The Worst Film Ever

Fantastic!

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

"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.

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.