everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Disappointment for a huge fan!

Best movie of this year hands down!

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

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.

This is a remake of the "Kennel Murder Case" with Philo Vance (James Stephenson) going after some U.S. airplane plans sold to a foreign nation; the designer of the plans and his brother both wind up murdered, and there are plenty of suspects.William Powell was probably the best Philo Vance - he had the requisite charm. Stephenson, who started in films late in life after stage work, was on his way to a big career when he made "Calling Philo Vance" - unfortunately, he died the next year, at the age of 53. As with "The Dragon Murder Case" with Warren William as Vance, the supporting players have the good lines and the energetic roles. Stephenson doesn't have a lot to work with, but he's okay.Parts of this film are interesting, it's a little better than "The Dragon Murder Case," which isn't really saying much.

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.

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.