... because in "Case of the Howling Dog" we have dead serious Perry Mason, then in "Case of the Curious Bride" we have an epicure, but here we have a rather dissolute happy go lucky Perry and Della for that matter. The script seems like it was written for the manic Marx Brothers, not debonair and wily Warren William.
The case is about the murder of a man who financially backs "lucky legs" contests - where girls are judged on their legs only - and then he makes off with the prize money. At least one prizewinner has caught up to the guy, but police suspicion falls on current winner Margie Clue (Patricia Ellis) for reasons that don't make much sense. Also, Perry's actual client is Colonel Bradbury, the guy who held the Lucky Legs contest and so was bilked by the murdered man too. But Perry seems to forget all about that client and just stops representing him in midstream and starts representing Margie, all the while drinking and laughing his way through the case which is actually not that interesting.
I love Warren William in anything he does, but the script and the characterization are beneath him. Without him this film would barely rate a five out of ten.
The case is about the murder of a man who financially backs "lucky legs" contests - where girls are judged on their legs only - and then he makes off with the prize money. At least one prizewinner has caught up to the guy, but police suspicion falls on current winner Margie Clue (Patricia Ellis) for reasons that don't make much sense. Also, Perry's actual client is Colonel Bradbury, the guy who held the Lucky Legs contest and so was bilked by the murdered man too. But Perry seems to forget all about that client and just stops representing him in midstream and starts representing Margie, all the while drinking and laughing his way through the case which is actually not that interesting.
I love Warren William in anything he does, but the script and the characterization are beneath him. Without him this film would barely rate a five out of ten.