Some things I liked some I did not.

Really Surprised!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It's one of the most original films you'll likely see all year, which, depending on your threshold for certifiably crazy storylines, could be a rewarding experience or one that frustrates you.

. . . Perry Mason's movie career in the 1930s, as its hard-to-follow convoluted plot bears no scrutiny whatsoever. A synopsis of this story might read something like this: Two Australian moms with look-alike daughters the same age run across each other in Salt Lake City, and decide to live together. When Mom A lets slip that her daughter's estranged grandpa is an L.A. millionaire, Mom B immediately hires a detective agency to plant HER OWN DAUGHTER in the Rich Guy's house as a second grandchild. Since this impostor's kind of cute, Gramps instantly announces plans to give 75% of his grandson's inheritance to the stranger girl. Mom A's wedding minister arrives from another continent to inform Mom A of this nefarious plot. Mom A goes to meet her adopted-out grown daughter and her estranged father-in-law, not realizing that Mom B has stolen her registered gun in order to off the Rich Guy before her own daughter is exposed as an impostor. Mom B shoots the millionaire four times, but that's okay, since the Real Killer is one of the Private Eyes with whom she's in cahoots. He shoves the Death Car into the Bay, drowning Mr. Money Bags before he can bleed to death from Mom B's bullets. At best, THE CASE OF THE STUTTERING BISHOP is an argument against gun registration.

The Perry Mason series of mysteries from the 1930s are some of the best mysteries one could watch. One needs to pay attention to details throughout the film to follow the twists in the plot, which in this movie is very complicated. The movies closely follow the Erle Stanley Gardner mystery novels on which they are based. The Case of the Stuttering Bishop holds one's interest from beginning to end as Perry Mason cleverly addresses the case of a murder committed over a will, inheritance and the fraudulent identity of a key player. Donald Woods does not play the role of Perry Mason as well as Warren William did in this series. William plays the role with panache and wit, whereas Donald Woods plays the role straightforward with no flair—serviceable but not exciting. Ann Dvorak plays the role of Della Street straightforward also with none of the sassiness and cuteness of Genevieve Tobin and none of the glamour and screen presence of Helen Trehnolme in other movies in the series. If you are a fan of old, intriguing mysteries, you won't be disappointed with this gem.

The sixth and final Perry Mason film from Warner Bros. once again features cast changes. Perry is now played by a mustachioed Donald Woods, a stiff leading man that I have never been particularly fond of. The guy has the charisma of wet socks. Perry's secretary Della Street is played this time by Ann Dvorak, an actress I actually do like a lot and think she could have been bigger than she was. She's the best part of this. Playing Perry's investigator Paul Drake this time is veteran character actor Joseph Crehan. The rest of the cast features familiar faces such as Anne Nagel, Frank Faylen, Tom Kennedy, and Veda Ann Borg.The plot this time has a Bishop (supposedly from Australia but you wouldn't know it by that accent) asking Perry to help an heiress. This is the least enjoyable of the WB Perry Mason movies. It is watchable but awfully dry and routine, not helped in the least by such an uncharismatic lead. Dvorak helps, as does Tom Kennedy as comic relief. But not enough to make this anything more than a middling B detective picture that's only worth seeing once.

Maybe you can keep up with the plot convolutions better than I could. Finally I lost track of the yellow or pink or white raincoats and threw in the towel. Anyway, it's a mildly entertaining Mason entry, at best. As a matter of fact, it looks to me like Warner Bros. had lost interest in the series—(for example, compare the sparse production values here with the richly produced The Case of the Curious Bride {1935}). This was the last installment and features a boyish Donald Woods as the legal wizard and sleuth. Frankly, in my book, he lacks the forceful presence required to bring off the role in authoritative fashion, and was, perhaps, a last minute replacement for the more familiar Warren William. Ironically, it's this installment that more closely resembles the TV show with its first-part dramatic setup and second-part courtroom pyrotechnics. Too bad the exotic Ann Dvorak is largely wasted as a recessive Della Street— with her distinctive looks and lively personality, she should have been one of the suspects. All in all, the 70 minutes is for hardcore fans of the series and for fans of the perennially addled Tom Kennedy as the aptly named "Magooney".