ctyankee1 In the beginning of the movie there is a page dedicating the movie to the New York Police: "This picture dedicated to the New York Police Department with its thousands of loyal and courageous men for meritorious service to its community." A man named Digberry/Byron Foulge is seen climbing out on a cemetery wall by a policeman late at night. The policeman asked what he was doing in the cemetery. Digberry gives the policeman a story that is like suspicious and kind of funny that he is brought to the police station and questioned.The story goes on from there that Digberry got a letter from a anonymous person to leave money on a grave. He claims he paid the money because he has a wife and 5 daughter on vacation who will be coming home and he does not want them frightened or anything bad happen to them. Other people that know each other got a similar letter with a paw print on it and days later Digberry got direction as to where and when he was to leave the money.A woman is murdered and 3 men are considered suspect. One of the clues is a wig. Digberry is a wig maker and there is another man that made a wig for a man. The hair of the wig was found in the dead woman's hand.There are lots of funny scenes. What I thought was interesting is the way the police investigated. They were very clever and alert as to what was said and what they saw and the way people responded. Good police work.Good mystery, lots of humor and nice for a black and white picture made in 1942 you can watch for free on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OY6ddm8zy0

MartinHafer "The Panther's Claw" is a B-movie from tiny PRC--a tiny studio that made a ton of cheap low-budgeted Bs. While this film isn't that much different from the norm for PRC, it is, inexplicably, more enjoyable than most of their output. Now I am NOT saying it's an especially well made film--it's full of plot holes and the ending is one giant plot hole! But, despite all this, it is fun to watch and much of it is because of the inexplicable choice for a main suspect in this murder mystery.When the film begins, a very mousy man, Everett Digbury (Byron Foulger) is caught climbing over the wall from the cemetery. According to Digbury, he HAD to go to the place to drop off extortion money from an unknown person who calls them self 'The Panther'. However, the cop insists on taking Digbury downtown and he's treated like a criminal! Fortunately, the Chief of Police isn't as stupid as the rest of the cops and he feels sorry for Digbury and feels that he is a victim of a crime--not some evil perpetrator. However, over time, this confidence is shaken as several times murders occur and all the evidence points to poor old Digbury!As I mentioned above, seeing one of the meekest men in all of Hollywood playing a guy who MIGHT be a multiple murderer and extortionist is pretty funny. Additionally, despite a few plot holes, the script actually is pretty good--particularly when it comes to snappy dialog. Although this is far from a great film, it is entertaining and fans of old B-mysteries would surely enjoy this one.

classicsoncall Producers Releasing Corporation was known for it's cheap sets and low production values; "The Panther's Claw" probably falls in the middle tier of their low budget offerings. What I found most amusing about this picture is the choice of it's title, purporting to be some great mystery a la the symbolism of a sleek black cat. Instead, the panther's claw belongs to a common house cat named Gomer, and when all is said and done, the 'claw' becomes virtually a throw away in the solving of the murder mystery at the center of the story. In fact, Gomer doesn't even show up for the end of the picture, his purpose having been served about mid way through.The story itself is actually decent enough, with Sidney Blackmer in the role of Police Commissioner Thatcher Colt. His character might have been Charlie Chan, Mr. Wong or Bulldog Drummond in any of those detective flicks from the same era, and he acquits himself rather well via a low key manner and methodical police work. He manages to fend off the aggressive D.A. who wants to arrest an innocent man in the murder of a famous opera star, thereby clearing a milquetoast of a man named Digberry (Byron Foulger), who's been implicated in the murder by coincidence and a rather elaborate frame up. You never get the impression that Digberry might be a legitimate suspect, with an early hint offered by a Digberry lookalike who slinks around the corridors of his apartment without showing his face. Like the Charlie Chan films, this one offers a red herring or two to keep the viewer guessing, and the murderer could actually have been any of them depending on the script writer.The opening credits dedicate the picture to the members of the New York City Police Department, and on that score it was a reasonable tribute. There was a fair amount of detective work that went into the solving of the crime on the part of Commissioner Colt, and a lot of information was packed into the seventy minute run time. This was the first picture I watched out of a two hundred fifty movie DVD set I picked up quite reasonably from Mill Creek Entertainment as part of their Mystery Collection, and it wasn't a bad way to get started. Only two hundred forty nine more to go.

dbborroughs A milquetoast of a man is caught climbing out of a cemetery late one night. Its transpires that he had left 1000 dollars on a grave, in response to a letter sent to him warning of death if did not do so. When he and the copes return to the grave the money is gone. The cops haul the man in to the precinct for trespass and other charges. It transpires that the note is one of many that has been sent to a group of people in the hopes of extorting cash. Murder and mayhem follow.Low budget PRC special is an odd mix of comedy and mystery. Its a mix that doesn't fully work since the comedy tends to over power the mystery at the most in opportune times. Part of the problem is that the very good Byron Foulger, a supporting stalwart has been pushed to the fore as our milquetoast lead. There is nothing wrong with Foulger in the lead, its just that decades of playing similar roles, usually for comic effect undercuts some of the tension.(I'm guessing this may play better on a second viewing when the flaws might be forgiven or at lest accepted). I know the film was also hurt for me by the cheapness of the sets which included numerous rear screen projections which result in a couple of screens where people just seem to be standing in front of a wall instead of being somewhere.Worth a look in an undemanding mood.