The Franchise Affair

The film sticks closely to the book, which is a plus. It was made soon after the war, and some of the events recall what people had been through - being demonised and having mobs graffiti your premises and throw rocks through your window, and worse.

The acting is fine, especially from old Mrs Sharp. The makers avoided the temptation to have the other characters comment on her saltiness - she just comes out with her rather acid quips. She is funny, and so is Michael Deniston as Robert Blair, the solicitor.

I agree with the commenter who regretted the static nature of the filming - yes, it is stagey. Characters don't move much, and there are few close-ups or reaction shots.

The working-class characters are more prominent in the book, but they are well-played by such as Kenneth More and Patrick Troughton.

40s films gained by the glamour and style of women's clothes and hairdos. What went so wrong in the 50s!?!? Betty Kane is supposed to look frumpy in her school clothes, but poor Dulcie Gray is saddled with middle-aged clothes and a hair-don't.

The Franchise affair is set in 50s England when people doffed their caps, respect was given its due and everything was oh so proper. This film stars the real life married couple Dennison and Gray and you can see by their interplay that they love each other. Ann Stephens plays Betty Kane which must be the highlight of her brief career. Athene Seyler as Dennisons Aunt is as always a delight and we have a future Doctor Who as well as Tremayne from the Champions doing very professional work.Kenny More in an early part oozes his considerable charm and the film works on a quaint level. The stilted acting is a product of English film in the fifties and there is enough intrigue to keep everyone happy. All in all a lovely little picture.

Saw this yesterday for the first time.... started watching casually, but was soon drawn into the plot. Thought the direction was spot on , and the tension was ramped up wonderfully.

Yes the dialogue was a tad clipped, but it was 1951 for goodness sake, but I thought the script was bang on , with some wonderful cameos( apart from Kenneth Moore, as said elsewhere on here who's role was superfluous)

This film was a real gem, and would recommend it to anyone.

I was drawn to this by its top-rank cast and I was glad that I stayed with it. It sets out its stall in the first 15/20 minutes and it it is one of those 'who do you beleive' type of thrillers. It dips somewhat in the middle (the Kenneth More character is entirely superfluous) but once it reaches the court scenes the satisfactory tying-up of its diverse plot lines is excellent and example of how these things should be done.

A young girl reappears after a two week absence with a fantastic story of having been held captive by two women in an isolated house. The police seem disinclined to investigate deeply, so it is up to the women's lawyer to uncover the truth.

The movie is extraordinarily faithful to the book; indeed, entire pages of dialogue are transferred to the screen. The biggest change is in the nature of how the truth is disclosed, which is both tidier and more believable in the film.

The story is less a mystery than a character study, and in this the film falls flat. The most interesting character, the girl, is almost an aside. A section of the book that outlines her background and fills out her story has been dropped, and the film is poorer for that.

Still, you're likely to find it an intriguing film, if not one you'll rush to see again.