ThiefHott
Too much of everything
Sexyloutak
Absolutely the worst movie.
Logan
By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
JohnHowardReid
This remake of "The Kennel Murder Case" (the bulk of the film) and "Private Detective 62" (all the introductory sequences) offers quite passable entertainment for those of us who haven't yet had the pleasure of seeing William Powell in both these wonderful films directed by Michael Curtiz. This one is directed efficiently but somewhat less effectively by William Clemens. The best thing about it is Jimmy Conlin who does more amusingly by Doctor Doremus than did Etienne Girardot in the original adaptation of the S.S. Van Dine thriller. Edward Brophy is also a joy. On the other hand, James Stephenson who gave such a great performance opposite Bette Davis in "The Letter" (1940) makes a very disappointing Philo Vance. In fact, he was miscast. His accent is all wrong for a start, a problem that Stephenson himself seems acutely aware of. Instead of making Vance a debonair detective (William Powell style), he turns him into a stuffed shirt. Both his expressionless facial activity and his reading of his lines signally lack charisma. But at least you can hear him clearly. He doesn't mumble like many present-day leads, but a stuffed-shirt hero is also a deadly dull hero.
MartinHafer
This is a very cheaply made and predictable programmer--predictable since its plot is taken, almost verbatim, from two earlier films. It was literally like splicing two old movie together to make a new film!The first 15 minutes of the film is lifted right out of PRIVATE DETECTIVE 62 (1933--starring William Powell), though the hero was stealing information from a French safe in the original film and in CALLING PHILO VANCE it involved stealing from an Austrian one. In both, he was working for the state department (though they denied this) and in both cases he was deported back to the US--only to have the boat's captain be told to return the man just as they are pulling into New York harbor--at which point the man jumps overboard and the rest of the film begins. It's so exact that they are practically the same film in the first reel.Following this narrow escape, the plot is THE KENNEL MURDER CASE (also starring Powell). I am sure of this because I just saw both 1930s films in the last month. In fact, in many places it was word-for-word the same--so much so that I couldn't stand watching the film again--especially because James Stevenson on his best day doesn't even come close to the charm and style of William Powell's version of Philo Vance. It's like having Lee Majors play the lead in High Noon instead of Gary Cooper (this DID happen) or Timothy Dalton play "Rhett Butler" instead of Clark Gable (this, sadly, also DID happen)!! So, unless you've never seen the near-perfect KENNEL MURDER CASE (which earned a well-deserved 9 from me), don't even bother with this by-the-numbers re-make. It just isn't worth your time. And, for that matter, PRIVATE DETECTIVE 62 is also quite superior to CALLING PHILO VANCE. In fact, just WHO is this James Stevenson and why is he stealing from William Powell?!
krorie
The Philo Vance murder mystery series was entertaining and worthwhile but had one serious problem, the actor playing the lead role of Philo Vance kept changing from movie to movie. This was not true of other successful series such as Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes and Chester Morris' Boston Blackie. By far the most competent actor in the role was the indomitable William Powell, who starred in not only the best one of the Philo Vance films but a movie classic "The Kennel Murder Case." Alas, he was too good and went on to bigger and better roles, in particular the Thin Man series. What we get with "Calling Philo Vance" is James Stephenson, who makes a pleasant enough Philo Vance but he is certainly no William Powell. On the other hand, the supporting cast is equal to and sometimes even better than the supporting cast in "The Kennel Murder Case." "Calling Philo Vance" is a reworking of the "Kennel Murder Case," updating the story to involve espionage (Hitler invaded Poland the year before this movie was released). Other than the spy angle and having Philo a government agent rather than a P.I. there is not much change. The story still involves the intriguing idea of having a murder committed in a sealed and locked room. A few of the scenes are shot verbatim from the original. So why watch this one if you can get hold of the original, which is a superior film? I'm a Philo Vance fan. So I enjoyed this one too.
tedg
Spoilers herein.There are two kinds of films: those that simply talk to you, and those that have an engaging conversation of some type. There are an amazing number and variety of the second type, with the prototype being the detective story. In its pure form it is an intimate wrestling match for control over what happens next in your imagination.
This is interesting because it is something in between. The detective story is very clever in the situation it presents. But it is not given as a game, instead all we can do and watch as the story surprises us with its various confabulations. Its titillating being on the edge.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
