Dan L. Miller 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.

utgard14 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.

sddavis63 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)

BaronBl00d 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.