Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

JohnHowardReid Director: TAY GARNETT. Screenplay: Ken Englund. Adapted by John Hunter Lay and Robert Tallmen from the 1939 novel Send Another Coffin by Frank G. Presnell. Photography: Merritt Gerstad. Film editors: Otho Lovering, Dorothy Spencer. Music composed and directed by Werner Janssen. Song, "We've Got Love" (Terry) by George R. Browne (lyrics) and Jules Styne (music). Art directors: Alexander Golitzen and Richard Irvine. Set decorators: Julie Heron. Costumes designed by Travis Banton. Sound: Fred Lau. Producers: Tay Garnett, Walter Wanger. Copyright 26 January 1944 by Walter Wanger. Released through United Artists: 22 December 1939 (U.S.A.), 15 May 1940 (New York opening at Loew's State), 15 April 1940 (U.K.), 5 April 1940 (Australia). 85 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Goodtime girl (Claire Dodd) is murdered in her luxury pent-house. A bizarre range of fast-talking, clam-baking suspects include sugar daddy Edward Arnold, ex-husband Doug Dumbrille, good friend Pat O'Brien, jealous teenager Ruth Terry, and gangster Bernard Nedell.COMMENT: In his autobiography, Garnett states that he was most unhappy with the way this movie was edited. The quick cuts and dissolves were not part of his original plan. Personally, I like the fast pace. I don't think anyone else will complain either, especially as the sound on the otherwise 7/10 Alpha Video is somewhat muffled and you miss a third of the dialogue anyway. What we have here is a screwball mystery thriller with some very noirish overtones. Production values, as we might expect from producer Walter Wanger are excellent. I really love all the super Travis Banton costumes that vivacious Ruth Terry (in her first starring role) models throughout.

Rainey Dawn I couldn't sit through the bad jokes, mildly okay acting and boring story - I simply could not finish watching this film. I mean patty-cake?! They were playing patty-cake! Is that suppose to be funny? I mean it's two lame characters that I don't care about so I didn't even enjoy that scene... really if it were characters that I liked I might have, and most likely would have, found humor in it but as it is that great scene had me fed-up with the film.Some people like this film while others of us found it boring, I'm in the latter group. It's far from a must see comedy mystery but I'm sure entertaining for some audiences - I'm just not one of them.If you are super bored one evening and catch this one on it might provide something to watch - it's just not a great watch.2/10

calvinnme The overriding story of the film - the murder of a well-known party girl (Claire Dodd) whose body is discovered by crusading attorney John Webb (Pat O'Brien) who also happens to be a former boyfriend - and things don't look good for our hero who is instantly murder suspect number one. Furthermore Webb is trying to get the goods on graft king Vincent Cushing (Edward Arnold). Webb thinks Cushing did the murder and set him up to take the fall, and thus spends the rest of the movie trying to clear his name. The movie is well-paced and everything is moving along in an interesting fashion when every few minutes - like interference on a radio channel - in pops Ruth Terry's character and her incessant yammering. She has her eye set on Webb from the moment she sees him although she says she's 18 and he looks old enough to be her father. She lies about her background, so why couldn't she be lying about her age? If Webb were smarter he'd be equally as worried about getting involved in a statutory rape rap as he is murder. What girl of 18 gets dressed up in a revealing gown, goes to a party full of known hoods, and then is shocked when one puts the moves on her? Or doesn't have the sense to NOT take her dress off in front of a grown man when she's alone in his apartment? She's either 13 or she doesn't have all of her marbles.I waste so much time on Terry's character here because it distracts from what could have been a very good film. I took off two stars just for the annoyance factor alone. Other than that - and its a big "that" - the film is a great noir with an interesting twist at the end. Robert Osborne said that director Tay Garnett became ill during filming and Walter Wanger had to finish the film out himself with Garnett very upset at the end result. I can only guess that Mr. Garnett's objections were the same as mine.

GManfred Ever get stuck watching a movie and you couldn't wait until it ended? This was one of the few that I've seen. Excruciating is a good word. Only a great cast saves it from a lower rating - makes you wonder what they could have done with better material."Slightly Honorable" can't decide if it's a comedy or a mystery picture and fails on both levels - not funny and not very mysterious. Ruth Terry is 'cute and perky' but is an annoying presence. Eve Arden is wasted, as is Edward Arnold. Pat O'Brien does his best but it's not enough. The disjointed storyline is not believable and not worth recounting.If this picture is shown on a rainy day and you have nothing to do, find a good book.