Only Hollywood would cast a very American actor as a member of the British aristocracy...but here they cast Robert Montgomery (with his very nice AMERICAN accent) to play Lord Peter Wimsey! With that huge strike against it, can "Busman's Honeymoon" be any good?When the film begins, Lord Peter Wimsey is about to marry Harriet (Constance Cummings). To surprise her, he's bought her childhood home which has been owned by a horrible sort of rotter, Mr. Noakes (Roy Emerton). Peter doesn't know that Noakes is a total jerk who owes everyone and is a nasty piece of work. When the couple come to take possession of the home, Noakes is no where to be found. Eventually his body is discovered and this challenges the couple, as they both promised to retire and Peter is supposed to stop his sleuthing ways and she is to stop writing murder mysteries. Wanna make a bet as to whether or not they keep this promise?Despite terrible casting, the film works reasonably well...mostly because MGM had a great knack at making good looking movies. An interesting plot.

Haunted Honeymoon (1940) * 1/2 (out of 4) British film from MGM has Lord Peter Wimsey (Robert Montgomery) marrying mystery writer Harriet Vane (Constance Cummings) but their honeymoon is very short as they investigate a murder together. If you look at the title and are expecting some sort of supernatural film then it's best to get that out of your mind. After viewing this film I started to look around and read some other reviews and it seems that the majority of them were negative, although very few were as negative as my thoughts on the film. To me this was one of those films where as soon as something happens it hits your eyes, travels to your brain and then your brain forgets what you just saw in the matter of seconds. I really can't remember too many films where what was going on was simply traveling past me simply because of how uninterested I was in anything going on. I think there are a couple major problems with this picture but the main one is Montgomery. There's no question that he was a fine actor but this here has to be one of his worst performances if not the worst. I think to say he was miscast would be an understatement because it's clear that he was just the wrong person for this part. Perhaps had the film stayed closer to its source material, the play Busman's Honeymoon, then the actor could have done more with it. This film version goes for more romantic charms than mystery and the actor just suffers the entire time. Cummings really isn't any better and the two lack any real chemistry. Another major problem is that the director just never makes anything interesting happen on the screen in terms of style, energy or anything else that you can think of. HAUNTED HONEYMOON is a real snoozer from start to finish.

As the other comments make clear, this is not a bad film. One of MGM's British-made films, it has several good moments, and lots of good performances. Its problem is that it makes the ultimately wrong decision to play down the mystery elements in favour of the romantic comedy. It could have been a marvellous comedy thriller, but instead looks more like a pale imitation of the great romantic screwballs of the thirties, or the fag end of the cycle. Montgomery and Cummings' opening scene reminds one of William Powell and Myrna Loy opening Christmas presents in The Thin Man, or indeed Montgomery's own opening scene with Carole Lombard in Mr and Mrs Smith. The two beautiful, funny, talented people sail brilliantly and wittily through life, with their perfect marriage (explicitly announced to be so), not taking themselves too seriously, not afraid to take a pratfall now and then ... you know the drill. And, of course, we as viewers are supposed to assume that Robert Montgomery and Constance Cummings, by extension, are also such wonderful beings.So the picture is actually an hour old before we get going with the murder. We have had the clues front-loaded, interspersed with the comedy and romance, whereas in the book Wimsey pieces together the clues from his interrogations. The solution of the mystery ends up as a total afterthought, Montgomery casually piecing together the fiendish plot, and the film sloppily omits to give us any actual proof that that was how the crime was done.And, to coin a phrase, why oh why oh why did anyone think that suave New Yorker Montgomery could be Lord Peter Wimsey, whose archetypal English "silly ass" manner concealed a brilliant brain? Ian Carmichael was much nearer the mark in the 70s TV series. Montgomery is a very pleasing screen presence, but an English nobleman he is not.As usual it is the character actors that steal the scenes. Leslie Banks, in my humble, could do very little wrong, and doesn't here. Joan Kemp-Welch is excellent in what could be the very tedious role of Aggie Twitterton. Robert Newton gives an early eye-rolling performance complete with dodgy West country accent. Frank Pettingell is on good form, especially in the chimney sweeping scene, where he divests himself of a seemingly infinite number of sweaters. Googie Withers is great as the sexy barmaid. Roy Emerton is always good value. But the real star of the show, as other comments have also pointed out, is the old actor-manager Seymour Hicks, showing the youngsters how it is done.So, much to please, much too long, more thrills needed.

This film has the makings of a good mystery film -- detective hubby marries mystery-writer wife, and move into the house where the wife was born.Unbeknownst to them, the last owner of the house was murdered the night before!This film relies HEAVILY on "local color" and the "local characters" to keep it going. (The mystery is a flop). It's overlong (you wonder WHEN it will end!) and the title is misleading -- there's no "supernatural element" in it whatsoever. Recommended for insomniacs!Norm