Good concept, poorly executed.

A Masterpiece!

The acting in this movie is really good.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Rarely in films do we find a murder plot that misdirects viewers with the finesse of "Shadows On The Stairs". What a delight. Beginning with one particular early scene, the plot cleverly leads viewers down the garden path. And a second twist delightfully compounds the misdirection.There are eight major characters. At least one is murdered, leaving seven suspects. I was sure I knew who the killer was. I was dead wrong, owing mostly to the shrewdly written script.Most of the action takes place inside a multistory boarding house. People come into and leave rooms rather often. And the script is quite talky. The film has the look and feel of a stage play, except for the first few minutes. The title is a bit misleading, implying noir lighting that doesn't really exist in the film. There's not much in the way of spine-tingling suspense. The main selling point is the stunning ending wherein viewers learn how they have been duped into making multiple false assumptions. Clearly, that upsets some viewers. But one cannot deny that the misdirection is clever.B&W lighting is acceptable though conventional. Background music is a tad manipulative, which is consistent with many films from that era. Casting is fine. Acting inclines toward the exaggerated, yet that is subtly consistent with the underlying story concept. The film does not take itself too seriously, and it should be watched as slightly comical.There's no great thematic depth to the story. The appeal lies entirely in the film's entertainment value. But the surprise ending makes "Shadows On The Stairs" one of the better whodunit mysteries from the 1940s.

This is a stagy film with a group of idiosyncratic characters, roaming around a boarding house. Everyone is a suspect; everyone has some strange being about them. When a man is murdered, a group of buffoonish police infiltrate the house and act like Pirates of Panzance idiots. Don't even try to talk about motivations or realities because you won't find them here. We have, of course, the handsome smug young man who is "writing his play." If this is what he came up with the cop who implies that he has no profession is probably right. The acting is stilted. Some of the characters are strictly comic and there are those long pauses for us to laugh. Whether we should hold this to today's standards or not isn't the issue. There were well-done films in 1941 as well as now. This just lacked pizazz. And the ending is most disappointing.

I was surprised to see the Warner Brothers/First National name attached to this film; their many movies of the era often presented a social ill as a backdrop to a story headlined by one of their main contract players. "Shadows on the Stairs" seems to have been done with just entertainment value in mind, and it works, up to a point. Had the story finished as the mystery it set out to be I would have been much more satisfied. However the "twist" ending only insures that it never actually occurred, which leaves one feeling somehow cheated.With that off my chest, I'll agree that there were some interesting characters and a curious set up designed to keep the viewer off balance. The opening scene in particular had a Charlie Chan feel to it, complete with dark alleys and a dock scene involving some type of contraband. The denture challenged Miss Snell (Mary Field) and the comical constable (Charles Irwin) provided laughs both intentional and otherwise.The two questions viewers will ask themselves along the way are "What's in the box?" and "Who's under the shawl?". At film's end they are both a moot point of course, but that still leaves one question. Why would the key of any occupant at the Armitage boarding house be able to open all of the rooms?

With a cast like this, a B-movie mystery just can't miss. But first you must skip over the juvenile leads, both male and female, and look beyond them to the talented, polished and very-experienced supporting cast.Frieda Inescort, past her girlish good-looks stage, gives an outstanding performance as the duplicitous, cheating landlady of the boarding house where the murder takes place. Turhan Bey, then a young actor of considerable skill with an already notable acting history, plays another ethnic role-- the sort in which he was most typecast- that of the mysterious "easterner" --turban and all.Veteran actors Paul Cavanagh and Miles Mander round out this superb cast. You may recognize both from many 1940's supporting roles; Mander was also a director of early silents.Beware of nay-sayers who are always trying to compare films of this era with today's output-- Phrases like "it does (or doesn't) show it's age" or "it does (or doesn't) hold up today" are meaningless when viewing films of this genre. In fact, such comparisons are boring and tedious.This is a fun low budget effort, with an able cast, a crazy plot-line (why not?), and a few hysterical scenes (like the boarder who won't talk to the police because she's lost her false teeth).Recommended. Don't miss it.