Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Must See Movie...

I wanted to but couldn't!

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The setup is intriguing (a man dives into a pool and never comes up again; when they drain the pool he's nowhere to be found! I've seen a lot of mysteries and I don't remember ever seeing anything like this before), the mystery is challenging (of course you know that the killer is not really a dragon, but that does not help you much), the spacious sets are great, and the underwater camera shots are impressive for a 1934 film. However, Warren William is a little too dry in the role of Philo Vance (he is more relaxed in his second Vance appearance, in the semi-spoof "The Gracie Allen Murder Case"), and the film is not quite as much fun as it could have been. I would still recommend it to fans of early whodunits. **1/2 out of 4.

Dragon Murder Case, The (1934) *** 1/2 (out of 4) William Warren takes over the role of Philo Vance in this entry, which plays more like a horror film than just a mystery. A world class swimmer jumps into a pool during a party and never comes up. The next day the pool is drained but there isn't a body so various people are looked at as suspects but certain clues lead to a legend dealing with an Indian dragon monster. The Kennel Murder Case is the best known film in the series but this one here is just as exciting and entertaining. Warren is terrific in the role of Vance bringing his usual charm and brains to the role. The supporting cast including Lyle Talbot, Margaret Lindsay, Robert McWade and George E. Stone are all terrific but it's the overweight and funny talking Eugene Palette that steals the show. The mystery behind the killing remains interesting throughout the entire film and all the horror elements ranging from ghosts to dragons to a crazy old woman play out very well. This is certainly one of the better mysteries I've seen from this period.

"The Dragon Murder Case" (1934) is not nearly as weak as some of these comments would lead you to believe. It should be cut some slack based on when it was made (it has Code Certificate #109) and viewed from the perspective of its intended audience. At the time its claim to fame was as a murder mystery packaged inside a lot of clever misdirection. For today's viewers, these sorts of twists will seem rather routine. Not so forgivable are several huge plot holes but as long as you are suspending disbelief anyway….There is even a (Stanley) Kubrick-style subtext about Native Americans although they don't take it as far as he did in "The Shining".This is a Philo Vance story (basically an early version of William Powell's Nick Charles character) with Warren Williams replacing Powell. Williams is nothing exceptional but the supporting cast and the production design are quite good. Eugene Palette (Friar Tuck) steals all his scenes with the funniest lines and the best delivery; his stuff alone makes the film worth viewing. The quotes section has his line about women generally speaking. Helen Lowell has a lot of fun playing the loony grandmother; she was born in 1866-wonder how many pre-1870 actors can claim lines in a talking picture. Margaret Lindsay is extremely beautiful as she was in "Jezabel" (1938); beautiful enough to stand out from all but a handful of her contemporaries. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Spoilers herein.'I'm a coroner, not a philosopher!'These things drive me crazy because they don't play fair. They set up the situation, display a few bodies then surprise us with a completely implausible solution that hasn't been hinted at all. Does it seem plausible that a murderer would try to frame a dragon?The story within the story is the fiction of the dragon.The only charm that these can give us is in a few interesting characters and an exotic setup. I did think this setup was among the strangest of the Vancers. But the characters are among the least successful.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.