UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Spondonman I found all of the Philo Vance films watchable, with the zippy and witty Kennel head and shoulders above the rest. Bishop was pretty good too but suffered from a cast of actors stuck in the silent era and displaying the full range of intensely melodramatic emotions that are were so essential to the making of – and enjoyment of watching a silent film. Static cameras are as nothing to tortured eyes and semaphore arm histrionics.Mr. (Cock) Robin is found flat out murdered, apparently shot with an incredibly long arrow but Vance played by skinny and incisive Basil Rathbone knows better. He predicts a series of ghastly and inhuman murders will follow conceived by a intellect bent on playing games with his pursuers by couching his dastardly deeds in very handy nursery rhymes. He and one of the suspects, evergreen Roland Young are the only two to act naturally throughout, if still very slightly stagey. The photography is occasionally startlingly good, if still static. None of these criticisms bother me, I love it just the same as a well crafted atmospheric entertaining potboiler. Favourite bits: The scene in Dillard's library with the thunderstorm raging outside; the sedate and well-mannered way Vance and the cops enter Dillard's aerodrome of a house to search for the murderer.I hadn't seen this since 1995, the last time UK Channel 4 gave anyone interested their opportunity to watch it. TCM UK unlike TCM US will never have room for it in their admirably varied schedule either (hem). But it's worth hunting down with all its faults for 90 minutes in the company of the world of 1929.

fung0 This is a competent, if somewhat dated, little mystery, notable chiefly for Rathbone's portrayal of Philo Vance. Although it still falls far short of the memorable character of the books, this seems to be about as close as the *real* Vance ever got to the silver screen.The real mystery, to me, is why Hollywood persisted in making one movie after another using the plots and names of SS Van Dine's wonderful books, yet NEVER adapting the key factor that made those books stand out: i.e. the unique character of the detective. Philo Vance is an aristocrat, an aesthete, a dilettante, an intellectual dabbler, and a very reluctant detective. The way he solves crimes is a reflection of his personality: he approaches each one as a work of art, and looks for the 'signature style' of its creator.The method actually works. I've watched many a mystery film and correctly spotted the perpetrator purely by following Vance's lead, matching the style of the crime against the personalities of the suspects. This unusually profound insight makes Vance a very important figure in the mystery genre: one of the very few that successfully blends character, drama, logic and even philosophy. I'd put Philo Vance close behind Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown as a literary detective, and a million miles ahead of such shallow creations as Poirot. (The years have only added to his appeal; the books now also serve as a fascinating glimpse of a genteel, aristocratic New York of days gone by.)Amazingly, none of the Vance films even remotely attempts to capture any of this. It's a bit like making Sherlock Holmes movies in which Holmes isn't English, has no friend named Watson, and does no deduction, but instead becomes merely a guy in a funny hat who solves crimes by good luck and beating confessions out of suspects.The worst offenders, oddly, are the best-known Vance films... most notably the execrable Kennel Murder Case, which reduces Vance to a sort of less-funny Thin Man. The Bishop Murder Case, thankfully, contains at least a vague acknowledgment of the true Vance. Rathbone is certainly a valid choice to play the part (far more appropriate than William Powell!), and in fact renders the character reasonably well... subject to the limitations of a script that barely sketches the devilishly clever thought processes of Van Dine's Vance. If anything, Rathbone is perhaps a bit too intense... one of Vance's many winning qualities is a distaste for taking himself too seriously.Now, I wouldn't normally complain that a film fails to match the book upon which it is ostensibly based. Naturally, a film must be judged on its own merits. But the Vance films discard everything about Vance that makes him interesting in the first place, and none of them substitutes any particular value of its own. That's not only disappointing to fans of the books, it's unlikely to be much more satisfying to anyone seeking purely cinematic accomplishments. Any hope of drama or cleverness is flattened to the basest 'B' movie levels. Van Dine's Chinese-puzzle plots provide the only remaining spark of interest, but what use are they, revealed flatly and monotonously instead of being sensuously unraveled by Vance's left-handed intellect?Hopefully, the great Philo Vance will someday be rendered more faithfully on the screen. But for now, The Bishop Murder case, for all its limitations, is about the only Vance film worth seeing. Unless you're simply a die-hard fan of bland Hollywood mysteries, your time would be better spent reading most any of the books.

MartinHafer For a 1930 film, this movie is better than average--even though by the standards of films made just a couple years later, it isn't so hot. Unlike MANY of the 1930 films, this one has excellent sound and the characters are somewhat more mobile. You see, this was made in the very early days of "talkies" and most studios made films where the sound was way too low and the actors were told to almost stand in one place so the microphones could properly pick up their voices. I have seen a few comments about how the characters are too wooden or immobile, but compared to other 1930 films this isn't too bad.Oddly, while the sound is excellent, the camera-work, at times, is pretty lousy. All too often, the camera was too distant from the characters and if it zoomed in, it did so in a very shaky and unprofessional-looking manner. You wonder if they spent so much money on excellent sound that all they could afford for cameramen were chimps! It was most noticeable at the beginning, but throughout the film the camera often did not follow the actors or the shot was just too distant.As for the acting, it was a real mixed bag. I personally thought that Basil Rathbone was excellent, though I could see how William Powell might be missed. If you don't compare the two but just look at Rathbone on his own merits, he was fine. Now as for the rest of the cast, most were pretty good but some of the actors just,....sucked. In particular, the person playing Mr. Pardee did a horrible job--worse than someone in a high school play. A couple of the others, such as Drukker and the police sergeant, weren't a whole lot better. A lot of this may be because during the transition to sound, acting still was a bit too melodramatic in these early films, so I can forgive this to some extent.As for the good, the plot itself is excellent and exciting--particularly the end. Unlike many of the murder mysteries of the era, this one seems better written and more interesting.The bottom line is that for 1930, this IS a good film and might get an 8 if it were only being compared to 1930. However, overall, the production loses a couple points for the reasons listed above. An interesting curio and a film that is a time-passer for most.

blanche-2 Basil Rathbone is a dashing, intense-looking Philo Vance in "The Bishop Murder Case," an early talkie that shows signs of the painful transition from silents. I actually had quite a bit of trouble with the sound. I saw it on television and had difficulty understanding what was being said at times.The film, nevertheless, is very interesting, if only to see Rathbone, with those amazing eyes of his, in his pre-Sherlock Holmes days. His acting is excellent. It was also delightful to see Roland Young. Leila Hyams plays the professor's niece, and she was quite beautiful and effective. It has a good plot as well.Parts of this film came off like a stage play, probably because some of the actors were still adjusting to film technique. And the sound was darned strange. In one of the outdoor scenes, the actors sounded as if they were speaking through megaphones. Nevertheless, Philo Vance fans should certainly enjoy it, as will others from a historical perspective.