I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

What makes it different from others?

Pretty Good

THE THIN MAN is a highly entertaining crime comedy based on the novel of the same name. The mystery becomes strong comedy dialogue and acting quite unique. This film can be seen as a very good detective story with one hand, and a well thought out and "healthy" comedy on the other side. Excitement is present in both parts. Powell and Loy are shared perfection of chemistry on screen. The dialogue between the main actors is simply excellent. The story and scenery are good. Acting is in a good part of the film is excellent.At one point, I was surprised because a serious topic is approached quite frivolous. I've finally realized that the film, in addition to other segments, should be just fun. Couple Charles offered us a great time for a bit of mystery and research and a lot of comedy dialogue. Van Dyke offered us a movie in which we really enjoy.

I found the sequence of four movies woefully inadequate. They seemed awfully dated, awfully thin story line. The dog, Aster, was the best actor. Myrna Loy was pretty in that unusual way we want in pretty woman. But the story lines seemed drawn out for no good reason, making the story lag; and the crimes seemed predictable with predictable solutions. Dialogue was strong and humorous and brought a little sparkle to the films. I was surprised that the films were essentially centered in San Francisco, which I did not realize. Yes, Coit Tower is visible from the Western span of the Bay Bridge. William Powell played the role for laughs and I'm not sure that didn't detract from the movie; Monk found himself in absurd situations of the crime, but played his perplexity straight; William Powell seemed to be playing for laughs. But since there was such thin story line, it really didn't matter. As a matter of film history, they were interesting; as material borrowed from Dashiell Hammet's book--The Thin Man--they were of interest. But they certainly were not 'classic' Hollywood, just 'of interest' Hollywood.

You couldn't make The Thin Man the way they did it back in 1934. For one thing, the book by Dashiell Hammett - which I have to imagine the filmmakers were faithful as could be within a 90 minute run time - has as its two main heroes characters who love their booze. There's only so many moments that you see Nick (William Powell) without a drink, or looking for one, and Nora is only so far behind (though Nick is certainly more the booze-hound). Nowadays, a producer would look at material like that and want to take it out. And yeah, in reality, being a drunk or the "A" word (alcoholic) isn't much fun. But this was the movies and Hollywood and 1934 after all! This is a world where a hangover isn't necessarily glossed over completely - see as Nick is in bed after the Christmas party and has to get another drink to make himself, uh, 'regular', and of course has to get Nora one right after he comes back to bed. But... yeah, it's a comedy after all.The Thin Man is a glorious escapist movie, and a riot at times. The story itself is fine enough, a solid, mostly serious yarn about an engineer (the 'Thin Man' of the title actually) who goes missing, and a woman he was seeing is found dead. Who killed her? Where is Clyde Wynant? Did he commit the murder and go off with money and skip town? There's a lot of questions to be answered, to be sure - it is Hammett, after all, the author of The Maltese Falcon and all those Continental Op thrillers. But that's not why the film is still fresh today, maybe even better by the passage of time like wine, because of the characters and the snappy dialog.By the 'characters' I do mean mostly our leads, Nick and Nora, though the supporting characters - played by the likes of Maureen O'Sullivan, Nathalie Moorehead and the original Joker himself Cesar Romero - are perfectly fine and acted memorably. They are a catty couple of people, and are constantly kidding themselves, though certainly are very seriously in love. They're the kind of couple who, when Nora walks in and sees Nick trying (little as he really can given his disposition) to give comfort to a sorrowful Dorothy, they make faces at one another to kill the tension. Outstanding comic timing. And speaking of not being able to do certain things today as in 1934, the moment where, to distract a heavy holding a gun on the two of them, Nick slugs Nora so he can then get HIS gun away! Whether this was right before the Code fully took effect, I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me (the innuendo at the end is perfectly cute, though I'm sure rather scandalous also for 34).There are so many juicy and awesome moments between these two that it's little wonder they went on to make five more films over the course of fifteen years, and the public thought the actors were married in real life (!) The chemistry enough would make it a crackerjack semi-screwball comedy, though what levels it out as a great film of its year is that the director, WS Van Dyke, and the screenwriters, make some indelible set pieces. The Christmas dinner party, for one, really gets the audience fully immersed into the quick wit and here-to-there-and-again timing of a party where everybody wants a drink, one guy really wants to call home to his mother, and everyone keeps hounding Nick Charles to take on a case after being away from the sleuthing for years. This alone would make the movie a must see - but that ending, where everybody involved with the case is brought in so that Nick can crack it (he even admits, you know, he isn't entirely sure to Nora, who can do nothing but make spectacular quips) pushes it over into classic territory.When The Thin Man wants to be suspenseful, it can be as well. When Nick has to go looking in a dark place after hours and someone is coming in, all the lights go off and it takes on the air of an early noir. This, again, really is necessary though, and Van Dyke really makes sure that the more dramatic elements work in their vein, the comedy in its own, but that the two sides can meet, rather deliriously and uproariously into a charming package of a Hollywood movie. It's the kind of movie that I'm sure inspired Hitchcock, too, with the younger brother obsessed with morbid crimes and bodies; notice the reaction of the police when he offers to help them with forensics work. Again, 1934 people.

A Charming Who Done It with a Charming Alcoholic Couple. The Camaraderie of William Powell and Myrna Loy as the Classic Nick and Nora Charles and the Relentless Snappy Patter are what makes this one of the Most Popular Films of All Time. But there is more.The Plot is Complicated and Manages to keep Viewers Guessing. The Cast is Equipped with Good Actors Playing Interesting Characters that are Fleshed Out and that is Unusual for a B-Movie. All are Distinctive and Quirky. There isn't One Character On Screen that is not Full Blooded Including the Dog.The "gather all the suspects in one room and unveil the Murderer" is the only Thing that is rather Standard in this Always Engaging, Rapid Fire, Combination of a Screwball, Slapstick, Mystery, Movie with some Impressionism and Dark Undertones. It is one of those Rare Occasions when a Movie Fires on All Cylinders and is a Tightly Wrapped Package. There are many Quotable Lines with most of the Humor Derived from Drinking and the Rich, Married Couples Breezy Relationship.It is an Artifact of its Age in Regards to Attitudes about Alcohol and Drinking. Here it is all done with Funny Quips and there is Never a Hint about the Dangers of Excess as Nick and Nora are more than Competent Drunks and because They are Extremely Wealthy, without a Care in the World They Easily get away with it. The Film Shows in Stark Terms just how the Cultural Considerations can Drastically Change with the Current Hypocrisy (the War on Drugs) that will be ever so Clear with the Passage of Time.