Hostile Witness

I don't think I've ever seen a film where almost all of the characters are literally shouting 50% of their dialogue. Ray Milland is probably the worst offender...and since he directed the film himself, that makes it twice as bad! It's not that the acting is "over the top" - that would have been preferable to actors constantly yelling at each other. Sometimes it's warranted - but that's an issue in itself - there are too many scenes that lend themselves to over-emoting. Other ties, the yelling is just plain ridiculous.

Another issue is the facial expressions made by the actors (again, mainly Milland). I believe they are intended to deliberately confuse the viewer, to make the viewer think that the actor is thinking in certain way, when they are not. I'm not sure if it's the actors' fault, the director's fault or a product of the times (late 60s filmmaking ?? - I'm not sure what that really means, but I'm putting it out there anyway).

Watching Ray Milland in a 1940s or 1950s film seemed OK...in "Hostile Witness", I feel like I'm watching him in one of his late career horror films. Not good.

This being said, the film was paced well (a credit to Milland!) and had some neat twists. It kept me watching in spite of its issues.

Hostile Witness (1968)

When Hollywood was shifting to a new mode of movie-making, Britain was apparently still able to make what you might call a routine, early 1960s styled film. And no wonder, with old school Ray Milland as both leading actor and director. It's a modern England, including some terrific Mod fashion on the women (and nice suits on the men, to be fair). But this is a relatively stiff affair, and for a 1968 film, rather old fashioned, pleasurable and unexceptional.

It's worth adding, quickly, that this is a dull film cinematically, too. It's widescreen of course (not a made for television movie) but it's lighted as if for t.v. (low contrast ratio) and the camera is functional, rarely or never an active presence, or even a creative one. This I blame on Milland as much as the cinematographer. It frankly kills even the best scenes, which are blasted with light in an unrealistic and dulling way. Sad. But if you know Milland, who can sometimes be interesting (if never exciting), it makes sense--he's a stiff, snotty type, at least on screen.

But he's not a bad actor, and if there is one consistent strength, in acting, it's actually the director. Which is fair enough. And there is the plot, which I think is supposed to sustain us, even if it's doled out painfully slowly. The curiosity is the sudden death of what might have seemed a potential main character, the beautiful (and well dressed) daughter of the leading man, high powered lawyer Simon Crawford (Milland). You get the sense in this film (more than his few others he directed) that he is aware of Hitchcock's later films (post-Psycho era). As a fellow Brit (Milland was Welsh), there was a commiseration, no doubt (same era, same sense of drama within a relatively false presentation). And as a crime film replete with ordinary folk overwhelmed by terrible facts.

But as a director, Milland is no Hitchcock, which they probably both realized in the rather terrific "Dial M for Murder" which was directed by one master and acted by the other (in one of his best performances). The plot, the strength of the movie, is laid out mostly through drawing room (or law office) conversations. It's slow going, if somewhat rigorous in logic. Milland's stiffness is better suited to the second half of the movie, where he is in the formality of the courtroom. In the end, this is a courtroom drama, with all its argument-based back and forth. The logic is stretched by the end however, with a showdown of shouting convictions and then a last minute surprise (the last ten seconds of the movie) and it's almost laughable.

There are so many better movies, I'd skip this one. To say it's solid on some old-fashioned level isn't really a defense. There's little here to lift it up, very little.

If you like Perry Mason you'll like this film. But not as much. It follows a similar path, where we see some events around the crime but not who the guilty party is. Of course the truth comes out in the end. As the setting is in England, there is much more courtroom decorum, with few objections by the lawyers. Yet we see some classic Perry Mason tactics. My main disappointment though, came when the film had no epilogue. After Perry Mason won his case, he would always have a chat with Della and Paul and explain how he figured it out. You would then slap your brow and wonder how you missed that. But in the film, this doesn't happen, so it's not at all clear how the crime was solved. At least not to me.

What the movie "Hostile Witness" is is basically an episode of the television show "Perry Mason", though filmed in color and having a feature length running time. Actually, it's based on a stage play by Jack Roffey, who also wrote this movie's screenplay. The stage origins of this movie are pretty clear; most of the movie takes place in a courtroom. But that wasn't a real concern to me, since I enjoy plays as well as movies. Though while this play turned movie can't be considered awful or bad, it all the same feels like familiar stuff. While there is the novelty of it taking place in England, otherwise you will have seen this kind of story done many times before. If you can't get enough of "Perry Mason" or similar courthouse movies and TV shows, you will probably enjoy this. Otherwise, most likely you'll find this particular telling unexceptional.

Enjoyable, entertaining, somewhat stagy film version of play Hostile Witness stars Ray Milland(who also directs) as a barrister who having lost his daughter to a hit-and-run driver vows vengeance on the man responsible. This leads to his eventual arrest under a series of intriguing red herrings and some interesting if not wholly plausible logic. Milland gives a , how shall I put it , a strong - STRONG - performance. He barks out nearly everything he says and looks like he'll pop a vein any minute. He is enjoyable nonetheless. The rest of the cast of British stalwarts make for good viewing as well. Sylvia Syms as a junior barrister is particularly strong as is Geoffrey Lumsden as a provincial older military relic - totally out of step with reality in many ways and very engaging to watch. Hostile Witness is nothing great or profound by any means but makes for a good, old-fashioned courtroom drama/mystery.