Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 15 July 1935 by Metro Goldwyn Mayer Corp. New York opening at the Capitol: 26 July 1935. U.S. release: 12 July 1935. Australian release: 1 April 1936. 7 reels. 70 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Who killed a racketeering investment broker? His partner? A disgruntled client? A discarded lady? A rival "businessman"?COMMENT: "A"-grade murder mystery which plays scrupulously fair to its viewers. In fact, I would say it's too fair, as a keen-eyed and acute-eared audience will have no trouble spotting the killer straight away. Nonetheless, it's directed with pace and enacted by as fine a cast as M-G-M ever assembled. Tracy in his first outing for the Lion provides a typically driving performance in a characterization which seems remarkably close to the knuckle. Miss Bruce makes a charming and sympathetic "love" interest. Although his role can be counted as small, "Shorty" Stewart will not disappoint his fans as his gawky mannerisms and drawling delivery are already fully fledged. We also enjoyed Lionel Atwill's ingratiating police captain. Aided by a first-class script, Atwill (in a rare totally-on-the-side-of-the-angels part) builds an uncommonly rounded portrait of a dedicated detective.As for the support players, just look at that cast! I'd love to go through the list and congratulate all, one by one, but let's just say that Lucien Littlefield, as the patently law-abiding shooting gallery-man, and Charles Trowbridge, an immaculate District Attorney, are especially fortunate both in the size and scope of their roles and the vital way in which their scenes are directed by tenacious Tim Whelan.As well as its powerful direction and cup-runneth-over assembly of Hollywood's brightest players, The Murder Man also boasts a friendly budget with top-of-the-drawer production values plus atmospherically A-1 behind-the-camera credits.

vincentlynch-moonoi I should preface my comments by saying that Spencer Tracy is one of my two very favorite movie actors. The first time I watched this film, I panned it. Today I watched it again, and I'm going to revise my review a bit.The problem with this film is not the acting. Spencer Tracy -- in his first MGM film -- does rather well in that category. There are times that, without words, Tracy characterizes a man with deep inner turmoil, which is exactly what this film needed. Virginia Bruce does well as the love interest. Lionel Atwill is acceptable as a police investigator. James Stewart has one of the most irrelevant roles of his career here, but then again, it was his very first film. The problem here also isn't the general story line. In a general sense, it works.But, as they say, the devil is in the details. For example, yes, reporter Tracy could seemingly report the news before it even happened...well, while we later learn that he knew things first hand, he didn't know how a police detective or a lawyer or a judge would react to certain events, so a newspaper -- even back then -- wouldn't be printing stories that might very well not pan out as reported. I don't expect film trials to be realistic, but here, each lawyer asked each witness one, or at most two, questions. Totally unrealistic. And then there's the first 10 minutes of the film -- a total waste of celluloid and adds little to the story; once Tracy shows up...asleep on a carousel, it does get more interesting, but everything is just a little too convenient for Tracy's character. But the, without warning, the last 20 minutes of the film comes alive as we find out that Tracy is the actual killer.With a good manuscript, this could have been a great film...but you have to at least give some hints to the audience that something is amiss. Not so here. The first half was so bad, that were Tracy not a personal favorite, I would have turned the film off.So watch the film to see great acting by Spencer Tracy. Tolerate the script.

David (Handlinghandel) Spencer Tracy is the title character. He is a newspaper's ace crime reporter in this very good movie that could have been great.I've read quite a lot about Tracy's life. The character he plays seems to have many traits and behavioral patterns in common with the real Spencer Tracy, who was apparently a far darker person than many of the benevolent roles he played.This moves along at a good clip. At times it's upsetting, at others it's exciting.Virginia Bruce is the lonely-hearts columnist at the paper. She has crush on Tracy but he has secrets and a past that have kept him from allowing a relationship to develop. (A couple years earlier, before the Code, it well might have developed anyway.) Bruce was a beautiful woman, with a poignant, ethereal quality. Here, however, she is unflatteringly costumed, made-up, and/or lit. She comes across more as a mannish, dowdy old maid schoolteacher than the romantic leading lady she was."Fury" is not a sunny movie, to say the least. This is another movie that shows a different Tracy we know from his two 1930s Oscar-winning roles, the collaborations with Katharine Hepburn, and "Father of the Bride" and its sequel.The very darkest of all his movies, however, is "The People Against O'Hara." I consider that one a classic. This is not quite a classic but it's unique and gripping.

BaronBl00d Two financiers and swindlers get theirs when one is shot and killed and the other is accused and tried for the crime in this early, somewhat creaky film from the 1930's. The film has at its core the story of one newspaperman's spiral into drunkenness as the wife he once had has died and his father has lost all his savings to said swindlers. Spencer Tracy plays the newspaperman as only he can essay any role: with complete conviction and enormous talent. While this film is not great, it is a solid film on all fronts and has an intriguing conclusion. I enjoyed the look at what newspapers were like back then, the relationship to police that reporters had, and the wonderful character acting with the likes of Lionel Atwill, a young Jimmy Stewart, Virginia Bruce, William Demarest, and Robert Barrat as a hounding editor. Sure, lots of the journalism clichés are used here, but let's remember that for its time they were a lot fresher than they are now. Director Tim Whelan is solid behind the camera and manages to give Tracy(with his help) and Bruce some depth. The mystery isn't too hard to figure out, but the way it was handled was what struck me as somewhat inventive.