CommentsXp Best movie ever!

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

fung0 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.

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.

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.

Arthur Hausner 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.