Sadly Over-hyped

Fresh and Exciting

Don't listen to the negative reviews

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

It's not Nick and Nora, but it still works. The formula is similar and there is a murder mystery to be solved, and it's a pretty good one. the big difference is that Myrna Loy is not here and her place is taken by Jean Arthur, and she proves to be a very adequate replacement. She is the Ex-Mrs. Bradford in the title and also has the requisite comedic touch for such a part, and helps to keep the picture moving at the quick, breezy pace the genre is known for.The plot involves a murder at a race track and another one connected to the first. If you are a fan of the Thin Man series you will enjoy this one as they are remarkably alike in pacing and screenplay. And the intricate mystery plot will keep you guessing right up to the end. A very enjoyable 80 minutes, even without Mrs. Charles.

I was so taken with the chemistry between Powell and Arthur that I barely followed the plot, which was OK but had some holes. Horse-racing jockey dies, mystery ensues, involving gangs and money. The murder instrument and method were not very realistic, reminiscent of the James Bond scene with the tarantula. Sorry, but I'd guess movie audiences even back then were too sophisticated to fall for that.So, I was mainly just queuing up for their scenes together, which was most of them. Their dialog was so witty and sharp, her endearing and wily attempts to show her affection and recapture his love were so real, and his feeble attempts to off her advances when it was obvious he loved her back, made it that much more enjoyable. There was real affection afoot between those two, and the movie cameras that separated them from us could not hope to hide it.I rate their chemistry much higher than that between Powell and Loy in The Thin Man series. It really sparkled. The rest of the movie could have been the corniest thing going (and at times, it was), but it wouldn't have mattered. And because of these two, this movie had me not wanting to miss a minute.Altogether, Powell and Arthur had 5 collaborations, two in 1929, two in 1930, and this one in 1936. We were robbed in that this medium was not seized upon and repeated. It's a shame we couldn't be treated to more of these.

An OK mystery, but I don't get some of the rave reviews here. Were we all watching the same film? Anyone who was paying attention had the murder method figured 15 minutes before Powell catches on. Gathering all the suspects in one room is another weak ploy by writers not nearly as clever as The Thin Man crew (after all, Powell has already seen the film of the killer, already has the evidence, and already knows whodunnit, so what's the point?). You can see most of the laughs coming long before they happen, very few are actually funny, and the rest don't make any sense. Give it a 6 for effort, especially since there are so many good performances from most, though not all, of the crew. Powell is much better than the material. Arthur just seems unable to work with lame jokes and comic devices that keep falling flat (can you blame her?). The problem is a weak, contrived script. Did the writers really think we wouldn't guess who walked off with the gelatin on Powell's scalpel? Gimme a break. Ignore the humor and you have at least a decent mystery. As for the laughs alone, I give it a 2. I understand this was one of RKO's biggest hits in 1936. Must have been the big names that brought the crowds in. Frankly, I would have asked for a refund.

This movie was made the same year as the first Thin Man film, and it's another stylish black-and-white murder mystery starring the same leading man (William Powell), so comparisons are inevitable. Its script isn't nearly as strong as the best of the Thin Man flicks, but if you're a big TM fan, this film can ALMOST feel like an extra entry in the series -- except that the fabulous Myrna Loy is nowhere in sight. Powell is just as polished here as he is in the Thin Man movies (though seeing him perform a chaste autopsy reminds you that he's playing a doctor, not Nick Charles), and he's well paired with Jean Arthur playing the titular ex-wife, who's bucking for a reconciliation with her reluctant former hubby. Her Paula comes across as a slightly smarter Gracie Allen in an endless stream of gorgeous designer gowns, sparkling diamonds, and perky hats. (In fact, if you're paying close attention, you'll notice that she switches costumes at a couple of slightly inexplicable moments.) The couple bickers well (but not at the break-neck pace of Powell and Loy), and there is a little bit of simmering sexual tension (but again, not in the same league as P&L). A typical exchange: Paula: She was wearing a cocktail dress. Bradford: What's a cocktail dress? Paula: (with a kooky smile) Something to spill cocktails on! Bradford: (deadpan) That sounds reasonable.It feels like the writer couldn't quite decide if he wanted to present a relationship-driven comedy or a thrilling drama, and the undeniably talented actors seem equally confused at times. Still, it's ultimately an enjoyable film of its type (though what "type" that exactly is, is open to debate), and if you enjoy golden oldies -- and especially if you're fond of the two leads -- you won't be disappointed.