A Door Opens: A Dusty Old Chase

Is it worth the time?

Honestly, only if you have a soft spot for black-and-white crime stories that don’t try to be anything more than they are. If you want snappy, modern pacing, you are going to get bored in about ten minutes. But if you like watching people walk slowly through dimly lit sets while holding guns, you’ll probably be fine.

The movie is about a group of five thieves who swiped 300,000 marks. A detective is on their tail, but the whole thing feels like a very long, very polite game of tag. It reminded me a bit of the atmosphere in The Under Dog, just with less barking and more guys in hats.

Small details that stuck

There is this one scene where a character opens a door—hence the title, I guess—and the way the light hits the floorboards is honestly the most interesting thing in the room. It’s funny how a movie about a major heist ends up being so quiet. You can hear the footsteps echoing on the stage floors way too clearly.

The thieves aren't exactly criminal masterminds. They spend half their time bickering in rooms that look like they were decorated by someone who had never actually seen a real hideout. It lacks the grit you might expect from a story about a bank robbery. It's all very theater-y, if that makes sense.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of A Door Opens (1933) through its definitive frames.

The rhythm of it

The detective character is played with this weird, stoic exhaustion. He doesn't seem to be in a rush to catch anyone. Maybe he’s just tired of the script? There’s a moment where he stares at a wall for what feels like a full minute, and I swear I heard someone cough in the background of the shot. They didn't even edit that out.

• The heist happens so fast you almost miss it.
• The coats in this movie are fantastic, if you like vintage fashion.
• Nobody ever seems to be sweating, even when they’re 'on the run.'

It definitely isn't as punchy as Hooks and Jabs. It feels like a stage play that someone decided to film because they had a camera lying around. Is it bad? Not really. It’s just very, very flat.

There's a strange lack of urgency for a movie where 300,000 marks are missing. The thieves seem more worried about their lunch than the law. It makes you wonder if they even wanted the money in the first place. 🕵️‍♂️

If you're looking for a masterpiece, keep walking. If you want to see how they made crime movies when the biggest special effect was a flickering lightbulb, you might get a kick out of it. Just don't expect to remember much of it by the time the credits roll.