classicsoncall This is generally an 'in the middle' murder mystery and detective story, but considering it's mid-Thirties release it's got a few things going for it. What sells it is the banter between private detective Oliver Keith (Reginald Denny) and his attractive younger secretary Ella (Patricia Farr). It would have been more believable if the story kept any semblance of a relationship between the two out of it, as Denny was twice as old as his co-star in real life. But for the most part it worked, especially at the end when they smooched it up to allay viewer fears that Denny's character might have been a bit too abusive.For all intents and purposes, this could have been virtually any movie detective's show of the era - think Charlie Chan, Mister Wong, Bulldog Drummond, or the favorite on this board, Nick Charles. The story plants a number of red herrings surrounding the murder of antique dealer Albert Sayre (John T. Murray), the most obvious being his wife Julia (Dorothy Revier), and business associate Dyker (Jack Adair). The mystery is solved using your typical 'gather all the suspects in one room' approach, as the detective hero successfully conveys the solution of the case by eliminating the suspects one by one.The bigger mystery once the film is over is how they came up with the title. The term 'Lady in Scarlet' was mentioned early on in reference to a play Albert and Julia Sayre were discussing, she having favored one called 'The Frolic of '32'. However none of the principal female characters had any connection to the title by virtue of their attire. Be that as it may, it made me think of a similarly named Sherlock Holmes flick from a decade later called "The Woman in Green". In either case, who could tell when the picture's in black and white.

GManfred "The Lady In Scarlet" is a good murder mystery with a good plot and a good star turn by Reginald Denny as the detective/ hero. As expected, it is a bit dated but engrossing nonetheless. It was written better than interpreted by the actors and it suffers from several lapses into amateur acting. Apparently the budget was so tight that second takes were in short supply, and it needed a few.Enjoyed the interplay between Denny and his secretary, Patricia Farr. As several contributors have noted, it bears a strong resemblance to that of Nick and Nora Charles, only not as witty. Special mention should be made of Jack Adair, who plays a crooked art dealer. I have awarded him the Hand-Painted Mustache Cup for the Worst Performance By A Supporting Actor In A Poverty Row Movie. It has to be seen to be believed - breathtakingly bad by any measure, and ruins every scene he is in.Good story, and in only 65 minutes. It will keep you guessing right up to the end. It makes you think a bigger studio could have done wonders with material such as this. And hired some better actors.

JohnHowardReid Universal was the only major Hollywood studio to have regular dealings with Poverty Row, so it comes as something of a surprise to see a 20th Century-Fox package wrapped up in the mantle of Chesterfield producer, George R. Batcheller. Admittedly, by Mr Batcheller's extremely sparse expenditure norms, the budget for this one is somewhat superior, but nonetheless the witty script by Fox's ace writing team of Robert Ellis and Helen Logan is not all that well served by plodding Reginald Denny (at least he plays the role straight) as the egomaniac detective and most of the second-string support players. Thomas, Bush, Murray and Kelly are especially dull in key roles, but fortunately the girls are okay. In fact, Patricia Farr (part of the Fox package) is quite winning as the put-upon secretary (even though she is forced to wear the same drab outfit throughout the entire movie). As for the solution of the mystery, this is a bit of a let-down, although it will come as no surprise to most fans. The real killer is Charles Lamont's scrupulously unexciting direction.

dbborroughs Reginald Denny stars a a detective who gets involved with the murder of an antique dealer.For the most part this is a by the book murder mystery with several interesting twists in it. The plot basically is that a wealthy antique dealer is suspicious that his wife is having an affair. People are watching the house and the husband appears to be involved in crooked dealings. The wife while out with her lover notices an old friend and semi famous detective at the bar. The lover leaves and the wife talks to the detective whom she talks into taking her home. Once there they find the husband dead and a very twisty, and not entirely fair, murder investigation is set in motion.Denny is as always a joy to behold and his interplay with his girl Friday is funny, if not rather cruel. Frankly if it wasn't clear they loved each other it would be abusive.A friend watched most of this with me and sat there in disbelief at the creakiness of it and of the bad acting. But this is an independent programmer that was made fast and cheap so that fact it is of any quality is usually a plus. Its not as bad as she made it out to be, and I don't think she hated it, she just enjoyed the camp value of it all.I liked it, but I didn't love it. Its a movie that sort of is unexceptional in anyway, and so just sort of is. Its a pleasant time killer and nothing more. In answer to Lucy's question, yes at some point I will watch this again, if only to see what I missed plot wise since the clues appear to all be there even if not clearly....