Such a frustrating disappointment

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

I've always liked Tom Walls' farces – this is a more straightforward comedy, full of frothy sometimes witty dialogue and period furnishings with music veering from staid British dance band to hot American and a corny yet cogent script. Mind you, it also had an innocent bystander shot by hoodlums at point blank defending "a string of duds" from being stolen.Mysterious and confident cracksman robs to order for almost purely altruistic reasons, but takes great exception when he's embroiled with and considered by the police to be the head hoodlum of a rather nasty gang of thieves so decides decidedly to clear his alias. It's inventive and predictable at the same time, interesting and so-so – basically I enjoyed it! It was the first time of viewing, I really wouldn't mind taking another crack at it and viewing it again sometime. Tom Walls is urbane and monocled, Lilli Palmer is elegant and shrewd, Noel Madison is snarly and impetuous – and everything else runs true to form too. There seems to be even more of an age-gulf between Lilli and the rest of the cast which was ignored of course so we have to accept it too and put any qualms we may have down to our collective post-rock and roll cynicism. The other star of the picture is Art Deco – for example the "hotel" and its interiors and furniture where a lot of the story is based is quite breathtaking at times in its poignant gleaming beauty. Not so long ago this fashion was sneered at, now that it's becoming more obvious we're living in a completely styleless age the focus on the past only gets sharper.And yes, that's clearly a sound mike seen dangling in the ornate mirror in Lilli Palmer's apartment at 46 minutes – even that's interesting to view! Enjoyable stuff, but probably only to those of us who appreciate British pre-War comedies.

I had never heard of this film before and therefore had no expectations. I was also not familiar with any of the cast members. The movie was much more interesting than I would have thought with one big caveat: the lead male role, who plays "Crackerjack" is much too old for the part, and smokes incessantly, which is a distinct turn-off for me. Any romantic feelings between the two leads seemed highly unlikely for this reason alone. The part needed a Cary Grant or a David Niven. Although I found no fault with Tom Walls' acting, he is simply way too old for Lilli Palmer. The plot twists may have appeared in other movies, but none that I have seen before, and this viewer they were refreshing and fun. I was caught off guard with the plot on several occasions. So, while I can't give this any more than 7 stars, it could still be a fairly pleasant entertainment, especially if one enjoys films of the 1930s.

This an early attempt at the gentleman thief idea and it works beautifully. The film offers much elegance, wit and sophistication, just like its two stars. If only Hollywood produced this type of film today.

A typically 30s-style charismatic gentleman thief and master of disguise tackles a dangerous criminal gang while posing as a butler at a stately home. Vintage in age rather than in quality, and not as good as the identically-titled British kids' TV programme of three or four decades later.