Una mujer notoria

A young nurse who has been acquitted of poisoning her employer manages to find work under another name - and is accused of murder, by the same method, a second time. We know the guilty parties well in advance, and the solution of the crime by the nurse's attorney owes more to luck and intuition than to detection. There's no chase scene, no romance, not a great deal of suspense. From Carol Reed, the same director who made "Night Train to Munich", "Odd Man Out" and "The Third Man", this is a remarkably bland film. Still, it's very smoothly made, everything is focused on the story line, and the acting is uniformly excellent. It's a solid, professional piece of work (and I know that sounds like damning with faint praise), and while there's no urgent reason to see it more than once, it's certainly worth seeing once.

Perhaps because it's made by Carol Reed that you expect this to be something special? Clearly not everything he did was as innovative or imaginative as THE THIRD MAN but this shows no flair whatsoever. It's just.... competent.

Although the story is reasonably intriguing, the execution of this picture is so routine, were it made these days, you'd think it generated by A. I. It is however quite a clever little story so once you've watched this for five minutes you'll have no choice but to stick with it. You'll not be able to go to bed until you find out what happens to "Anne." One thing I can tell you is that she doesn't get any more animated. Nobody really does. Yes, the acting is natural and realistic but I think it's gone too subtle....sometimes over the top, wild and wacky is more interesting than sitting down drinking a cup of tea.

The whole thing feels miserable. Yes, I know it's about suicide, murder, fighting to save your life but they could at least smile every now and then. Maybe it's because it's 1941 - not the happiest year but this would hardly cheer 'our boys' up.

The romance between "Anne" and"Stephen" came as a complete surprise to me since I didn't detect any chemistry, feelings or emotion whatsoever between these two. Margaret Lockwood had a real talent for saying so much in just one look but you get the feeling that in this she just turned up and Carol Reed had no idea who she was or what she was capable of so just said: go over there and read that. I don't think I particularly liked Barry Barnes much either - couldn't warm to the chap.

Core to the plot is the extent to which a justifiable acquittal at a trial nevertheless prejudices the accused's future life. Given modern day concerns over sensational press coverage this is an issue as valid today (probably more so) than it was in war-time Britain. But the film does not follow this line, rather it presents us with a good old-fashioned courtroom drama, culminating in a finale of which Perry Mason would have been proud. Quite how the hero lawyer manages this stretches the judicial imagination somewhat, especially with a flawed witness, whose evidence clinches the outcome, not having to testify from the witness box.

Despite these reservations this is an enjoyable enough production which canters along at a good pace without any pretensions to high art. And it was nice to see some early work from two actresses, Irene Handl (particularly malevolent as the first "victim") and Kathleen Harrison, who both went on to greater things in post-war British TV.

Nurse Margaret Lockwood is acquitted of killing her patient by poison -- we see the woman commit suicide, so that's fine. However, when her next patient dies under almost identical circumstances, can she escape the hangman's noose? Twentieth Century-Fox spared no expense for their British production of this movie. They hired director Carol Reed and a fabulous cast, including Margaret Lockwood, Barry Barnes, Emlyn Williams, Roger Livesy, Basil Radford.... well, the list of performers whose name you'd recognize goes on and on. Sidney Giliat wrote the screenplay. Unfortunately, there are some problems with that script. There is never any doubt as to Miss Lockwood's innocence, and the attempt to do a Hitchcock-style thriller is weakened, both by the lack of Hitchcock's black humor and much of a sense of trying to hide from the police. Most of the actual action takes place while Miss Lockwood is in prison and on trial.

Without comparing it to other works, how does it stand on its own, as a mystery and courtroom drama? Pretty good. There seems a very real chance until the very end that Miss Lockwood will be found guilty, and the way she is acquitted is very clever. All the performers do a fine job and Carol Reed's direction is impeccable. I might have been happier if her guilt had been left in doubt; from my viewpoint, not showing the first patient kill herself might have better served the movie's suspense. However, there is still plenty of excellence to go around.

Very good script by Gilliat based on a novel. Likable protagonists and support characters, as well as nearly-likable villains in a wonderful cast who work pleasingly together.

I'm glad Barnes, not Redgrave (apparently as originally planned), fell into the role of "Stephen." Barnes is gentlemanly distant and professional, but obviously protective of Lockwood as friend and client. Redgrave might have handled the role in a cheesier, more intimate manner, not appropriate in this quiet script. Livesey provides a friendly but professional touch as Barnes' policeman flat-mate.

Refreshing to see characters interact without sturm und drang for a change, in well-paced unfolding of Barnes' defense of Lockwood.

Enjoyed this movie very much. There aren't many that succeed in first gear - maybe "A Canterbury Tale" is another such, but there aren't many others.