The Lady in Scarlet (1935) - A Quick Mystery That's Mostly About Bonds

Should you actually watch this?

If you have an hour to kill and you really like those old black-and-white mysteries where everyone wears a suit even when they are sleeping, then yes. It is a solid choice for a rainy afternoon.

But if you hate movies where the plot relies on complicated financial documents like stolen bonds, you are going to be very bored. This isn't a thriller; it is more like watching people argue in a very fancy living room.

The movie starts off with an art dealer named Oliver who is clearly not a very nice guy. He gets murdered, which is pretty much the job description for art dealers in movies from 1935.

Then we meet Oliver Keith, the private investigator played by Reginald Denny. He has this very energetic way of talking that makes you feel like he drank about six cups of coffee right before the camera started rolling.

The Art of the Mystery

I noticed that the art gallery scenes feel weirdly small. It is supposed to be this high-end place, but it looks like they just moved three statues into a hallway and called it a day.

There is a scene where they are looking for the "Lady in Scarlet," and the way the camera zooms in on her face is just a bit too dramatic. It almost made me laugh because the music gets so loud for no reason.

Reginald Denny is actually pretty charming as the lead. He doesn't act like a tough guy, he acts more like a guy who is annoyed that he has to solve a crime while he could be doing something else.

It reminds me a little bit of the vibe in Secrets of the Night, where the mystery is less about the "who" and more about how many characters they can cram into one house. Although this one stays a bit more focused on the art world.

"I'm not interested in the law, I'm interested in the truth." - A classic PI line that sounds cool even if it doesn't make much sense.

Specific Weird Things I Noticed

• The phones in this movie are huge. Like, you could use one to defend yourself in a fight.
• Nobody seems particularly sad that the art dealer died. They all just want to know where the money is.
• There is a character who keeps touching his tie every time he gets nervous, and once you notice it, you can't stop looking at it.
• The lighting in the office scenes is super dark for no reason. I think they were trying to be moody, but it just looks like they forgot to pay the electric bill.

The writing is actually better than I expected. Helen Logan and the other writers gave the characters some snappy things to say, even if the actual mystery gets a bit muddled in the middle.

Speaking of muddled, the whole subplot about the stolen bonds is a mess. I tried to follow who had which bond and why they were stolen, but eventually, I just gave up and waited for the PI to explain it at the end.

Dorothy Revier is the "Lady" in the title, and she does a good job of looking mysterious. She has this way of standing perfectly still that makes everyone else in the room look like they are twitching.

I wish we saw more of her earlier on. The movie spends a lot of time with the male leads talking about her before she actually does anything important.

Is it better than other 30s mysteries?

It is definitely better than Something Different, which felt like it would never end. The Lady in Scarlet at least has the decency to keep things moving.

It doesn't have the heart of a movie like My Best Girl, but it isn't trying to be a romance. It's a puzzle, even if some of the pieces are missing or don't quite fit.

One reaction shot near the end lingers for so long it becomes funny. The guy just stares at the floor for like five seconds too long, and you can almost hear the director forgot to yell "cut."

The ending is a bit of a rush. It feels like they realized they only had five minutes of film left and had to reveal the killer immediately.

Wait, did I mention the bonds? Seriously, there are so many papers being shuffled around in this movie. If you like office supplies, this is the film for you.

Final Thoughts on the Vibe

The movie is clunky but charming. It is the kind of thing you'd find on a deep-dive movie channel at 2 AM and actually stay awake to finish.

It isn't a masterpiece, and it won't change your life. But as a piece of 1935 history, it's a fun little time capsule of how people thought smart detectives acted.

Just don't expect the plot to make perfect sense. Just enjoy the hats and the snappy dialogue and the weirdly aggressive phone usage.

It's an okay movie. Not great, but definitely not a waste of time if you like the genre.