you won't be sorry. "Charlie Chan in London" is a good'un. The digital restorations are excellent. Same ol' cheezy sound and dialogue centric script but without the audio and visual noise. The shakiness of the original is gone as well.Sure you can criticize some of the ham acting but I find the characters and the dialogue fascinating. Although IMHO Elsa Buchanan is wonderful as the distraught maid who is shocked by the evil oriental skulking about the place, others would likely be less kind.E.E. Clive as the more than a little thick Detective Sergeant Thacker is perfect, especially his uncorrected references to Charlie as "Mr. Chang".I didn't realize Ray Milland was in the movie till I heard his unmistakable voice. What a distance from portraying Luke Skywalker's father! While I'm on about it: the quality of the acting in "Charlie Chan in London" is not much different from "Star Wars Episode IV". ;->The "Charlie Chan" character and its portrayal by non-Chinese actors has come under some heavy, and valid, criticism for stereotyping and for washing over issues of racism. However, I think that such criticism should be noted and should not prevent enjoyment of these wonderful films. We (audiences) are not stupid; we can see plenty of evidence of paternalism, sexism, and racism in these movies. Eh, so what? The story and the script are a product of the time and are a window into the past. Not into real life directly, but the film is enlightening with respect to what was acceptable. Eighty years from now, I'm sure many current films will be condemned for all sorts of things that we take for granted now. Food for thought.For me, the controversy and obvious difference in cultural values from today just makes these films more interesting. Mr. Chan's quiet approach to life in general and to racism in particular speaks well of his character. We pay attention to what Chan says because he is always interesting and insightful. What may be interpreted as a stereotyped, obsequious and blandly inoffensive "chinaman", is really a thoughtful individual with obviously strong family values and who is so confident that he does not have to try to change all of the flaws in the world around him.He just has to solve the mystery and go back to his family.