Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

MartinHafer This film was made by the low-budget Weiss Brothers Studio and this surprised me. I knew that the Weiss' had made some silent comedy shorts with Ben Turpin and Snub Pollard, but I didn't know that their tiny production company made any sound films. Apparently this is among their later productions and it stars Virginia Valli—a name virtually forgotten today.The story is about a seemingly perfect marriage. When the wife catches her husband with another, she runs to Reno for a divorce. Once there, the husband seeks her out, as he wants a reconciliation. Near the end, however, the story gets really weird as a murder appears in the plot from completely out in left field—leading to an interesting conclusion.While the story in this B-movie wasn't bad, the acting sometimes was. The worst of the bad actors was probably the maid near the beginning of the film—she could barely recite her lines better than a drunk robot! But, Clarence Wilson as Mr. Garrett was a bright spot in the film. The skeletal actor was a common bit actor in various films (including playing 'Mr. Geezer' in the Little Rascals films) but here he has a larger than usual and more comical role than you'd expect from him—and he makes the most of it—making at least his scenes very entertaining as a shifty divorce attorney. Sadly, though, this isn't enough to make this film anything more than just passable entertainment.

asinyne Like everyone else I suppose, I got this little gem as part of a Mill Creek collection. I really, really enjoyed it...unlike the other reviewers. In some ways this film is weirdly familiar to the Stanley Kubrick flick Eyes Wide Shut. Most of the movie concerns itself with a happily married couple who do some serious pushing the envelope in regards to sexual boundaries and their marriage. This theme is watered down a bit with the device that the couple is possibly going through a divorce...something that neither actually wants one little bit. At one point the couple find themselves on a double date and each is partnered with a new person(neither seems to mind to much either). There is a lot of sexual stuff going on here. It all eventually leads to violence and at that point the plot really gets cooking. Unfortunately the film's resolution comes a bit to quick and that really puts a damper on what was an excellent buildup to some real tension. I still liked it a lot, just wish there had been a couple more scenes worked in there near the end...to string we, the audience along a bit cause the ride was really getting good. I would have liked a bit more angst thrown in there after the couple found themselves caught in an amazing paradox.I can see why this movie isn't quite everyone's cup of tea. It is VERY sophisticated and subtle. My hats off to the writer and director. The cast was also very effective...especially the leading lady who was beautiful and a talented actress. I found her very believable.Considering that this film was made eighty years ago, the transfer was really outstanding and the sound was very good too. Art Class films, the company who produced this one, made some pretty good films based on what I've been able to find so far. I enjoyed it very much, could have used another five or six minutes but they got a lot right with this one. Check it out for something pretty darn unique.

classicsoncall Well you'll just have to see the humor in this picture because the story itself is largely unexplainable. When a pretty young wife (Virginia Valli) is cheated on by her husband (Jameson Thomas), she heads off to Reno for a quickie divorce, engaging the services of one of the most annoying screen attorneys I've ever seen (Clarence Wilson). Later, husband John Wyatt seeks out the same attorney in an attempt to reconcile with his wife. Questions abound regarding lawyer/client confidentiality, as well as conflict of interest when lawyer Garrett accepts a retainer from both parties. I'm no expert, but that seems just the slightest bit unethical to me.Then there's that scene with the police chief towards the end of the story when he asks Wyatt to confess to a murder to let his wife June off the hook. And he agrees! What?!?! And where exactly did that conversation take place? It wasn't in a police station, because the room was decked out like a library! Pay attention though, and you'll catch an interesting quip from the bald headed old coot who traded his hairpiece for a stake at the gambling tables. Sitting next to Wyatt at the night club, he's overheard speaking to his lady companion about a trip to Africa, where animals go in and out your window, and you find 'beavers under your bed'. I don't believe there are beavers in Africa, but I don't think he was talking about the four legged kind to begin with. Have to love that pre-Code stuff.Anyway, like a lot of these films of the era, you'll just have to see 'em to believe 'em, and if you're like me, you won't believe 'em even then. I'd like to say if you've seen one you've seen them all, but that's just not the case. Pick up the sixty disc/two hundred fifty film DVD Mystery Collection from Mill Creek Entertainment and it will have you scratching your head for answers picture after picture with offerings like this.

JohnHowardReid Actually both the crime and mystery angles in this so-named "Crime Classic" are slight. While there is a murder in the story, it occurs very late in the piece. The movie's best moments all happen in the first ten minutes or so, when the lovely Dixie Lee makes her spectacular entrance—although what potential she sees in dull-as-a-doormat Jameson Thomas is open to question. The rest of the movie revolves around a lot of ho-hum footage in which that perennial movie drunk, Arthur Housman, performs his funny-as-watching-ice-melt inebriated act to such wearisome length, it comes as something of a relief when he's suddenly removed from the plot by an unrecognizable, overly face-painted Carmelita Geraghty. Not unexpectedly, director Raymond Cannon handles the bulk of this largely boring, marking-time script with competence but little inspiration. But surprisingly for a Poverty Row effort, production values look quite smart and feature well-dressed studio interiors, peopled with lots of good-looking extras and bit-players.