Add a Review

  • Donald Woods and Ann Dvorak were fine as Perry Mason and his secretary, Della Street, but it took me a while to get used to not seeing Raymond Burr in the Mason role. The complicated plot involves two women named Janice who claim to be the heir to the fortune of Douglas Wood, and an Australian bishop who asks Mason to see Mira McKinney, who can prove which one is the real one. But Wood is killed going to the rendezvous with McKinney, who is charged with murder. In customary Perry Mason style, there is a final courtroom scene (in this case only a hearing) where Mason flushes out the killer and the phony Janice. I enjoyed trying to follow the plot and the comedy that was prevalent. Tom Kennedy suddenly remembers an important item when he hears the name "Sampson," because it involves a ship called "Delilah." Woods always asking Dvorak to remind him to give her a raise when she gets a good idea (a running gag). Even the bishop, who explains he stutters only when under some emotional stress, provides some comedy at the end. He sheepishly stammers "g-g-goodness g-g-gracious" when three of the principal women kiss him goodbye.
  • You can often tell when a studio is losing interest in a film series when they start replacing the entire cast. In this instance, they did it twice in 2 films-- and by the time of THE CASE OF THE STUTTERING BISHOP, we'd not only seen 3 Perry Masons in 6 films, but 5 different Della Streets! Donald Woods does his 2nd PM film, having played one of the suspects in ...THE CURIOUS BRIDE, while William Clemens directs his 2nd PM film, having already done the relatively sober ...VELVET CLAWS. Clemens would go onto quite a few series films, including a Torchy Blane, 4 Nancy Drews, a Dead Ends Kids, a Philo Vance, and 3 Falcons. There's nothing especially flashy or stylish about this film, and it starts out very confusing, but it is a solid mystery film, and gets better as it goes.

    For example, you have the boastful house detective who Perry winds up hiring part-time, and as the story goes on he proves to be genuinely helpful, rather than "merely" comic relief. It seems the murder takes forever to happen in this one, but once it does, the story FINALLY kicks into gear, and the courtroom sequence at the end is probably the BEST in all 6 films. Unlike when Perry rattled off confusing info nobody but HE knew in the previous installment, the quick stream of witness testimonies actually help to pull all the threads of the story together neatly. And at last, there's the patented "blurted out confession" seen in so many PM stories-- only in this case, NOT from the person being grilled on the stand.

    It's been said that sometimes casting actors very accurate to novels can lead to dull films. Some of the most popular versions of characters are quite unlike their literary sources-- good examples being Sean Connery's JAMES BOND and Stacy Keach's MIKE HAMMER. In this case, I find myself wishing Warren William had done more films like this one-- his version of Perry might not be thought of as so much of a joke then.
  • Donald Woods stars as Perry Mason in "The Case of the Stuttering Bishop," a 1937 film that also stars Ann Dvorak as a lively Della Street. Frank Faylen is also on hand to pep things up a bit. Both of them are needed, because Donald Woods isn't terribly exciting. Of the men who played Perry Mason in the films, he is perhaps the closest rendering to the actual character. But the book Perry Mason was just that - for books - and it would take Gardner himself to not only choose Raymond Burr (the original Perry Mason was supposed to be Fred MacMurray until Gardner saw Mason at an audition for Hamilton Burger) but oversee the scripts to make the translation to the moving image.

    The story concerns a mysterious bishop who asks Perry to help clear a woman accused of manslaughter many years earlier. From there, the story gets into mistaken identity - is a woman posing as an heiress or isn't she - and the solving of a murder. It's a very complicated plot, so pay attention. And Paul Drake is old. If you can sort it all out, you'll find it interesting. There's a little comedy to be had, which is helpful.

    I like watching the Perry Mason movies, if only to see the different interpretations of the various roles and the emphasis put into the stories, but in the end, it's best to forget who these characters are supposed to be - because after watching the TV show for years, none of them are. So don't expect much in that department, and you won't be disappointed.
  • 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".
  • Most of Edward McWade's roles were uncredited, but he certainly paid his dues in film-making; he had been making movies since 1919. Here he plays the stuttering bishop, who shows up at the office of Perry Mason (Donald Woods this time... Warren William had been playing Perry Mason for most of the 1930s.) with a case, then disappears. He makes accusations against the local rich man, Renald Brownley, played by Douglas Wood. Anne Dvorak and Joseph Crehan in supporting roles, as Mason confronts Brownley and tries to sort out the clues and what's going on. People start turning up dead, people are fighting, and then we're in the courtroom, like any good episode of Perry Mason. There are some comical moments, mostly between Mason and Della Street, and the names are a little confusing, with a Della, a Stella, TWO girls named Janice, and even an Ida. It's solid enough, with the usual court-room drama and outbursts. Directed by William Clemens, who had also directed many of the Nancy Drew and The Falcon films.
  • As someone who has read all 82 of the Perry Mason novels, I have to say that this is the best I've seen of the Warner Brothers Perry Mason films. Readers of Gardner's mysteries will appreciate how faithfully the screen writers were able to keep to the essentials of the original plot in this short 70 minute film.

    This film is far superior to the turkeys WB made with Warren William (although that's not saying much.) And Donald Woods was more like the literary Mason than Raymond Burr, who was almost fat enough by the end of the TV series to play Nero Wolfe!

    And, of course, there's the great 1930's atmosphere in this film, something the TV series could never hope to reproduce.
  • Case of the Stuttering Bishop, The (1937)

    ** 1/2 (out of 4)

    Sixth and final film in Warner's Perry Mason series features a new guy in the lead role but the film turns out to be a rather entertaining entry. This time out, Perry Mason (Donald Woods) is visited by a bishop who asks him to investigate a manslaughter that happened twenty-two years earlier but the guilty party is still free. Perry starts to investigate, which leads him to a billionaire who eventually winds up dead and it seems the same person is behind the two cases. This is a pretty strong film that manages to be quite entertaining, although it would have benefited by a stronger supporting cast. Woods is actually very good in the role of Mason and brings his own charm and brains to the role. Ann Dvorak is entertaining as his secretary but the rest of the cast is so-so at best. The case is actually very well written and manages to be quite complicated, which ruins the ending when we get the typical easy way out and that's the guilty person getting away with it until they break down and admit everything.
  • tedg24 February 2015
    We had two great evolutionary paths in the 30s. One was an amazing diversity of invention to settle some basic narrative devices that have since served us well as the basic vocabulary of cinema. The other, parallel path was the pulp detective novel, a master of which was Gardner.

    The traditional, Holmes form is that you are linked to the detective. You discover what he does. Christie followed this form, but it is difficult to render in film. Gardner may be the first case — since common — of the novel adopting cinematic form. His formula does seem friendly to film: we see events that Mason does not, often before he gets seriously engaged. These events give us a false impression of what happened, so we as viewers start out with a deficit.

    Then we have the detection; Mason and company are detectives in act two. The third act is always a courtroom, which is why our detective has to be a lawyer. Courtroom conventions have their own evolution in film, and this instance is limited to what in Christie's stories has to be a contrived assembly of the suspects.

    This format allows for more complicated mysteries than were usual in film. My own preference for 30's detection is Philo Vance because the formula was not so strict. But this is a good one in terms of allowing complexity and surprise. We have that here in this solid instance.

    One of the decisions in defining the characters is how intimate to make the relationship between alpha male Mason and his pretty and competent secretary. Why this matters has to do, as Mason would say, with motive. We like the guy. He is smart, as smart as other detectives, but why he does what he does…

    In some renderings of the Mason format, he just likes to win. He has his own Lestrade who he likes humiliating. Justice is incidental, and truth merely a tactic. He just like to strut.

    In other renderings, he does what he does because he loves his team, his closest friend Drake and his lover Della. Both are profoundly loyal and true. He struts for her and we imagine passion after the obligatory Italian restaurant scene.

    Here, a delicate balance between the two is maintained.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    **SPOILER*** Despite the excellent portrayal of Perry Mason by Donald Woods, considered to be the closest to the actual Perry Mason character of the Earl Stanley Gardner books, the overly complicated storyline sinks the movie before it even leaves the harbor.

    Perry is contacted by this sputtering Bishop from Sidney Australia Bishop Mallory,Edward McWead about an event that happened some twenty years ago. This Bishop tells an amused Perry Mason, since when does a Bishop stutter, that he can prove that the heir to the Philip Brownley, Gordon Oliver, fortune his granddaughter Janice, Ann Nagel,is an impostor and the real Janice is actually the daughter of a woman who gave her up to him for adoption back in 1915.

    After getting involved in a DWI, one of the first on record, where a man was killed Ida Gilbert, Mira McKinney,was kicked out of the Brownley mansion despite her being married to Philip Brownley's son. Alone and destitute with an infant, young Brownley's, daughter Janice the girl was later given, by the stuttering Bishop Mallory's church, to the Seaton family in Salt Lake city to raise as their own. Now some twenty years later this impostor, as Bishop Mallory calls her, Janice Alma Brownley is in line to getting the old man's, who doesn't have that long to go, money.

    Murder deception as well as a number of surprises, in who did what to whom and why, keeps you as well as Perry Mason in a state of confusion during the entire movie. Brownley is told to go to the city docks by the real Jancie's, his granddaughter, mother Ida Gilbert where she'll show him a watch belonging to his son proving that her, not the fake Janice, daughter is in fact his biological offspring. Brownley ends up both shot with his car, with him in it, dumped down at the bottom of the bay with Ida Gilbert, wearing a light colored raincoat, being seen running from the murder scene.

    The movie then just goes overboard in trying to fit all the clues together where the parade of murder suspects, real or imagined, in Brownleys death never seems to end. In fact when the film is finally over your still not quite sure what exactly happened since even Perry Mason is completely side-whacked in the courtroom during his famous cross-examination scene of the murder, of Old Man Brownley, suspect. ***SPOILER ALERT***Just when you, and Perry, think the the "killer" is going to break down and admit his, or her, guilt someone completely out of the blue in the audience bursts out and admits to Brownley's murder!

    If that, the big and emotional outburst by the so called murderer, isn't enough to get you to go outside to the nearest bar and get yourself a stiff drink it turns out the the person who just admitted murdering Brownley didn't in fact murder him at all! In pops Bishop Mallory, with his head bandaged up and not stuttering anymore, who was supposed to be back in his native Australia after he was worked over by two hired hoods, who were to keep him from exposing the fake Janice Brownley, in his hotel room. The what seems like omnipresent Bishop Mallory also turns out to be an eye witness to who actually killed Old Man Brownley; the person who ran Mallory down on the docks with Brownley's car and left him for dead. On top of all that Brownleys killer just happens to be in the courtroom where he can easily be arrested and later booked for his crimes! Talk about surprise endings!
  • I don't mind stories about mistaken identities if the plot isn't overly complicated but this one is the reason I never cared for the Erle Stanley Gardner type of mysteries--he sets up too many complicated sub-plots and in this one there are two women named Janice, one of whom is the fake heiress that has to be exposed by Perry Mason (DONALD WOODS).

    This time ANN DVORAK is Della Street and has some good-natured byplay with Perry. Woods is unable to do much in the part. He was always good looking leading man material but as bland as they come. The story concerns a Bishop Mallory, himself suspected of being an imposter because he stutters and bishops aren't supposed to stutter. He, in turn, is trying to convince Mason to clear a woman wrongly accused of manslaughter 22 years before. From there on, you're on your own trying to follow the cluttered plot assortment of names and characters that keep cropping up but are essential to get the full story.

    Not recommended unless you have the patience to sort all the plot ingredients out in one sitting. The plot structure makes THE BIG SLEEP look like child's play by comparison.
  • utgard1424 April 2015
    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.
  • Donald Woods takes over the role of Perry Mason in the last of the Mason series that Warner Brothers did in the 30s with Ann Dvorak as Della Street in The Case Of The Stuttering Bishop. Erle Stanley Gardner's lawyer/sleuth would have to wait for television and Raymond Burr for its next incarnation.

    Edward McWade, a bishop who stutters comes from Australia to see Woods about a possible fraud being perpetrated on millionaire Gordon Oliver regarding a fake granddaughter being foisted upon him. Later on Myra McKinney, Oliver's estranged daughter-in-law is arrested and it's Perry Mason for the defense.

    Hamilton Burger played by Charles Wilson and Joseph Crehan as Paul Drake also appear. Burger for his one and only time in the movie series and Drake is a more traditional private eye. Previously Drake was "Spudsy Drake" played for comic relief by Allen Jenkins in previous films.

    Viewers of the classic TV series will note that this observes the Perry Mason paradigm about never having guilty clients and the killer being unmasked in court. Previous films strayed from that somewhat.

    I have to mention Tom Kennedy who took a leave from the Torchy Blaine series and brought his usual thick as a brick detective character with him. He's a favorite so incredibly droll and so naive.

    Watch it for Tom Kennedy alone.
  • An Australian bishop visits Perry Mason with an unusual challenge: Meet the people involved in a years-old manslaughter case, investigate the facts—and then try and find the bishop when it's time to go to court.

    Intrigued, Mason looks into the case, and the plot thickens when a rich old man is shot in his car on a dark night by a woman in a white raincoat. Who did it? Was the granddaughter involved? And which granddaughter—the real heir or the fake?

    A solid cast manages fairly well with a script that's passable but not great. Donald Woods is quite good as Perry-Mason-with-a-mustache; Ann Dvorak is a rather restrained Della Street; Joseph Crehan is hard-boiled, loyal Paul Drake. Tom Kennedy is also on the team as hotel detective Magooney—part comic relief, part assistant investigator.

    It's fast-paced and very smooth, but somehow the picture doesn't have the spark of the best of these movies. It's entertaining—but a little bland. For example, this exchange between Perry and Della:

    "Della, I cannot tell a lie. I got away from Ida's apartment this morning with the law so close it was breathing down my neck." "Chief, if you don't stop these crazy stunts...." I guess that's okay dialog—but it ain't great.

    A neat courtroom montage does make for a neat climactic segment. And the cast of pros is certainly easy to watch. Maybe it's not the best of its series, but it would be sort of silly to complain.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    . . . 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.
  • Lynnlav26 March 2015
    8/10
    Huh?
    Warning: Spoilers
    I missed the beginning of this movie. I enjoyed Perry Mason with Raymond Burr while growing up, so I was fan of enchanted to stumble upon this movie, which I also learned is part of a series that I will now look for. I watched this on TCM.

    Missing the beginning scenes might be why I was left confused & missed the point of the title.

    One really needs to pay close attention or you'll not be able to follow it very well & I sure missed something as I was left wondering where the real Janice was - or did the fake Janice also turn out to be the real one?

    But one thing I didn't miss was was a production goof in which the courtroom chairs & defendant's table are suddenly empty in the midst of Mason's cross of Brownings grandson! As the camera pans back & forth from Perry to the grandson, those chairs & table are filled with people, only to become empty, then fill up again! And that scene lasts for several seconds. Quite funny!
  • Well, before Raymond Burr assayed the role of the lawyer that solved crimes and never lost a case, the Erle Stanley Gardner literary staple was a film hero - of sorts. The Mason films began in 1934 and Warren William(who I like quite a bit and think was the best Mason) played the lawyer in four films(The Case of the Howling Dog, The Case of the Curious Bride, The Case of the Velvet Claws, and The Case of the Lucky Legs). Ricardo Cortez then played Mason in The Case of the Black Cat(sans black cat) and the last film before Burr did the television role was performed by Donald Woods in this film The Case of the Stuttering Bishop. Let's start with Woods. He is not a bad actor but he has limited charm, range, and likability - certainly not on par with either William or Cortez. His performance here shows signs of good acting but more often than not he is quite "wooden." - You had to know I was going there! As others have noted, the plot in this movie is really quite messed up with the screenwriters trying to squeeze round pegs into square holes. A bishop(played nicely by character actor Edward McWade) goes to Mason mysteriously to hire him to find out the legitimacy of a millionaire's heir. Things get pretty complicated and one may not exactly know where the story is going at all all times. The acting in general is good but many actors are not fully utilized like Ann Dvorak(who could have been an interesting Della Street) as well as others. This is not a bad film but definitely a JV installment in the Perry Mason playbook.
  • Donald Woods' portrayal of Perry Mason is the best of the 1930s movies and the one that is closest to the Mason character from the books and the Burr t.v. series. This doesn't make it the only or most entertaining of the Mason movies - the William movies are more fun, if much less accurate. A Bishop from Australia asks Mason to investigate an over 20 year old case of an accusation of manslaughter, a charge that the Bishop says the woman accused of did not do. The plot quickly moves to a question of "who is really the granddaughter of the wealthy (and arrogant and nasty) Renald Brownley?" There are two claimants. On the plus side for this movie are that, for the first time in this movie series, Paul Drake (played by Joseph Crehan) is not a doofus, but actually a competent private detective, Tom Kennedy is his usual dim, but funny detective (in this case a house detective who works part time for Mason and actually helps solve the case), and Donald Woods characterization is serious but still has a lightheartedness about it that makes the character so likable. On the negative side is that Ann Dvorak, a gifted actress, is absolutely wasted in the role of Della Street. It's not a negative for me that the plot was somewhat convoluted and certain plot elements laughable because the movie was still entertaining and well worth viewing, especially by Perry Mason fans - even though there is only one Perry Mason - Raymond Burr, of course.
  • As with "The Case of the Black Cat," this film has an almost completely new cast, including the lead. Some reviewers have panned the plot of this one, but I think it is an excellent story – and the only reason I give it six stars. But what the producers did to the plot is a mess. As with Black Cat, this is the case of a good actor just not fitting in the part. Donald Woods comes across as Wooden at times. And, again, the acting seems very amateurish, and the directing and editing are poor.

    "The Case of the Stuttering Bishop" is one of the dozens of Erle Stanley Gardner's mysteries. All of which were made into great episodes of the Raymond Burr Perry Mason series in later years, and/or TV movies. I too enjoyed the long run of Perry Mason on TV, and the many movies through the early 1990s. But I can't agree with those reviewers who pan these early mystery films – comparing them to the later Perry Mason.

    I think the first four, with Warren William, were very good and highly entertaining. Yes, they were much more comedic, and not the way Gardner wrote the character. But I enjoyed the humorous approach of those first four films. Had the makes been able to stay with William and keep the humor but refined it some, I think many more of the early Perry Mason films could have been made and would have been successes. We only have to look at other films that were hits during the rest of 1930s and into the 40s. MGM had real winner with the Nick and Nora Charles films of the Thin Man series. And, William himself was excellent in some later films as detective Philo Vance and as the Lone Wolf, Michael Lanyard.

    I'm one who enjoyed the Raymond Burr Perry Mason, with the steadier cast over the years. But I also find very enjoyable and entertaining the earliest four the Perry Mason mysteries that starred Warren William. I think anyone will enjoy the first four films for themselves – if they don't try to compare them to the later films and TV series.

    Unfortunately, the last two of the early films, weren't up to the standards of the sharp, crisp and witty scripts of the first four.
  • While the picture was running I kept wondering why, every time the Hamilton Burger character appeared on screen, he was called Mr. Burger (soft G). It may be the only thing that sets "The Case Of The Stuttering Bishop" apart from the rest of the series. Warner Bros. kept changing the Perry Mason character, and here they settled on the lacklustre Donald Woods, perhaps the weakest of the group. In my opinion, they missed the boat with Ricardo Cortez, who played the role only once and was the best Mason.

    In this entry they may have the cleverest story of the series, which defies you to guess the murderer, coupled with the most uninteresting cast they could have assembled. They also kept changing Paul Drake, here played by Joseph Crehan, the best of the bunch but older and shorter than the rest of the players. Ann Dvorak, an excellent but unattractive actress, plays Della Street in a wasted role.

    In good 'B' mysteries time is of the essence, and this one was no different. A great deal of plot was squashed into 70 minutes, and the viewer is compelled to pay attention - no time for fridge visits with this one. In fact, I had to run it back once or twice during the climax to catch myself up with the fast-unfolding solution. This was a good, solid mystery, and I could almost overlook the crummy cast.
  • This really isn't a particularly exciting or even entertaining story, but to be honest I only watched it strictly out of curiosity. I belong to a generation that only knows Raymond Burr as Perry Mason - and only in syndication, since the series was on the air several years before my time. Even in syndication, I never made a habit of watching the show, but I caught enough episodes that I associate Raymond Burr with the part, so I was curious as to how well another actor would work in the role.

    In this case, the other actor was Donald Woods, with whom I'm slightly familiar. He was quite passable in the role - not especially exciting (as fits the story to be honest) and very different than Burr, but passable. All the normal characters are there. Ann Dvorak was quite good as Della Street, Joseph Crehan as Paul Drake and Charles Wilson as Hamilton Burger. Like the TV series, Perry really acts more like a detective than a lawyer, and the courtroom scenes are restricted to the last 20 minutes or so of the movie and they move at quite a frenetic pace. The story itself is confusing. It deals with Mason being asked by an Australian bishop to help defend a woman accused of manslaughter many years before. The bishop then basically disappears from the story so the title is somewhat misleading, and there's questions about an inheritance and another murder. The whole thing becomes very complicated to be honest, which makes it less compelling.

    Having said that, it's worth watching for a look at "early" Perry Mason, and has definite value as a curiosity on that basis. (6/10)