William Powell and Myrna Loy made six THIN MAN movies together (and about seven others) and by my estimate, STAR OF MIDNIGHT is better than half of them and about on the level of the third (the THIN MAN series pretty steadily deteriorated as it went along). Only the original THIN MAN had been made before MIDNIGHT yet no one doubted that it was a copy of that brilliant and seminal effort. Still, it was more the common presence of William Powell as the lead 'detective' that provoked comparisons. The genre itself was popular at the time. Two amateur detectives personally involved with one another run about wisecracking and pratfalling as they try to solve some murder case. T'was all the rage in the thirties. Heck, Ginger Rogers had done it before opposite Lyle Talbot (in the B-movie A SHRIEK IN THE NIGHT) using the more common template of two reporters doing the investigating. In a few years, Howard Hawks would show that even THE FRONT PAGE could fit into the mold. STAR OF MIDNIGHT is one of the best examples of this kind of film, and I believe it would be better appreciated if it wasn't compared with the absolute best of the breed, THE THIN MAN.There's a decent balance between the comedy and the convoluted mystery elements in STAR OF MIDNIGHT. Powell is playing the character that he had already portrayed multiple times and would often portray again in the future, a debonair, hard-drinking yet always alert amateur sleuth with a sardonic tongue and attitude. Outside of a single nose crinkle, Ginger Rogers doesn't seem to be channeling Myrna Loy at all (and wisely not), but it's interesting that the enormous chemistry between Loy and Powell is such that comparisons seem inevitable (and they were inevitable in 1935 as well though Powell and Loy had yet to do the bulk of their important work together). Rogers' feisty fiancée and Loy's cool, witty spouse are really miles apart. If it's not up to the perfection that is Loy and Powell, I would say that Rogers and Powell work very well together on their own terms (whereas hooking up Myrna Loy with Fred Astaire would likely produce a travesty. But that's neither here nor there).It took me several viewings to get the mystery aspects straight (when in doubt, assume that we're dealing with two hired hoods from the murderer), but it's not the mystery that I watch these films for. They live and die on the witty badinage and romantic chemistry between their leads (and good supporting characters add a lot to any kind of film). William Powell was superb in these movies because his line readings demonstrate an all but infinite variety that never grows stale. Ginger Rogers' way with a wisecrack was almost equally memorable, though she surely seemed more natural with a working class background than in Park Avenue Society, as here. They seem to enjoy working together and make this the best of the many THIN MAN copies that I've seen.A word must be spared for the sets of Clay Dalzell's apartment, an Art Deco wonder, particularly its bathroom. A toilet that plays 'Pop Goes The Weasel' when you sit on it is one for the books and must supply the only 'toilet humor' that Hollywood would give us between 1935 and PSYCHO in 1960! STAR OF MIDNIGHT was a popular film in 1935 and remains a joy to watch today. William Powell and Ginger Rogers may have been half of the best teams in all of Hollywood history, but it's a shame that they couldn't have had another go at it together. With talent like theirs, it could hardly miss.

I agree with all the good things said about this movie by other users. We are all used to seeing Myrna Loy as Powell's partner. But I wonder if we were used to seeing Rodgers, what would we think of Loy? Would we say " Loy is fine, but she is no Ginger Rodgers. Just asking. My biggest problem is with the ending. Doesn't the ending bother anybody? How exactly did Powell find the bank Mary Smith used? Did he go to all the banks on 5th Avenue and ask someone in every bank if they recognized and would provide an address for the lady he was looking for? This is too much to swallow. But, other than this, I loved the movie.

By the sheer brilliance of his charismatic on screen presence, William Powell raises this picture out of the commonplace to something special. His grace and bearing made him the picture of dapper sophistication, and no one, save for Fred Astaire, looked better in white tie and tails than William Powell.Here he co-stars with Ginger Rogers, and speaking for myself, I did not miss Myrna Loy. Ginger Rogers was more attractive and energetic, and was a breath of fresh air. And he was not playing Nick Charles or Philo Vance. Your regard for Ms. Loy may be the key to your appreciation of "Star Of Midnight".It sounds like a rare jewel, but the Star of Midnight of the title is about the star of a Broadway show called "Midnight". She is missing, and in fact, never appears in the movie, despite a screen credit. The mystery is to find out who kidnapped her and who killed some of the guys looking for her. The plot is confusing, but if you are a William Powell fan, it won't matter; go with it.

Yes, "Star of Midnight" is a bit of RKO Radio Pictures reworking, or ripping off, MGM's "The Thin Man," but so what? It's good in it's own right. William Powell plays rich and debonair lawyer, Clay Dalzell, who gets involved in a murder, and is himself, a suspect. At his side, Ginger Rogers, co-starring as Powell's romantic companion. This pairing of Powell and Rogers is not as perfect as was Powell and Loy, it's a good match up, never-the-less . The mystery centers around the disappearance of of an actress -- the star of a play entitled "Midnight" -- hence from which the film get its title. All this mystery is wrapped with over- the - top elegance, and sophisticated humor, that was so typical of Hollywood films of the 1930's . You may guess who the murderer is, but the motive should come as a surprise -- and neat one it is !