There were times when this movie seemed to get a whole lot more complicated than it needed to be, but I guess that's part of it's charm. Detective Philo Vance's powers of observation seem greater than all the Oriental sleuths of the era combined when it comes down to that final evaluation of how the murders were committed. The dropping of the dagger into the Chinese vase was the kicker for me; I mean, couldn't somebody have just dropped it?

Vance (William Powell) had a line early in the film about Archer Coe's 'psychological impossibility' to kill himself - I had to think about that for a while. I was left wondering if there's some scientific basis in fact for that concept to be true, not having studied psychology myself. Seems logical, but then there's always the case that doesn't fit the rules.

You know, I got a kick out of the agitated coroner (Etienne Girardot), who reminded me of Star Trek's Dr. McCoy the couple of times he stated "I'm a doctor, not a magician" and "I'm a doctor, not a detective". I can picture DeForrest Kelley watching the film and saying to himself - 'I'll have to use that sometime'.

Once the killer's identity is revealed, it doesn't seem like such a big surprise, but up till then it's really anybody's guess. But Archer and Brisbane Coe aside, the film didn't answer the central question posed by the title, and the murder I was really interested in - who killed Sir Thomas MacDonald's dog Ghillie?

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
Options are: (1). negative. (2). positive.
(2).