Murder in Reverse?

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.

Murder in Reverse, or Query, presents an interesting concept. It's a British film from 1945, directed by Montgomery Tully. Frankly, maybe due to the print I saw, it comes off more like an early '30s film.

William Hartnell plays Tom Masterick. His wife (Chili Bouchier) is having an affair with Fred Smith (John Slater). Masterick is accused of killing Smith, though no body was recovered. He is sentenced to 15 years, though he vehemently proclaims his innocence.

His young daughter Jill (Petula Clark) is adopted by newspaper publisher Sullivan (Brefni O'Rorke). As a cub reporter, Sullivan was responsible for Masterick getting a lighter sentence.

Now Masterick is released and determined to find Smith and prove he's alive. He's helped by his daughter (now Dinah Sheridan) who was too young when adopted to remember him, and her boyfriend, reporter Peter (real life husband Jimmy Hanley).

There are several plot holes, but one remains interested in whether or not Masterick will get justice. In the beginning of the film, Hartnell uses an East End accent and, when released, has a cultured voice.

As he states in the film, he learned a good deal in the prison library. Somehow he was divested of his accent. I think we are to realize he is a deeply changed man. Hartnell gives a sympathetic performance in a tough role.

Dandy ending. You won't know what's coming.

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" 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.