Good concept, poorly executed.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

This was the third Philo Vance detective film, and the only one to star Basil Rathbone. William Powell played Vance in the two previous films (1929 and 1930) and the two succeeding ones (1930 and 1933). It is fascinating to see the young Rathbone nine years before he made his first Sherlock Holmes film, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' (1939). He is very much 'Sherlock before Sherlock'. There are two amazing character actors in this one, George F. Marion and Zelda Sears as the Drukkers, brother and sister. What faces! That was when people looked different, not the same as now when everyone is the same. The director makes the most of them, and they certainly add an eerie dimension to this story. A lot of people get killed in this tale, though of course we do not see the blood and gore because it is only 1930, and it is all we can do to hear the early sound sometimes. Cedric Gibbons as Art Director did some bold sets, with enormously high windows and huge rooms. The film is creaky in many ways, but it is a ripping yarn. Try and figure this one out! This is perhaps the cinema's earliest portrayal of a serial killer, which goes to prove that nothing is new. It is not a whodunnit, it is a whodunn'em.

When you consider that sound had only come in a couple of years before THE BISHOP MURDER CASE, the fact that the film still has a soundtrack that needs restoration is no surprise. But I did manage to see a good print of the film on TCM and the gleaming B&W photography belied the fact that this was made in 1930.But my sole purpose for watching was to see what BASIL RATHBONE looked like in an early detective role as Philo Vance. The mystery itself seemed a lot like an Agatha Christie whodunit because the murders were staged by a clever killer who just wasn't smart enough to outwit Philo Vance. The final revelation involves a glass of wine with poison in it ("the vessel with the pessel" film that Rathbone did with Danny Kaye comes to mind here). Rathbone's cleverness and manner of solving the crime is reminiscent of the way he played Sherlock Holmes so well in all those Sherlock films.He also had a crisp delivery that was lacking in the other players. Only ROLAND YOUNG managed to sound as if silent films were a thing of the past. The others were clearly still in the silent mode of acting which makes Rathbone's performance even more remarkable.Not a great mystery by any means and the sets, despite some fine photography, are on the primitive side--but addicts of detective stories should enjoy this one.

I recently learned that Willard Huntington Wright aka S.S. Van Dine the author of the Philo Vance mysteries sold the various screen rights to his stories one at a time to the various studios who would pay for them. It's the reason that Paramount, MGM, Warner Brothers and later the B independent Producer's Releasing Corporation all had a hand in the series and we have so many Philos to compare styles with.Basil Rathbone takes his turn at Philo and the Philo he creates isn't too much different from Sherlock Holmes. He's got no Watson to be his scribe and record his genius, but otherwise he's the same clever fellow who found out the secret of that hound of the Baskervilles, etc.S.S. Van Dine did create a dumb flatfoot of a police sergeant Heath for Vance to constantly show up. At Paramount and later at Warner Brothers it was Eugene Palette, here we have James Donlon who even the maid puts down regularly. I'm not sure what Heath is there for because the District Attorney just calls in Vance for help when there's an interesting case. Here we have the discovery of a dead body found on an archery field with an arrow through him. Of course the minute Vance gets there he deduces all is not as it appears. I will say this, the murderer here was a surprise to me and even more important four people die in this film, but only the first murder was a planned one. The others happened because of some unforeseen circumstances our culprit didn't see coming.That Philo, he's a regular Sherlock Holmes when it comes to solving these murders.

Spoilers herein.Movies today are a large part of how we define ourselves. But many of the structural elements of today's films are a result of punctuated evolution, times where decisions were made. These were fast and permanent. I recommend this film not for its intrinsic value - after all few films have value outside of their fueling of life; but because you can retrospectively witness one of these cusps in structural change.The silent film was a matter of shadow puppets with humans, hardly `real,' very abstract in fact. Then film went through a spurt in which certain ideas warred for supremacy. You can see some of that here.The most obvious battle is over the notion of narrative engagement. I could have chosen three or four films as my example, but I selected this because it has Basil Rathbone. He would later become an archetype in the form that would win. And this has a remarkable reference to three external forms that were part of the battle. By the time of this film, books had already been taken completely over by the detective story. The reason is because it offered a new type of engagement with the reader: the reader and writer struggle with one another to determine the vision into what happens next. Nominally the writer is playing a game on his turf, but as experienced, the reader can win. The detective provides a "science" based avatar, often moving in alliances between writer and reader but mostly for the reader.The writer of the Philo Vance books was a great student of this theory and was astonishingly popular. He is forgotten today because so many masters subsequently built on his theories, but one might credit him with being the first real theorist of narrative engagement by detection, sort of a science of observation of the science of observation.His books were `picked up' for movies. They translated badly because the adapters actually thought the story was important and were ignorant of the game. Nevertheless, the viewer of this adaptation can see reference to three templates for Van Dine's ideas: the game of chess, the plays of Ibsen, and the self-referential irony of `fairy tales.'His `Kennel Case' was a far better story, redone as `Calling Philo Vance.' But this one is much more interesting because it is about itself, and unwittingly about the theory of reflection in film narrative. We have scientists, chess players and detectives all cast as rather much the same, presumably all capable of `writing' the case, as the writings appear in snippets. (True to dramatic conventions of the time, the women have no minds at all.) Each is cast as primary suspect, then killed (or attempted so). See also the abstract nature of the staging. While the exteriors used real buildings with normal sized floors and windows, the interiors are extraordinary: ceilings at least thirty feet high, with windows as large. Doors ten feet high, but stairs that only raise one six feet or so. Desks that must be twenty feet broad.And one can incidentally see the acting style carried over from the silents, a reminder that this is transitional film.Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.