I love this movie so much

Strong and Moving!

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

There are a lot of different film genres I enjoy, but one I've enjoyed as long as I can remember (at least 45 years) is 30s/40s-era detective/murder mysteries. For reasons I can't explain, the early Perry Mason movies have, until the other night, remained unknown to me. I love the Thin Man, Falcon, and the Saint - Perry Mason ticks all the same boxes. Mix a decent little murder mystery with a bit of nice comedy, snappy dialogue, an appealing cast, and a well-shot, nice looking film and you'll end up with film that will most likely work on me. The Case of the Curious Bride may not be the best of the bunch, but it is a whole lot of fun.The plot involves a worried woman named Rhoda. She tracks down Perry with a story of "friend" who has recently remarried, but is worried her first husband may not be dead after all. What should the "friend" do? It doesn't take a detective to see that Rhoda's in trouble. Perry agrees to help, but before he can do much, Rhoda's first husband turns up dead - for real this time. With Rhoda the chief suspect and Perry's reputation on the line, he's got to find the real killer.The Case of the Curious Bride has a couple things going for it. First, Warren William's Perry Mason is a joy to watch. Similar to Nick Charles, Mason is a worldly sort - capable of everything from cooking a gourmet meal to solving a murder to just about everything in between. And he does all with style and grace. His barbs, directed at the police or whoever gets in his way, and his overall wit are real treat. He's quite a character. The second is Director Michael Curtiz. His direction, even in a relatively "small" picture like The Case of the Curious Bride, is spot-on. The direction is snappy, without a single wasted scene. Curtiz deftly gives the film a light, airy feel that works. The mix of comedy, mystery, and action is handled expertly. He was a real underrated professional.Overall, a real treat that I easily rate a 7/10.

Although Warren William had already played Perry Mason in Alan Crosland's The Case of the Howling Dog (1935), and would continue to play the attorney/detective in The Case of the Lucky Legs and The Case of the Velvet Claws, it's this second outing that all classic film addicts are anxious to view, chiefly because it marks the Hollywood debut of Errol Flynn.Actually, although Errol's role is important, it's also quite small. He doesn't speak but appears very briefly in a flashback. It's Warren William who steals all the limelight and is given all the brightest lines. With the exception of Olin Howland, the other characters are in the movie simply to supply William with "business"—and this being an "A" production—plenty of it. Even the title heroine, nicely played by Margaret Lindsay, disappears for most of the action. We also see very little of Della Street. It's Mason who makes things happen all the way, as he strides through the vast backlot and studio sets at a frantic pace, trading verbal blows right, left and center.The speed of the narrative is ingeniously reinforced by a snappy quick-zoom/focus-out editing style (which was picked up in a popular TV series 20 years later). Other credits are likewise highly professional, but, despite all this cinematic dexterity, I feel the movie tends to outstay its welcome. The plot is too thin, and Lindsay's dilemma is not made sufficiently dramatic.

This is one of several Perry Mason films made in the 1930s starring Warren William. In this case, an old girlfriend is accused of killing While this film bears almost no similarity to the Perry Mason TV series, this isn't why I didn't particularly like the film. The main problem is that the film had a limp and poorly written script--with a lot of really awful dialog and logical errors. It was as if the studio just didn't care and rushed this into production. Even as a B-movie, this film has an awful script. Part of the reason I know the script is bad is that Warren William made some dandy "Lone Wolf" detective films and this one just doesn't even come close in quality or watchability.So, if the movie is a dud, why did I keep watching the film. Well, I am a bit of a film history fan and I wanted to see two interesting supporting players--Mayo Methot and Errol Flynn. Methot was the wife of Humphrey Bogart and she rarely got significant roles--here she got a bigger than usual part. Also, while Flynn became a huge star, this film was made just before his breakout film, CAPTAIN BLOOD (also 1935). I was actually surprised that he received such high billing or billing at all, as his part lasted about 5 seconds and he didn't even speak. The studio must have realized they had a star and so they lied and made it look like a Flynn film--a common practice among the wily studios of the day.So, unless you want to see Flynn or Methot, don't bother. Giving the film a 4 was probably charitable.

Together with the noir and the musical, there isn't anything more important to the shape of film narrative than the detective story. And among that, you have two poles, represented by the two greatest sellers of mysteries ever: Christie and Gardner.Christie by far the more sophisticated of the two, engaged in a guessing game with the reader from page one. Each of her stories toys with some element of assumption, of perception. Gardner's approach was to set up an impossible situation, then surprise the reader at the end with an elaborate ballet of comings and goings around the corpse.Gardner's work was extremely formulaic, in fact he actually used a circular slide rule of sorts to make up stories. There were other devices employed in his rather automated "fiction factory." His template of formula and avoidance of challenging the audience was a more popular fit for movies, alas.This is his first movie. He hated it because it tinkered with his formula to create a Perry that compared to Nick Charles, the breakout character of the previous year. So we have an effete humorous character, a gourmet cook overlain on our original mechanical mind. And — good luck for us — the setting is San Francisco only a generation after it was destroyed.The direction alone is worth it, even if you don't appreciate the grand struggle for control over the shape of film narrative. Curtis moves this thing along with a rhythm that matches the cheery elite meals referenced in the dialog.Perry watchers will be particularly interested in how Della Street is handled here. In the stories, she is a loyal machine, as efficient in her way as Drake and Mason. We always know she is in love with her boss (just as Gardner's secretary was) but it is only hinted. Not so here. She's so mooneyed she's almost drunk.Oh, the story itself is tepid. Philo Vance would be doing much better.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.