lastliberal This film is important for a couple of reasons.First, it is an early talkie, and if you are a student of film, it is essential to watch the transition from silent films to talkies. Some of the characters in this film seemed to think they were still doing silents.Secondly, it stars Basil Rathbone as detective Philo Vance. Philo Vance, a character by S.S. Van Dine, has appeared in many films. The great William Powell played him several times before he did The Thin Man, and here Rathbone does him before he goes on to playing Sherlock Holmes.

Neil Doyle 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.

tedg 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.

Bucs1960 This film is the 3rd of the Philo Vance mysteries to be filmed. The first two, Canary and Greene (filmed in 1929) were pretty hard going. They starred William Powell and he would return to star in the Benson Murder case and the best of the Vance series, The Kennel Murder Case. This one, starring Basil Rathbone is a step above the first two but it is still a static film as were many of that era......transitioning to sound was an awkward time for the movies and people talked, and talked, and talked, ad infinitum. Rathbone, a very attractive, suave actor fits the role well and he plays Vance as a little less of the high-brow, somewhat obnoxious character that was portrayed in VanDine's books. The mystery is another one of those typical Philo Vance puzzlers which never turn out as you thought they might but that is the fun of it all. It's interesting to see Roland Young in a role that is different from his usual movie persona. James Donlan, as Sgt. Heath is very irritating....nobody is that stupid and you wonder how he became a policeman, let alone a sergeant. I much prefer Eugene Palette from the William Powell/Vance films in that role. The rest of the supporting cast is adequate. You probably have to be a Vance devotee and a fan of early sound pictures to appreciate this film. Being both, I enjoyed it but would recommend The Kennel Murder Case for an introduction to Philo Vance. The series hit its stride with that film and then went downhill from there. Also, see The Canary Murder Case for historical film value as it was the last film made by the amazing Louise Brooks before she went on to cinema history in Germany. But, have fun with this movie...it is worth a look if you are a fan of the genre.