JohnHowardReid I agree with all the other reviewers. This movie was a bad error of judgment and has little to commend it. "Thank You, Jeeves" was so good in all departments, especially in writing, acting and production values, but this follow-up is just a weak attempt to take the audience's money and deliver very little in return. It's not just disappointing, it's plain boring. No, it's worse than plain boring, it's taking money under false pretenses. In fact, the movie has so little to commend it, one wonders why 20th Century-Fox bothered to offer it as a DVD. If they wanted to issue a "B" movie, I could enumerate over two hundred Fox releases that were far more deserving of a DVD pressing than this marking time, plain boring and totally inept excuse for a movie. No, perhaps "inept" is the wrong word. If it was inept, perhaps it would at least gain the attention's attention. "Lifeless"! That's what the movie is - lifeless in every sense of that word. Lifeless story, lifeless direction, lifeless acting, lifeless photography, lifeless sets, lifeless score, lifeless editing, lifeless...

MartinHafer This is one of two Jeeves & Wooster films released by Twentieth-Century Fox on a single DVD. However, oddly, this follow-up to "Thank You, Jeeves" does NOT have Wooster--just his manservant, Jeeves! So, while they were unable to get David Niven to return for this film, Arthur Treacher was on hand to reprise his role as the imperturbable butler, Jeeves. As for me, I didn't mind too much, as Treacher was the best character (by far) in the first film--the way Treacher underplayed the guy was terrific.While I did enjoy this second film, it was a bit of a letdown for two reasons. First, without Wooster there was a problem with the film's chemistry. Instead of a Jeeves & Wooster film, it was much more of a gangster film. Second, while Jeeves was supposedly the star of the film, Treacher seemed to have very little to do in the film other than to make a few appearances here and there. So it's clearly not up to the standards of the first film--though it is still enjoyable if you don't expect a Wodehouse story. Well produced...just not up to the standards you'd expect.By the way, if you want to know why Wooster was not in this film, try watching the DVD extra "The World of Wodehouse" on the same DVD. It explains this as well as discusses how different the first and second film were.

theowinthrop I like P. G. Wodehouse, but this film is not in the same category as A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS. That film showed the Wodehouse's characterizations and situations at their funniest. This one seems strained. But it's cast is a nice one, and it has an interesting social historic note to it.Alan Dinehart and George Givot are planning to make Arthur Treacher (Jeeves) their guinea pig in a scam in which he is the heir to the supposed "millions" of pounds estate of the English sea hero Sir Francis Drake. Incredibly, in the 1920s and 1930s, thousands of foolish people in the U.S., the British Empire, and elsewhere, paid money to the head of a scam in which the people were told they were heirs to Drake's fortune. It was not until just before World War II that the scam was finally cracked. It is curious that this 1937 film actually used such a current swindle in it's plot, but they may have felt it would have increased the audience for an otherwise mediocre film.

Ron Oliver When a couple of swindlers convince Jeeves, that impeccable gentleman's gentleman, that he is the long-lost heir to the fortune of Sir Francis Drake, he embarks with them to New York, where he is immediately embroiled with bank robbers & mobsters. To get yourself out of this pickle, you'll need to STEP LIVELY, JEEVES!In this, the second of two Jeeves films (following THANK YOU, JEEVES! - 1936), Arthur Treacher once again has a field day as the world's most famous butler. He is always great fun, with his icy stare & nasal tones. Too bad the plot doesn't give us more of him. With three sets of crooks & a couple of snoopy reporters, Jeeves sometimes gets lost in the proceedings.This is also a different Jeeves from the one created by Sir P. G. Wodehouse. Bertie Wooster is nowhere to be seen, nor is he even mentioned. Also, the Movie Jeeves is much too easily duped by the criminals - the Literary Jeeves would have sent the fellows packing with a flea in their ear. The Movie Jeeves gets falling-down drunk, unthinkable for his Literary Counterpart. The Movie Jeeves also claims his first name is `Rupert' - whereas from the novels we know his real name is `Reginald'. Ah, ha! An impostor!In the supporting cast, George Givot has some funny moments as a phony Russian prince. Franklin Pangborn shines in a tiny role as a headwaiter; too bad he has no scenes with Treacher.