User reviews

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.

"The Bishop Murder Case" is one of the best in the Philo Vance film series. The mystery seems a bit silly at first when children's nursery rhymes are used by the perpetrator of the crimes to publicize his murders, not unlike methods used by present-day serial killers. But once the plot unfolds the nursery rhyme angle makes complete sense. The Bishop is a key figure in solving the mystery as the title indicates. So keep your eyes focused on that clue. I won't say any more except to add that this is a complex mystery.

Basil Rathbone is second only to William Powell in breathing life into S.S. Van Dine's famous private investigator. It's obvious from this performance why Rathbone was chosen at the end of the decade to play Sherlock Holmes. The other actor who shines in this movie is Roland Young. Though much of the acting hearkens back to the silent era which was coming to an end, Rathbone and Young seem modern in their approach. From playing on stage and in silent pictures, actors were used to wild exaggerations and outlandish gesticulations which were no longer needed now that movies could talk. Several of the characters in "The Bishop Murder Case" have not yet adjusted to working with sound. Not so Rathbone and Young.

Another early talky distraction for modern viewers is the absence of music for dramatic effect. Since live music was used to accentuate the silent screen action and mood, it seems strange that music was not immediately utilized for the same purposes on the talky screen. Producers were misinformed that music coming from nowhere would puzzle and confuse the audience. So it took a few years for Hollywood to rid itself of this misconception. The decision not to use music plus fairly primitive sound effects (the viewer will readily recognize the sound of thunder as the sound of huge sheets of metal being snapped)take away from the overall effects of this otherwise clever and well-written murder mystery.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

S. S. Van Dine's socialite detective is brought to film for the third time - this time having Basil Rathbone play Philo Vance. While I will not argue with some of the critical assertions that the film is static, stationary, and decidedly creaky, not too mention very far-fetched and predictable, The Bishop Murder Case was made in 1930 when sound was just coming into its own. That is very evident in this film as much of the dialog is hard to hear and comprehend. The stationary microphone was used throughout with director Nick Grinde using lots of expansive scenes with the actors standing around the screened microphone as was the case for sound pictures then. That being said, the film is a pretty decent detective mystery for its time. Rathbone makes an affable Vance. His character is given little depth, however. The mystery, while not entirely and sufficiently explained to me has some things going for it with red herrings involving chess pieces, archery, Ibsen plays, and murders emulating nursery rhymes of a kind. While Grinde directs with the limitations at hand, I did like some of his wide shots. The balcony of the building scene when the professor discovers a man killed by an arrow looked quite impressive, and you can see some wide shots that most definitely mirror German film expressionism of the 1920s with some large, long windows shot in the backdrops of several scenes. All the actors are competent with some real nice character turns by the likes of Charles Quartermaine as a chess expert, George F. Marion as a hunchbacked pseudo-intellectual, James Donlan as a police sergeant(giving the film some of its much needed light moments), and Roland Young, Cosmo Topper himself, turning in a sly, witty performance as a possible suspect. The script is unfortunately riddled with too much ambiguity to make any real sense, but when all is said and done, The Bishop Murder case is mildly entertaining - again making consideration for the time it was made.

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.

Basil Rathbone makes a good Philo Vance in this murder mystery involving nursery rhymes. It's a forerunner of his great portrayal of Sherlock Holmes later in his career. He even uses his powers of observation to deduce that the sergeant (James Donlan) wrote a check that afternoon, soon has a date with a woman, etc., much the same way Holmes did, continually astounding Dr. Watson. But the comedy Donlan provides - and he's the only comic relief in the film - is on an infantile level. When he sees Rathbone for the first time, he says "I've solved this case, Mr. Vance. It's a murder." The script is really less than lacking in the humor department. On the other hand, all the other characters do not behave as stupid, and are believable in their roles. I loved the interesting faces and characterizations of George F. Marion and Charles Quartermaine. And there is one lovely photographed scene when Leila Hyams is sitting at a desk with a triple mirror when a sinister hand opens the door. You see her terrified face from four different angles at once, and it's a stunning effect.

This is the type of mystery that is virtually impossible to figure out. You have to go with the flow and watch the events unfold until the end when they are explained. There are lots of red herrings along the way, so I found myself switching from one suspect to another as the probable murderer. It was fun.

Ordinarily, a "B" movie of this quality should be given a lower rating but considering this film was made in 1930, we have an ultra-ordinary hidden gem. The plot is relatively simplistic yet provides the viewer with interesting plot twists, gives insight to Rathbone's future portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, and delights with a spot on effort from the supporting cast.

The drawback, as many have noted, is the poor sound track. If viewing this movie on TCM, a quick remedy is to add the subtitle audio option. TCM seems to understand many of the sound problems associated with movies of this era and more often than not have the subtitle option/feature available. Just another reason to give a huge hand of appreciation for TCM's dedication to preserving these national treasures and enhancing the viewers experience.

For those who are film buffs of the 30's and 40's, this is an enjoyable experience... Not to mention finally learning "Who killed Cock Robin".

Good effort given the primitive technology. This very early talkie does not creak like most of them did, and you believe that the same team could have done much better only a few years later.

Check out the innovative scene of Hyams at the three-way mirror. Beautiful scene that directors even today should view for technique. There are several little skilled touches added to this film that make you realize that the only limitation on the talent was the primitive lower-than-low tech.

Rathbone and Hyams seem more modern than the movie and they definitely do not creak.

Must reluctantly give it a "5" because of old set-bound look of the film and the lack of music but it is rewarding if you can overlook such drawbacks.

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.

The production creaks and the plot contrives nonsense literary "clues" (mostly mirroring Christie's nursery rhyme contexts and one ludicrous Ibsen reference); the acting is stymied by gaps between lines of dialogue and is ripe with cliches; the heroine is a "maiden tied to the railroad tracks" one dimension, who doesn't make noise to alert of her whereabouts in her "Baskerville distress" moment; the.murderer is obvious as soon as he appears in the plot--until the twist ending; and one pines for Eugeme Pallette.in the role of dumb cop. But--like Jack Palance's paddle ball as a 3-D gimmic in HOUSE OF WAX and the Smellovision piping of theater seats for SCENT OF A MYSTERY--it's fun to see (hear) schtick intended to entice 1929 audiences with the new "sound medium": an otherwise unnecessary vacuum cleaner comedy bit, radio conventions like creaking hinges, sinister footsteps, etc. Powell is indeed the best onscreen Philo Vance (though the character in the books is a fop with a peculiar attraction to his "Watson"), but Rathbone shines with a credible characterization amid eye-bulging ham performances. Watching this startlingly youthful actor is especially entertaining when the ghosts of Holmes, WE'RE NO ANGELS, and the Corman movies resonate in amber. Similarly, the later star of the TOPPER movies brings a subtlety to his performance. As a nearly century-old chestnut with many silent movie trappings, this is no CSI visual feast and the faux lit trappings mar a not-terrible mystery, but observing the relic for what it is can bring much genuine enjoyment.

I read all of the S.S. Van Dine mysteries many, many years ago when his name was still somewhat familiar among mystery book fans. His mysteries were very dense and cerebral and, as I recall, a number of them took place on some Long Island estate (it was kind of fun to read about such a by-gone era when Long Island was still quite rural). I must have liked them okay at the time but doubt that I could now tolerate Vance - an arrogant, snobbish and overly posh detective. Although his mysteries were hugely popular at the time - witness the number of Philo Vance movies, I doubt they are much read today. The same could be said about the movies. While I have seen the William Powell movies, I prefer Basil Rathbone as Vance. As many reviewers have pointed out this is clearly a transition movie from the silents to the talkies which is apparent both from the acting techniques, the photography and the sound. Actually I thought the sound was pretty good and didn't notice, or miss, that the movie didn't have a music soundtrack. I did notice, however, the sound special effects which were a hoot as they were so bad. The basic plot of the story is that there are a series of murders based on nursery rhymes and attributed to someone calling himself The Bishop. There are so many red herrings and so many victims and so many other characters it's hard to keep the storyline straight. It also has what must be an early talkie example of the dumb cop which does provide a bit levity but not much. Quite frankly, the movie is pretty boring and is only saved from being completely boring by the performances by Rathbone and Young. And, it is interesting to see a very early talkie and to then marvel at how far they would progress in just a couple of years. Amazing. There is another reason to see this movie and that is for one line the DA has. Vance and Markham are coming down the stairs and the DA says something like "Here come Holmes and Watson." Best line in the movie.

This is a Philo Vance thriller with genre serial killer. Stagy, as they say, meaning it all seems very static and even self-conscious, but it's pretty good, and the killer is appropriately bonkers. Basil Rathbone, Roland Young.

Free online. There are silent and sound versions, but sound is what you want, and probably all you'll find.

Philo Vance (Basil Rathbone) is on the case of a killer who is leaving clues related to Mother Goose nursery rhymes. The first victim is named Robin but his friends call him Cock Robin. Philo Vance was never one of my favorite movie detectives. I haven't read the books so I can't compare how his film treatment holds up to those. But Vance always seemed to lack the distinct personality traits that all the great movie detectives of the '30s and '40s had, like Charlie Chan or Nick Charles.

This movie creaks but there is some effort to make it less stagey than most films of the time, which I appreciate. Rathbone obviously would go on to a bigger and better detective series with Sherlock Holmes. The acting ranges from stiff to decent. That's future writer/director Delmer Daves as Raymond Sperling. There are some decent elements to this and if it had been made a few years later it might have been really good. But it drags badly. It needed a shot of adrenaline somewhere. Again, the bland personality of Rathbone's Vance doesn't help matters at all.

Here I go again, although I do wonder why I bother.

A cursory look seems to indicate that many of the reviews on this site are negative. To put it plainly, this in large measure is due, aside from personal taste, to the reviewer not having the knowledge to render a reliable assessment. I have to wonder if these people have actually viewed the film in question - of course they have, but the so-called faults referred to don't even qualify as such; it's as if these commentators hadn't seen the film! For example: the pacing is excellent, a grotesque murder, no less, opening the picture! Boring cinematography? Not at all! The tracking shot of a character before he is murdered in broad daylight provides but one example: the camera stays with him until he goes out of sight behind a stone bluff, but even then continues at the same pace. A scuffle is heard; a cry; a shot; the sound of the killer's hastily retreating footsteps after the victim falls into view, a chess bishop in his dead hand. Cut to the heroine, reading nursery rhymes to the children gathered about her as police can be noticed in the background, hurrying to the scene of the crime. A superbly creative touch, of which the movie has many. The sinister gloved hand reaching out for a hunchback (in effect Humpty Dumpty), seated on a park wall on a misty night. As he turns slightly, as if sensing his peril, the hand darts back out of sight, like some deadly reptile, only to quickly return to pull the man to his death (Humpty Dumpty's "great fall"!). The fiend's midnight visit to frighten an elderly, bedridden woman. A triptych shot of the heroine's terrified face, captured from different angles in the mirrors of her dresser, as she becomes aware of another's presence in the house. Her suspenseful venturing into the dark attic, from which she had heard unexplainable typing, there to be suddenly rendered a captive by "The Bishop" - the name by which the multiple murderer signs himself. Only someone unacquainted with suspenseful direction would be oblivious to that seen in this film, preferring to compose their irresponsible opinions. Noteworthy too is the New York City exteriors, achieved with excellent process shots, this despite the movie having been produced on the West Coast. But I, doubtless, waste my time here; for, given the seeming predominance of unqualified, self-appointed, naysaying movie critics, I find myself rather hopelessly outnumbered! As the last major studio to accept talkies, thinking them but a fad, MGM's "The Bishop Murder Case", completed in 1929, reveals an impressive grasp of the new medium, and should be considered in that light rather than criticized.

With a sigh or two, Ray Cabana, Jr.

MGM offers Basil Rathbone as Philo Vance in this one, and he's pretty good in the role; considering it as presaging his run as Sherlock Holmes ten years later, it's easy to see the roots of the characterization. He certainly brings more energy to the role than other performers of S. S. Van Dyne's character.

That said, and noting a potentially interesting cast, I've exhausted all the good points of this turkey. The quality of the sound is very poor. The mystery that Van Dyne sets is not a fair one for the audience, a common complaint about his work, and the characters that Vance moves about are a neurasthenic bunch, Lela Hyams and Roland Young excepted. The only excuse is that Metro was still learning how to make a sound film, but that doesn't make this any better.

Bishop Murder Case, The (1930)

** (out of 4)

A man named Robin is killed by an arrow so Philo Vance (Basil Rathbone) is called in and he soon determines that a killer is using nursery rhymes as his motive. Like so many other early talkies, this one here suffers from non-stop-talking syndrome, which really kills the film. The mystery and motives of the killings are pretty interesting but sadly all we hear is talk and this gets very tiresome because the characters keep talking about the same things over and over. By the time we get to the ending it's hard to care about who has been doing all the murders. Rathbone, looking incredibly young, is pretty good in his role and does a good job at taking command of the character. It's also interesting to see certain gestures, which he would later use as Sherlock Holmes. Even though this was an early talkie, the sound quality is actually better than a lot of the films I've seen from this period but the camera work looks really, really bad throughout.

The first 20-30 minutes or so have lots of odd pauses, as if they were waiting for cues or something. Poor direction or editing might be contributing, I suppose.

After that, it does pick up the pace a bit, and becomes watchable, if your standards aren't too high.

Basil Rathbone plays know-it-all detective Philo Vance essentially the same way he later played Sherlock Holmes, so if you like that, you'll enjoy this.

And there's no Watson to belittle, though the D. A. does follow Vance around like an assistant, to the point that the Roland Young character refers to them as Holmes and Watson.

The character actors are fairly interesting, and the solution to the mystery is not immediately obvious.

And, surprisingly, the sound is pretty good for 1929.