Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Detective thriller movie franchises – inspired by their literary counterparts – were a common occurrence in 1930s and 1940s Hollywood, from Bulldog Drummond to The Whistler. I own a good many of these but, curiously enough, have not had the opportunity to watch as many as I would like; suffice it to say that that the only such series I have gone through in its entirety is that of "The Thin Man" (also because it is one of the shortest if most successful).Having mentioned the latter, which gave William Powell his signature role, it is to be noted that he also assumes the lead role in the movie under review as yet another popular fictional sleuth i.e. Philo Vance. In fact, this was his fifth and final appearance in the part, not to mention the only one made by Warner Bros. (the others were produced while the actor was still under contract to Paramount, whereas his entire stint as Nick Charles was done over at MGM!). Anyway, KENNEL is universally considered the best of the Vance films (as for myself, it served as my introduction to him): the main reason for this was a combination of Warners' snappy 1930s style (practically half the film's 73-minute running time shows the entire cast on the phone at some point!) and the deft handling of director Curtiz (who showed his mettle in practically every genre throughout a long and distinguished career).The case – the title is misleading, because it does not revolve exclusively around doghouses and, yet, a number of canines (including Vance's own colourfully-named "Captain McTavish") figure prominently in it, one of which even exposes the guilty party at the climax! – is quite an elaborate one, though seemingly contrived (given that so many of the principal characters happen to reside in the same street!). The supporting cast of characters is peppered with familiar faces (notably Eugene Palette in his fifth of six turns as Police Sergeant Heath – who basically served the same function as Scotland Yard Inspector Lestrade in the later Sherlock Holmes films – and scene-stealer Etienne Girardot as an elderly mortician forever bemoaning the interruption of his repasts by the call of duty), two(!) sets of love triangles, and the obligatory sinister butler and foreign cook. One of the downsides here with respect to "The Thin Man" films is that Vance is not given much of a social life, whereas Nick Charles' tipsy relationship with wife Nora (played by Myrna Loy) was seminal in 'humanizing' the detective archetype that would see its full flowering with the onset of the film noir trend a decade on. P.S. Being fluent in Italian, I bemusedly noticed that a telegram supposedly cabled in that language shown in two scenes is littered with mistakes – such as the writing of "transsione" (instead of "transazione") and "authorizzare" (which should be without an "h"), while a specified amount of money is bafflingly left in English!

This is the sixth Philo Vance mystery film and the fifth and last starring William Powell, five films which he made between 1929 and 1933. (In 1930 a single Philo Vance film intervened which starred Basil Rathbone, THE BISHOP MURDER CASE, see my review). After this, Philo Vance was played by eight different actors until 1947, when the series ended (it had gone into abeyance during the War, between 1940 and 1947). Here William Powell continues to become more and more recognisable as the William Powell we all admire from his later films. Although the script gives him little opportunity, he still manages to make the occasional comment with the typical Powellesque mixture of nonchalance and challenge. Insouciance is never that far away, and one can sense it trembling on his lips. His sense of humour peeks through the workmanlike script from time to time, like a mouse glancing through its hole at a cheese on the table but not daring to try to approach it. (A whole cheese of the old-fashioned kind bears a certain resemblance to a director's cut, doesn't it? It is more nearly what its Maker intended.) This film has many characters, including seven murder suspects. The plot is convoluted, there is more than one murder, and there may even be more than one murderer. A central feature of the complex plot is that old chestnut, the murder in a locked room which is bolted from the inside. In this film, unlike others one could mention, we see a detailed and closeup view of just how that trick is done. I am not aware of when the famous motif of a murder in a sealed and bolted room first entered detective fiction, and doubtless experts in the genre might have some idea. But here we have it on screen in 1933, and trackers of ingenious plot twists can add that as one of the early dots which they join in their graph. But there are many red herrings and other complications in this tale. There may be not one, not two, but three murder weapons, for instance. Which one did the deed? Why are there so many? The sub-plot of a Chinese cook who is really a Columbia University graduate specializing in the acquiring of rare porcelain adds a further twist. Certainly this story was very meticulously plotted, with as many intersecting possibilities as a well-cut jewel has facets. It gleams from all angles, and the answers may come from more than a single one. Detective story lovers will not be disappointed. Mary Astor is one of the two female stars, but has little to do other than walk through her lines. This is a plot film, not a character film, and nothing matters but whodunit, or whodunn'em. There are no wisecracks or smart dialogue in this film, but it does have a running humorous sub-plot of the coroner whose meals keep being interrupted as he is repeatedly summoned to check on more bodies, and he gets grumpier and grumpier. He is very funny, and this lightens the film up a little. The film never rises above the mediocre except in its plot elements. Oh yes, there are cute dogs in this film. In most films, we get cute girls, but in this one we get cute dogs.

William Powell displays his amateur sleuth chops pre- Thin Man series in this mild whodunit that neither excites or offends. Powell's Philo Vance is as sharp and observant as Nick Charles but director Michael Curtiz does little with the supporting cast who spend most of their time feeling cheated and looking guilty.Arthur Coe commits suicide in his locked bedroom or so it seems. Homicide hanger on Vance thinks otherwise and proves the coroner wrong. Now all they have to do is find the killer. Vance once again takes the lead while detective in charge Heath (Eugene Palette) bungles matters. As the plot thickens so do the suspects.Vance remains sharp and sober throughout but he is surrounded by imbeciles so his wit and insight is met with blank faced incomprehension and annoying bluster by Palette's Heath who desperately wants to slap the cuffs on anyone. The crime itself and it's solving is filled with Rube Goldberg ingenuity that doesn't wash and Powell isolated with a cast of expressionless bores begs for a Myrna Loy entrance that never comes allowing The Kennel Murder Case to go to the dogs.

But tells it well. It's almost as if this Philo Vance mystery takes its cues from Agatha Christie, with the story being so intricately plotted that the least suspected person ends up as the murderer. However, I have to admit, in this case I did suspect the culprit.WILLIAM POWELL assumes a more serious demeanor as the detective, unlike his characterization of Nick Charles in the Thin Man mysteries. The humor comes from some in the supporting cast, most of whom are suspects in the case.MARY ASTOR is pretty and lively as ROBERT BARRATT's daughter. He's the man who is at first suspected of committing suicide in a locked study. ETIENNE GIARADOT is the doctor who is always being called away to check out a dead body just as he gets to enjoy a quick meal. ("I know a dead man when I see one!" he cries impatiently). RALPH MORGAN is the murdered man's private secretary. EUGENE Palette is a befuddled detective who can't decide who's guilty without the aid of Vance and gets a few chuckles along the way.Directed in lively fashion by Michael Curtiz, it's a good little mystery that borrows from a whole bunch of clichés but manages to be tight and entertaining throughout. Well worth watching. The locked room explanation is a little hard to swallow but is acted out efficiently during solution of the crime.