Copyright 15 May 1936 by RKO-Radio Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Rivoli: 27 May 1936. U.S. release: 15 May 1936. Australian release: 7 October 1936. 81 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Surgeon is suspected of murdering a jockey. He solves the case with the help of his ex-wife, a writer of dime-novel thrillers.NOTES: Number 39 at Australian ticket windows for 1936. Equally successful in America, the movie proved to be RKO's third most profitable of the year.COMMENT: Every time J. Roy Hunt's camera focuses on Jean Arthur we are practically blinded by the dazzle of light. Miss Arthur has the further advantage of some dazzling costumes too, but not even this decorative alliance plus the urbane, unflappable Mr Powell - here essaying yet another foray into Thin Man territory - can overcome the juvenility of a super-awful script and the impossibly mundane direction.I was amazed to find the film was so popular on its first release. I thought it was a "B"-feature. Certainly it has all the characteristics of that class - unsophisticated script with a mystery that even the casual addict would snort to scorn; dialogue that tries hard to be funny and light and amusing but succeeds only in being tedious and dull and heavy-handed; minimal production values with just a few crummy sets and a stock footage climax; and the plot constantly rehashed for the benefit of late-comers. Eric Blore mugs frantically but even he cannot save this one. The rest of the support players are just as tedious. The few action spots are unintentionally laughable. And there's no background music. None at all! Mr. Webb who is credited as music director certainly had it easy. If ever a film has dated it's this one and I doubt if even the most uncritical member of a modern audience would have anything good to say about it. The Ex-Mrs Bradford is the sort of film that gives old movies a bad name.The only reason I can give for the enthusiasm of other critics, is that they are actually watching a vastly different print. OTHER VIEWS: One of the year's top-flight comedies. - Frank S. Nugent in The New York Times.

I was so taken with the chemistry between Powell and Arthur that I barely followed the plot, which was OK but had some holes. Horse-racing jockey dies, mystery ensues, involving gangs and money. The murder instrument and method were not very realistic, reminiscent of the James Bond scene with the tarantula. Sorry, but I'd guess movie audiences even back then were too sophisticated to fall for that.So, I was mainly just queuing up for their scenes together, which was most of them. Their dialog was so witty and sharp, her endearing and wily attempts to show her affection and recapture his love were so real, and his feeble attempts to off her advances when it was obvious he loved her back, made it that much more enjoyable. There was real affection afoot between those two, and the movie cameras that separated them from us could not hope to hide it.I rate their chemistry much higher than that between Powell and Loy in The Thin Man series. It really sparkled. The rest of the movie could have been the corniest thing going (and at times, it was), but it wouldn't have mattered. And because of these two, this movie had me not wanting to miss a minute.Altogether, Powell and Arthur had 5 collaborations, two in 1929, two in 1930, and this one in 1936. We were robbed in that this medium was not seized upon and repeated. It's a shame we couldn't be treated to more of these.

I have always enjoyed Jean Arthur in movies and was surprised how much I didn't like her here. I think part of it is because I watched this William Powell/Jean Arthur flick just after seeing two exceptional William Powell/Myrna Loy films. The chemistry between Powell and Loy is simply better and the other films (not just the THIN MAN ones) were more enjoyable and the characters worked better together. In this case, you wonder why Arthur and Powell EVER got married, as Jean is just too annoying and whiny. Instead of being divorced, I could just as easily seen Powell killing her. This is a mistake, as the dialog is mostly one-way and the banter back and forth isn't as witty or snappy as the Loy/Powell films. It's more like Powell makes a sarcastic comment and Arthur misunderstands it--this gets old really fast.The film itself seems a lot like a THIN MAN plot--a murder mystery that Powell (as a doctor) and Arthur (as a mystery writer) investigate separately. Not a bad film but could have been better. For a better film watch any Powell/Loy film or for a similar but better executed plot, see Errol Flynn's FOOTSTEPS IN THE DARK--another film about a writer turned murder investigator but with better results.

I've seen the Thin Man series -- Powell and Loy are definitely great, but there is something awfully sweet about Powell and Arthur's chemistry in this flick. Jean Arthur SHINES when she looks at Powell. There is an unmistakable undercurrent buzzing between them. This film may not have the wit of the Thin Man series, but undeniably makes up for it in charm. While I watched it, I thought for sure Powell was carrying on an off-screen affair with Arthur. My friends thought the same. This is one film where I wish I could step back in time (to schmooze and lock lips with Powell!) There seems to be no end to his lovable playful smirks! Powell's character, Lawrence Bradford, is probably the closest thing to the "perfect man." Okay, this is sounding way too gushy, but I can't help myself.