In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Copyright 22 September 1934 by First National Pictures, Inc. Presented by First National Pictures and The Vitaphone Corp. Released through Warner Bros Pictures. New York opening at the Rialto: 22 August 1934. U.S. release: 25 August 1934. U.K. release: 26 January 1935. Australian release: 26 December 1934. Sydney opening at the Regent — Hoyts flagship cinema — as the main feature Christmas attraction. 7 reels. 68 minutes. SYNOPSIS: During a night swim in the so-called "dragon pool" at the Stamm estate, the Stamm girl's fiancé disappears.NOTES: Number 6 of the 15-picture "Philo Vance" series. COMMENT: Both "The Kennel Murder Case" and "The Dragon Murder Case" were mighty popular movies in their day, in America, England and Australia. This is understandable. The first starred crowd-crowned king, William Powell, the second coasted to glory on the success of the first. Although Kennel has the reputation, I found Dragon a much more pleasing film. Firstly, because the mystery proved not only more intriguing and bizarrely exotic, but the solution as to the killer was resolved in such an ingeniously simple yet brilliantly concealed manner.Secondly, heretic as I am, I preferred Humberstone's direction to the more critically praised Curtiz's. This is not a general statement. I believe Curtiz had an off month on Kennel, whereas Lucky was at the top of his form with Dragon. Ditto Tony Gaudio's wonderfully moody photography versus the rather over-bright (at least in the print under review) work of William Reese.Thirdly, the acting: William Powell, as usual, makes his Nick Charles — pardon me, Philo Vance — a debonair study of affable, if somewhat patronizing charm; whilst Warren William, as usual, makes his Perry Mason — pardon me, Philo Vance — a debonair study of sarcastic, gruffly affable and considerably condescending charm. Frankly, I prefer Mr. William, but I will admit it's entirely a matter of personal taste. As for the girls, I'll take Margaret Lindsay any day, whilst Helen Lowell does more than justice to the colorful role of the mad Mrs. Stamm. And speaking of the Stamms, Robert Barrat's impersonation of the outrageously drunken head of the clan is far more convincing than Kennel's outraged lover. Both Kennel and Dragon feature an ingratiating line-up of favorite cameo players. Dragon boasts William B. Davidson (in a decent-sized role, for once), good old George E. "42nd Street" Stone, plus that wonderfully suave cad, George Meeker. Of course, heartily bluff, wheezily argumentative Eugene Palette makes his bulky presence felt in both movies.

Hollywood never found a real Philo Vance. In the books he was an effete, superior pedantic individual and really not very likable. Maybe no one wanted to play him that way. Warren William made a barely passable Vance. I've always been a big William Powell fan, and whether he was Vance, Charles or Dal, he was always the pleasant urbane same William Powell. That being said, I'll move on to The Dragon Murder Case. There is a plot I call the Scooby-Doo plot. All Scooby-Doo episodes share one plot: There appear to be frightening mysterious and perhaps supernatural events going on, when in the end it turns out to be just another baddie with a baddie agenda. The Dragon Murder Case is one of these. A group of guests go for a nocturnal swim. A man disappears after diving into a naturally formed swimming pool. After draining the pool, there is no sign of the missing man. Eventually his broken body is found some distance away in what they call a "pothole". Word on the street is that the dragon that supposedly inhabits the pool, killed the man and dragged his body away to the pothole for future nutrition. When the film came out, audiences weren't as blasé as they are today, and many were probably amazed at what happened and at Mr. Vance's acumen. Today however, most viewers will spot the murderer the moment he appears on the screen. For its time, the film is pretty good with spooky lighting, aquariums with lizards and fighting fish; sea monster lore. The dammed up pool looks pretty good with its rugged edges. But the denouement is downright lame. It worked better in the book because of the description of the pool and the reader's imagination. In the film it seems impossible for the murder to have been carried out without one or more of the four people present having seen something. The biggest "plothole" in the story is however, that the entire operation (which began sometime before we entered the movie), depended completely upon the victim (both in the book and on the screen), suggesting that everyone go for a swim. Okay, maybe he liked to swim, but what if he hadn't made the suggestion? The killer would have wasted a great deal of effort and bad acting for nothing. How many times would he have to go through this to get his victim where he wanted him? And really, why bother to hide the body? Just to add to the mystery? If I plotted to murder someone, my concern would be not to get caught, to hell with offering up a great mystery for the world to ponder. I liked The Kennel Murder Case a lot better.

Dragon Murder Case, The (1934) *** 1/2 (out of 4) William Warren takes over the role of Philo Vance in this entry, which plays more like a horror film than just a mystery. A world class swimmer jumps into a pool during a party and never comes up. The next day the pool is drained but there isn't a body so various people are looked at as suspects but certain clues lead to a legend dealing with an Indian dragon monster. The Kennel Murder Case is the best known film in the series but this one here is just as exciting and entertaining. Warren is terrific in the role of Vance bringing his usual charm and brains to the role. The supporting cast including Lyle Talbot, Margaret Lindsay, Robert McWade and George E. Stone are all terrific but it's the overweight and funny talking Eugene Palette that steals the show. The mystery behind the killing remains interesting throughout the entire film and all the horror elements ranging from ghosts to dragons to a crazy old woman play out very well. This is certainly one of the better mysteries I've seen from this period.

"The Dragon Murder Case" (1934) is not nearly as weak as some of these comments would lead you to believe. It should be cut some slack based on when it was made (it has Code Certificate #109) and viewed from the perspective of its intended audience. At the time its claim to fame was as a murder mystery packaged inside a lot of clever misdirection. For today's viewers, these sorts of twists will seem rather routine. Not so forgivable are several huge plot holes but as long as you are suspending disbelief anyway….There is even a (Stanley) Kubrick-style subtext about Native Americans although they don't take it as far as he did in "The Shining".This is a Philo Vance story (basically an early version of William Powell's Nick Charles character) with Warren Williams replacing Powell. Williams is nothing exceptional but the supporting cast and the production design are quite good. Eugene Palette (Friar Tuck) steals all his scenes with the funniest lines and the best delivery; his stuff alone makes the film worth viewing. The quotes section has his line about women generally speaking. Helen Lowell has a lot of fun playing the loony grandmother; she was born in 1866-wonder how many pre-1870 actors can claim lines in a talking picture. Margaret Lindsay is extremely beautiful as she was in "Jezabel" (1938); beautiful enough to stand out from all but a handful of her contemporaries. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.