The early parts of this film are quite promising but it tails off pretty quickly.Part of the problem is Tom walls.He is clearly attempting to emulate Ronald Coleman as Raffles but fails miserably.He was 56 years old when he made this and having him romantically involved with a 22 year old Lili Palmer actually makes him look rather like a dirty old man.Palmer for her part is probably to young for her part.The plot seems to rather get lost in the middle part.The ending is predictable and clichéd,It has to be said that Tom walls disguised as a butler still looks very like Tom walls.There is an interesting tap routine that seems to have strayed in from a Jessie Matthews film and some really charming art deco sets.

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.

The film begins with a scene in which a plane is hijacked by a gang of criminals and some precious diamonds are stolen. However it is not the gang that gets away with the loot but rather the master thief and modern day Robin Hood, Jack Drake, who has beaten the gang to it. Meanwhile, the latest craze in London is the memoirs of a thief, who goes by the pseudonym of "Crackerjack." When a string of precious pearls is stolen at a society party, Crackerjack is suspected, owning to a number of idiosyncrasies of the culprit, which are also mentioned in Crackerjack's book. But who is Crackerjack - is he Jack Drake? And will Jack get away with his philanthropic thieving?This film is good entertainment but nothing special. The sort of story that the film uses involving gangs of criminals, stolen jewels and princesses (or a Baroness in this case) has been used so many times before - even by Tom Walls himself - that it needs something special to make it work. There are a few fairly uninventive twists in the plot - the people you least expect turn out to be criminals and so on. All of it leads to a rather formulaic showdown towards the end of the film. Nevertheless, there are a few good surprises which add interest to what would otherwise be a fairly average film. For me, the most disappointing thing is that we know who Crackerjack is for almost all of the film. I think it would've added a whole extra dimension to the film if the answer had've been denied us until the end - and it would've justified the existence of the "Crackerjack" book, which, as the film stood, was totally peripheral to the plot.Tom Walls makes a wonderful gentleman criminal; almost as great as James Mason, but in a different, more old-world chivalrous way. His name on the bill was what made me decide to watch this film, and he is definitely its strongest link. The rest of the cast are nothing special and I found Lilli Palmer a tad annoying but an acceptable leading lady. Overall the story is sufficiently engrossing and consistent enough to make this reasonable viewing - but only slightly above average.

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.