Great old original. A fine film from start to finish. They really had a touch in the early days of talkies that is the envy of the post- modern cellulite peddlers. Tarantino should consider a return to silent films!

Alright, this is totally off-topic, having nothing to do with the film, but I couldn't resist Debra's comment about wanting to be better at observation. This skill-building exercise helped me, and it can help you, too.

Take a friend with you to the mall or your downtown shopping district, and find a large storefront display window that is filled with a variety of items, both large and small, so that you have lots of detail to observe. (This exercise works better if you choose a display of items with which you are not overly familiar. If you have 50 pairs of shoes in your closet, for example, you are better off not choosing a shoe store.) Have your friend time you, and study what is in the window for about 60 seconds, taking in and memorizing all you can. Then turn your back on it, and describe in as much detail as you can what is in the window and where it is located, while your friend is facing the window and checking up on you. When you've exhausted your memory, turn back to the window and have your friend point out what you got and what you missed. Then find another window and repeat the process. To make it fun, trade places with your friend, and compare notes on who does better. Keep this up for several weeks, and both your memory and powers of observation will definitely improve!

If you want to see this exercise in action, see the movie Kim, and watch for the scene where Kim first meets the yogi (lama?) who becomes his guru. This yogi already has a student, another young boy, who demonstrates his powers of observation and memory by accurately identifying and describing the location of each precious stone in a group laid out on a small tray, after having looking at the tray for only a moment.

Well, I didn't guess who done it, but the very good looking David Manners points out some clever Columboesque type clues. Bela Lugosi (bit part), David Manners and Edward Van Sloan are teamed again having worked previously in Dracula. Overall, this is a decent murder mystery that tests skill in observation (something i wish i was better at). Manners asks "What do you see?".

Well done slightly humourous dialogues, a screenwriter as over enthusiastic amateur detective always ahead of the police, 3 "Dracula" stars meeting again, what do you want more? I got the wrong clue and was totally surprised about the solution.

A philandering actor is murdered on a movie set. There are many with motives, but the dumb cops pick his ex-wife as the chief suspect. Enter a handsome script writer to save the day. This is a good little who-done-it with plenty of humor supplied by a not-so-dumb studio cop and the studio head who is a parody of Sam Goldwyn. If you think about it, the modus operandi is really farfetched. So don't think about it. Why ruin the fun? Bela Lugosi and Edward "Van Helsing" Van Slone have supporting roles as studio executives. Fast paced and well produced with a good cast. An enjoyable hour and ten minutes, especially for classic mystery fans. FOOTNOTE: As Hollywood's Yogi Berra, independent producer Sam Goldwyn's infamous mangling of the English language resulted in timeless quotes like, "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on," "If I could drop dead right now, I'd be the happiest man alive" and "Include me out." Google his name for dozens more.

This is a pretty good who-done-it set mostly in a movie studio. A screenwriter acts as a detective, and the film follows him as he solves two related murders, The police are antagonistic to the screenwriter's efforts as he discovers clues and shoots down their ideas, though not totally incompetent as in other movies of the period. I would have enjoyed it more, but for all the missing frames, which affected the dialog more than the picture. The actors did a good job and were fun to watch.

I downloaded the 691MB MPEG4. Compression artifacts are visible throughout, but not obtrusively so.