Murder in Reverse?

Yeah!..okay, I get it. It's all about entertainment, building tension, suspense and excitement, but should I ever be running for my life, with an insanely jealous, sword wielding husband in hot pursuit, it's unlikely that I would seek refuge on the jib of a large industrial crane. At the end of his rope....literally, John Slater takes a long plunge into the murky depths of the harbour. The evidence of a corpse, washed up near Southend, is sufficient to convict William Hartnell of murder. A charge he vehemently denies, claiming that Slater is alive and working on a freighter.

Fifteen years of hard labour transforms Hartnell from an energetic forty something into a white haired, pork pie hatted, aged man. Older, sadder, but much wiser and entirely consumed by the singular purpose of locating Slater to prove his innocence. In a world largely sold on the belief that his quarry is long dead, it's the ultimate needle in a haystack scenario.

Garnering support from enthusiastic, but chaotic reporter, Jimmy Hanley and his love interest Dinah Sheridan, he seeks clues which may smoke out the elusive Slater. It culminates in a final scene, involving a bunch of puffed-up, pompous, plum in the mouth barristers, all deeply in love....with the sound of their own voices, who pontificate, deliberate and generally waffle over cases from the past and each other's shortcomings. Their abject failure to confront and resolve the salient issue before them produces jaw-dropping results.

With its meager sets and sporadically starchy performances, 'Murder in Reverse' not only looks, but sounds dated. Nonetheless, it exudes an unquestionable period charm, an almost tangibly quaint allure. The tricky plot, the dramatic finish and its inscrutable aftermath leave a lingering resonance which remains long after the closing credits have disappeared over the horizon.

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.

Fifteen years before the events of the movie, stevedore William Hartnell (in his last performance credited as "Billy Hartnell") was married to Chili Bouchier, with Petula Clark their daughter. His wife was carrying on an affair with John Slater. Hartnell found out the hard way, when Miss Bouchier left him for her lover. The men ran into each other in a pub, and Hartnell chased him into the docks with a big sword, then suffered a fugue state and forgot about it, until neighbors grassed him to the police. As they took him away, he thought he spotted Slater on the deck of a ship, but that didn't stop them from convicting him of murder. It was only through the intervention of then reporter Brefni O'Rorke that a capital offense was commuted to life imprisonment; O'Rorke also adopted Miss Clark.

Now Hartnell has been released on a ticket-of-leave. O'Rorke, risen to editor, assigns Jimmy Hanley to go interview the man. Hanley -- who seems thoroughly inept as a reporter, probably kept on staff because O'Rorke's daughter, now grown into Dinah Sheridan, is in love with him -- can't find him, because Hartnell is in O'Rorke's office, asking after his girl, and explaining he's going to find Slater.

It's a very nice little movie, a first feature for writer-director Montgomery Tully. Hartnell is excellent in a leading role, and his old-man make-up makes him look as he would during his run in Doctor Who. DP Ernest Palmer offers some nice, dark lighting. It's a good story about high-sounding principles running up against official indifference, and worth a look.

I caught this one on Talking Pictures after it was previously unavailable for viewing for many years. It's a fun little 'wronged man' thriller which stars William Hartnell in a rare leading man performance, playing a guy suspected of murdering a love rival after being cuckolded by his wife. He goes to prison for 15 years but comes out convinced his 'victim' is still alive. Real-life husband and wife Jimmy Hanley and Dinah Sheridan help him out, and there's a bit of courtroom stuff too. Hartnell is unrecognisable in his old man makeup and very good in the part too, aided by a seedy John Slater and Montgomery Tully's brisk, workmanlike direction.

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.