charles-p-hall I didn't think Claude Rains had ever been in a stinker before, but here he is in this thing. I blame the director. A poor story is told in the most muddled way possible. Wives show up before husbands and you never can match them up, dead people come back to life, the three female leads are all of the same build, dressed in similar gowns, whose role in the film is not clear at all (girlfriend? secretary? producer? rich niece?). Claude's character goes by two names, neither of which you'll associate with him until later in the picture. So scenes where a woman is coming on to a man can be a cheating wife, a lonely single woman, niece cozying up to Uncle, who knows? Hurd Hatfield is wasted and you'll be lucky to figure out who he's married too before it doesn't matter. The second lead is Ted North, whom I've never seen before. For the plot to work some of the characters have to be really stupid (which they appear to be). If the movie weren't so dull you could watch it twice and see if it all made sense. I'll pass.

vincentlynch-moonoi I always look forward to seeing a Claude Rains film I haven't caught before. Oh well, you can't win them all. I continued watching this film because I was marveling at just how bad it was...and I realize I'm in the minority here. I do have to make a couple of exceptions to that general statement. Claude Rains is always a marvel to watch. I find him to be a rather unique character actor, and even in this very poor film, he shined.My first problem with the film is that I found the plot to be murky. It stumbled along in a jerky fashion. I was disappointed that the main character (Rains) had become a serial murderer...making it hard for him not to be caught. My second problem with the film was some of the worst acting I've seen in a significant film. Audrey Totter seemed to think that good acting was how she stood or how she held her arms. As far as any believable acting...well let's put it this way...what she displayed here was an unrealistic portrayal of a human being. Hurt Hatfield didn't do much better here. I was thinking that this had to be one of the earliest films of character actor Fred Clark, and indeed, it was his first credited film role. Rains was not the only actor who did well here. Joan Caulfield was very good also.To our reviewers who gave this film a 9...that must have been based on a hundred point scale.

Benedito Dias Rodrigues Why this picture is so unknown by us,maybe the good premisse falling dowm after a few little mistakes in the plot,some obscure happenings can explain it and some twists and many unbelievable facts make a damage without recovered on sight,the whole picture is supported by the fine casting strong direction and a fear atmosphere about to come,Claude Rains's character is certainly madness and without purpose at all,pure insanity instead master of mystery as he wants to imply yourself to the audience,sometimes quite absurd plot,sometimes don't!! Still .....for a movie by Michael Curtiz was to expect more!!Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8

Antonius Block Claude Rains is suave and sinister in this film noir drama from 1947, which is worth watching, but guard your expectations. Rains plays the mellifluous announcer of a murder mystery radio show, and his performance is one of the high points of the movie. The others are in the great shots that Director Michael Curtiz creates with shadows and reflections. In one fantastic scene early on, the camera takes us through the streets to a flashing neon sign for the "Hotel Peekskill", and while we hear Rains narrating his show, we see his hired heavy (Jack Lambert) lying in bed smoking. The last four letters are not really the ones showing through the window, but the psychological effect is such that that's what viewers 'see' and remember. In some other great moments, Rains's shadow stretches abnormally long across the floor as he walks away, and his reflection seen in a record warps slightly while it spins. I also loved the use of the 'high tech' audio equipment in his home.Unfortunately, the plot is second rate. There are several points that seem artificial and mostly unexplained, starting with the niece (Joan Caulfield) having apparently died and then coming back. There are also moments which don't make sense, particularly towards the end, but I won't spoil anything. The plot just seems too heavily constructed. It also suffers a bit from a lack of real suspense, though when Rains has Caulfield help him with a recording, we get an eerie feeling as to his intentions. As for the rest of the cast, Audrey Totter delivers some spice as his other niece and Constance Bennett some acerbic lines as his producer, but overall, it's pretty average. Entertaining, with its dramatic music and noir feel, but imperfect.