Master Spy

As noted by the other reviewers, Master Spy is no classic, but it is a must-see for fans of British B movies of the era. The story is fairly routine, but is much enlivened by the cast - Alan Wheatley (excellent as always), John Carson (with his James Mason-sound-alike voice!), Peter Gimore playing his role to perfection, and most interestingly the tragic June Thorburn cast against type as a scientist who becomes dangerously involved in the espionage plot. With her shorter, blonder hair, Miss Thorburn here is a dead ringer for Angela Douglas, a likeness I had never noticed before, and she is totally credible and brings much to what could have been a nothing part. Very sadly she died in a plane crash a couple of years after completing this, her final film.

Despite the title and the credit sequence depicting a chessboard Professor Turgenev is just a pawn in a much bigger game. Unlike the glamorous foreign locations paraded behind 007 this film is set in a thoroughly everyday black & white Britain.

Stephen Murray in a rare big screen lead plays Cambridge-educated professor of physics Boris Turganev, a leading expert on the acceleration of neutron rays but just an amateur in the world of espionage.

His patronising disdain for women, demonstrated by his outspoken discomfort at being given June Thorburn as an assistant is one of several aspects of the film that now looks very dated; but the other men are just as bad and the casting of Ellen Pollock as a senior member of the team serves as compensation while the ending is pretty cool.

This low budget British spy film is apparently based on the book 'They Also Serve', which I haven't read. The plot is thin and the screenplay bland - there seems to be little for the cast to do but read the words. The music is irritating and intrusive. The photography and lighting lacking in creativity. The result is just barely watchable.

It is impossible not to draw comparisons with Hitchcock's Torn Curtain which was made just two years later and deals with the same subject. Torn Curtain however has action and movement, characters you care about, suspense and humour. Master Spy unfortunately, has none of these.

The film starts promisingly enough, with what we can only assume is a Russian scientist, Boris Turganov, played by Stephen Murray successfully seeking political asylum and for next 20 minutes the storyline unfolds as the scientist is introduced to his new British scientist colleagues and working conditions. Yet once the 'Russian' scientist settles into his new role, interest starts to falter as very early on it's clear as daylight that two of the main characters are obviously are up to their neck in spying and espionage. Most of the scenes are in either Dennis Wheatley's drawing room is his rather grand house, where everyone is well mannered and polite, and in the laboratory, where again there is very little action. Considering this is a Cold War spy film, it's very short on suspense or dramatic twists and turns. The film needed a Herbert Lom to give the film an 'edge' and menace, and although Stephen Murray, who takes the lead role does a reasonable job as the Russian scientist, his performance is too bland and too low key! Indeed, my problem with the whole film is the lack lustre script, which never allows the characters to be more than just one dimensional. Also, the characters never convince me as serious scientists working in a top secret government laboratory. For instance, Peter Gilmore, playing Tom Masters a cynical young scientist, seems more interested in 'skirt chasing' and chatting up young women, and as such comes across as an unnecessary distraction to the story. John Carson, cast as the handsome and suave Richard Colman, is wasted, as he has little to do apart from befriend his love interest, Leila played by June Thorburn. Yet it is Leila, the young female top scientist, who is the least convincing, by her timid and dull demeanour as well as her 'secretarial' manner, even when the director has her wearing glasses in the laboratory, to make her look 'studious' and something of a boffin, it doesn't really work. However, there are compensations. Alan Wheatley is always a joy to watch, as is Ernest Clark, both British stalwart character actors of the 50's & 60's. In a sense the film is a disappointment, as it promised so much at the beginning but quickly loses its way half way through. Nevertheless, it's still worth watching.

I have just seen this film, and I thought it was rather sad that it got such a low vote score (3.9 as a "weighted average", at the time of writing) and a negative review as the only review it has on IMDb.

The film is obviously low budget and no classic. Having said that it has many plus points. It is well plotted and clever, with twists and turns (especially towards the end) and it sustains the interest well. It makes all the characters interesting, even the supporting ones, such as Peter Gilmore's flippant scientist. It makes a wise move in having June Thorburn - much underused by the British cinema - as its leading lady. There is also a surprisingly good supporting cast considering it is so low budget. And so on...

At an hour and ten minutes, the film is long enough to tell a proper story well, and short enough not to outstay its welcome. It provided me with an enjoyable time viewing it.