Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Konterr Brilliant and touching

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

mahony-7 The story is told in recorded flashback a la Double Indemnity.Raymond Burr plays a lawyer who defends his lover who has been accused of murder.Burr brings looming veritas to the role.Angela Lansbury plays the lover with restrained evil.The court room sequence is very good. Perhaps Raymond Burr is practicing for his later role as Perry Mason.John Dehner puts in a good performance as the prosecuting counsel.The climax is a stunner.Although it seems a cheap production, the camera work and lighting are effective.The background music, though not outstanding, supports the action and atmosphere.

dougdoepke A wife kills her husband, while she carries on an affair with his best friend who also happens to be a defense attorney. Inexpensive little programmer that would work just as well as a movie made for TV. Still it has a good tight script, with a few twists, and two fine actors. It's Raymond Burr a year before Perry Mason and I expect his courtroom scenes here did a lot to win him the lead in Mason. He carries them off with real authority. Then there's Lansbury as the calculating ice queen, and I stopped counting her smiles after one. She does make a convincing spider woman, however.There's little action, while the courtroom scene takes up a lot of time. Still the plot line is an interesting one of intrigue and misdirection. So there are compensations to the talky format. One does have to wonder, however, about attorney Carlson's (Burr) iron sense of retribution. It appears a key plot contrivance, but an interesting one given the circumstances of his guilt. Should mention, at the same time, the presence of the great John Dehner in the key supporting role of county DA. His is a familiar face from that time, and I don't think he ever turned in a second-rate performance, no matter the role. Anyway, it's highly obscure little movie, but not without compensations.

bob the moo Opening with attorney Craig Carlson buying a gun before settling down to leave a message for the police regarding a murder – his own impending murder, the film offers much in the way of plotting. We flashback to when Carlson confesses to his old friend that not only is his friend's wife leaving him, but that she is leaving to be with him and that he is representing her in the divorce. His friend takes it much better than expected but soon a moment of violence sees all the characters changed or shown in a new light, with the stakes high.I watched this film out of curiosity because not only it is now in the public domain but it also features two very famous names in the lead roles. The opening of the film is odd because it has no sound other than the music, which is an odd effect that doesn't help the atmosphere; likewise the visuals are too dark and not the layered sort of shadowing I'm used to with films from the period that do this sort of darkness well. The plot jumps to the crux of the matter very quickly and as a result it lacks build and development in the characters, robbing the film of audience involvement. What this leaves is the very stiff plotting which folds out reasonably well with interesting turns but nothing too thrilling or exciting. It isn't helped as an idea by just how very "television" the whole thing feels – it is stagey and the delivery of it all is stiff and lacks a spark that it badly needed.The acting is equally stiff and although this isn't too surprising, it is still disappointing. Burr is in the sort of stiff lawyer mode that would later work in Perry Mason but here it is too stiff and doesn't fit the material, I would have liked a bit of emotion in his delivery, particularly towards the back end of the film. By contrast Lansbury is a bit too hammy and melodramatic in her role, she is supposed to be a real femme fatale but she doesn't convince in that role at any point. The supporting players all go the same way – very stiff and lacking in delivery.Please Murder Me offers an interesting plot but it never really delivers it. The whole film lacks spark and life, which is partly due to the very stiff delivery across the board – cinematography is televisual at best, the direction is basic and the performances are just far too unnatural and lacking emotion. A shame because I was looking forward to seeing the two stars in an unusual vehicle, but this isn't much cop.

funkyfry Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.