Il terrore di Londra

In 1890 London, an 8th policeman is murdered by a serial killer. High class jewel thief Nicholas Revel (Peter Lawford) gets pulled in as the police tries to connect the murders with a stolen emerald.

It has a bit of the Sherlockian vibe. By no means am I saying that the character is Sherlock. It's the Victorian London murder mystery aspect. It does meander around with the trial and after it. Honestly, I'm not following some of this. It does end with thrilling action. All in all, I like tone and the style of this.

This film features quick, effective editing of sometimes rapid-fire scenes that were obviously well thought out and sequenced with care. The black and white cinematography is good and I believe the whole production is finely crafted. The potential for any real emotional depth of feeling is somewhat stifled overall by the recurring criminal murder subject matter, which is persistently heavy and serious throughout the movie. However, the related jewel thief angle is lighter in tone and is done in an intricate cat-and-mouse manner that I really enjoyed.

After the early pretty-boy stage of his career delivering Technicolor "first kisses" to teenage actresses and such, and before his post- 1960 period of boozy hipster parts culminating in his final downward spiral into drug abuse and drunkenness, Peter Lawford did a lot of TV and made some films on both sides of the Atlantic including this one. In "The Hour of 13" (a title of significance to the story, to be explained late in the film) Lawford portrays a charming jewel thief. He does a workmanlike job, is very charming and handsome as always, and is fine as long as you don't stop to ponder how superbly Rex Harrison would have played the part.

Dawn Addams is perfectly cast as the intelligent, classy daughter of Michael Hordern's Scotland Yard inspector. Other first rate British actors contribute solid performances.

The Victorian London streets, fog and ambiance are well done. The era is depicted as a real time and place, not a nostalgia trip, and is devoid of any mimicry or denigration of Victorian stereotypes.

The general viewer will probably enjoy this film as I did if they can appreciate older, very British movies and are interested in seeing Peter Lawford at this stage of his career.

Peter Lawford stars as Nicholas Revel, a jewel thief who is mistaken for a serial killer of London police officers. To clear himself, Revel has to catch the real killer. An improbably plotted, cliche-ridden, mildly entertaining mystery with Lawford as his usual handsome, debonair, bland self. Not much action except for an effective fight between Revel and the murderer at the film's climax. The cast wanders through a foggy, gaslit studio set that looks like it was left over from a Sherlock Holmes film. This sort of story has been done worse, but it has been done better, too. Mostly it has been done too often.

The theft of an emerald coincides with a policeman's murder by a serial killer in "The Hour of 13," starring Peter Lawford, Dawn Addams, Roland Culver, and Derek Bond. Lawford stars as Nicholas Revel, an attractive young man in league with a ring of thieves that steals jewels and then gives them back to the insurance company and collects the reward. Unfortunately, "The Terror," a murderer who targets the bobbies of London, has just struck his latest victim on the property Revel is inside robbing. The police assume the murderer also stole the emerald. Revel needs to solve the case, or help the police solve it, so that the stone can be delivered without anyone being arrested. Scotland Yard becomes suspicious.

Peter Lawford is plenty dreamy-looking in this film and his speaking voice is devastating. What a shame he was content to drink, hang with Frank, and play "Password." He was really something.

"The Hour of 13" is entertaining, though no great shakes. Its atmosphere is studio-manufactured and loaded with dry ice for fog effects. If you like the urbane, Raffles type of thief, you'll enjoy this.

Just saw this film for the first time since it's release in 1952. I was 10 years old then and quite enjoyed it. I must say that it has held up pretty well. No great entry in the Victorian, foggy street mystery genre, but it keeps ones interest throughout.

This movie, by the way, was shot in MGM's British studio and features a fine line up of English actors who turn in typically solid performances.

One more thing: this was by no means one of MGM's major productions for 1952. In fact, it pretty much qualifies as a B movie (except for running time); that is, a second, and cheaper, feature on a double bill. By 1952, the traditional B movie (as opposed to pictures that merely had lower budgets than the headlining A efforts) had just about disappeared. Soon, virtually all movies could be classed as A pictures, with the possible exception of the shoestring productions by little companies that often ended up at the local drive-in.

My point is this: studios such as MGM, when they consciously turned out the 60-65 minute movies that were shot in a couple of weeks at most, still maintained a fairly high standard of quality. One can think of the Val Lewton horror films at RKO-Radio Pictures or. . . well, or "The Hour of 13!"