Murder in Reverse?

Dock worker Tom Masterick chases his wife's lover out of a pub one night, and is later convicted for his murder.

I've seen many, many films from this era, this genre, but there was something about Murder in Reverse that was a little different. It's an excellent storyline, it's very well produced, the acting is excellent. It's well paced, it doesn't drag out, it moves along quickly, and features some impressive scenes.

How lovely to see William Hartnell as the leading man, of course I will forever adore him as The First Doctor, but he was a super talent, he's rather captivating here. Poor Hartnell is once again wearing a wig. The scene where he gets to shout about his justice was excellent.

I'm so glad I've finally gotten to see this forgotten gem, I thoroughly enjoyed it, 7/10.

"Murder in Reverse" has the most fiendishly clever premise I've encountered in all my years of movie-watching. The plot outline listed for "Murder in Reverse" on this IMDb site is inaccurate, so I'll give you the set-up:

The crimelord of a London gang is murdered, his corpse is defaced, and the evidence points to dock labourer Tom Masterick. Unable to prove his innocence, Masterick is sentenced to a long prison term. Then, through the prison grapevine, Masterick learns the truth: the crimelord wanted to disappear and start over, so he staged his own murder and is living under a new identity, after framing Masterick for a crime that never took place. But now that he knows the truth, Masterick can't convince the authorities that the "murder" victim is still alive. Unable to get justice, Masterick plans revenge.

After a long sentence, Masterick is released from prison, aged and embittered. Now Masterick intends to do precisely what the Home Office insists he has already done: HE WILL MURDER THE MAN HE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDERING. He will commit a "Murder in Reverse".

Think about it: what can they possibly do to this poor bloke? If Masterick gets caught, he can't be convicted twice for the same murder ... or CAN he?

Unfortunately, after setting up this brilliant premise, "Murder in Reverse" loses steam. The ultimate payoff is unsatisfying, with a too-obvious twist. The old- age make-up on William Hartnell is crude and obvious. Petula Clark and Dinah Sheridan (sharing the role of Masterick's daughter, before and after his long bowl of porridge) give excellent performances: Petula Clark's success as a singer has always obscured her very real talents as a dramatic actress.

"Murder in Reverse" has much to recommend it, but not quite enough to make this movie the first-rate suspense yarn it very nearly could have been.

The name Montgomery Tully does not ring any loud bells with me as far directors' names go, but in MURDER IN REVERSE he strikes me as a capable crew handler to deliver a film that raises pertinent questions about the law, innocence, and compensation when man-made law has failed and meted out the wrong punishment.

Admittedly, the premise of the story places you before a situation fraught with the possibility of erroneous interpretation by court: Tom Masterick (well played by William Hartnell) is a dedicated family man whose wife cheats and who loses his beloved daughter to adoption after he chases his wife's lover with a long knife in his hand and apparently kills him.

You can question several details: William Hartnell, the alleged killer, does age; the alleged deceased, John Slater, does not (could it mean that his life has remained intact while Masterick's was wasted?); how did the authorities allow a man called Fred Smith, like the alleged murdereed man, to open and own a pub under that very name?; the convenience of those developments that lead to Masterick rotting in jail for 15 precious years raises all manner of doubt.

However, ultimately, when presented with evidence that the supposedly murdered man is actually very much alive, the wheels of law find it very difficult to turn around to right the wrong, and use all manner of semantics, not to have to admit the error.

As the saying goes, better let a criminal free than place an innocent man in jail. I liked MURDER IN THE REVERSE? Very much, all logic holes notwithstanding, because of the issues it raises. In cinematographic terms, it is strictly competent.

Lovely to see the very young Petula Clark. 8/10.

This film has a great deal going for it, including an excellent performance from silent-era siren Chili Bouchier in the fairly thankless role of the wife, an effective child performance from Petula Clark, and a rather charming lolloping-puppy act from Jimmy Hanley in what could otherwise have been an irritating role as a none-too-successful cub reporter. There is a nail-biting (although credibility-stretching) chase which doesn't end up as we have been conditioned to expect, and an ingenious plot twist based on the original source, a short story called "Query". The flashback section also provides the spectacle of post-war production waxing nostalgic over 1930s Limehouse, with its references to the novel 'talkies', its thriving docks and its Chinese laundry.

I mainly went to see this film on account of the advertised starring role of William Hartnell, whom I have always found to give good value on screen.. Here he takes the lead in an impressive character performance which involves his playing the whole of the first half in an East End accent and the second half as a prematurely aged man combining both wizened malevolence and the vague kindness of a silver-haired uncle. Masterick is a tough act to pull off, a man obsessed and bitter, and yet still human, and Hartnell largely manages it, although I felt that his interpretation of the two scenes where the voice-over requires him to behave abnormally -- when he reads his wife's note, and when the verdict is given in the courtroom -- was unconvincing. Presumably this what was the director asked for.

Masterick's final scene with his wife (whose history is skilfully implied without ever being stated outright) is moving and effective, and the relationship between the two young lovers -- with the girl obviously being the leading light of the pair! -- is both sweet and amusing. I did feel that there were some plot holes (do neither Masterick or young Rogers ever learn who Jill really is?), chief of which is the fact that it never occurs to Masterick that his target might have changed his name... or, even more oddly, to the offender! However, overall it is an effective and atmospheric piece of entertainment that rarely rings false. One to recommend: but perhaps it might have been even better.

It is perhaps worth adding, for clarification, that there is no 'crimelord', no 'London gang' and no 'prison grapevine' in the film: the IMDb plot outline is accurate so far as it goes.

Murder in Reverse for some unknown reason sticks in my mind from my childhood more than any other film, and is one I would dearly love to see again. I always recall Hartnell passing by the berthed ship and seeing the man he 'killed' on board, but by MIA-reading the name of the ship it was never traced... I have scoured the TV listing to see it broadcast but gave up some years ago. The twist at the end is delicious. I have always been a fan of William Hartnell from the original 1950's Army Game through Carry On Sergeant to Dr Who. It had an impressive cast for the time of Hanley, Slater and Hartnell and you really felt sympathy for the man as he was led away to prison for a crime we all know he did not commit. Does anyone have a copy of this film or know if it has ever been released on video either in UK or overseas. Thanks, Trevor