L'ultimo uomo da impiccare

Terence Fisher is famous for directing dozens of popular genre films, notably the Hammer horror classics, but his ponderous, very boring treatment of this stupid courtroom drama is incompetent. I nearly dozed off early on.

The screenplay is at fault, with several flashbacks and telegraphed clues that bog things down, and even at 71 minutes of running time this B-level British feature from Columbia seems padded. In particular, showing the family life of the jurors as they receive their court summons is totally extraneous footage.

For such a nothing movie it has 35 credited roles, mostly flatly performed, especially Tom Conway's walk-through as the lead. The unconvincing final plot twist is asinine, more appropriate to a Z-level exploitation movie than a major production that has a misleading subplot about capital punishment on the verge of being abolished (hence the title), yet that did not occur until it was suspended for murder nine years after the film was released.

As reviewer John Howard Reid has pointed out, there is a section in the film too close for coincidence with the entirely famous and superior 1957 "12 Angry Men! where one juror holds out against the rest

This is a film of two halves, so different in quality as to be quite mystifying. The first half features the rather wooden Tom Conway who is really not up to interpreting his rather poorly scripted role but fairly essential viewing to understand the second half, the murder trial at the Old Bailey. This is well done by nearly all concerned - far better written, acted and directed. This is the engrossing part, the first half just a make weight. Quite a good cast including an impressive young Anthony Newley

Well the film plot is appalling so why the 7/10? The plot calls for a mystifying added conclusion. Why? The film should have cut to the forgiving husband who accidentally killed his wife but we get something else, something mystifying in the extreme?

OK. Why the 7/10? It's for the court scene - very worthy and Vic Madden an unsung hero of the 20th c (gone far too soon). Did he ever act badly? Much more than a Sam Kydd type. This man was an actor. He should, perhaps, have struck out for fame instead he diversified. Taken too soon I believe a few more films and he would have been held today in the same high esteem of a Tom Courtney or a Freddy Jones.

The film about a man struggling to come to terms with self-blame of the death of his wife, is shallowed by the lead actor. Perhaps the last man to hang was indeed Tom Conway. Miss Sellers could have been asked for a POV, but alas it's now just too late! (RIP dear lady).

Tom Conway is on trial for the murder of his wife. The facts seem to suggest a degree of responsibility, if not, indeed, culpability; he gave her sleeping pills which resulted in her death. However, did he know that? Was the overdose accidental? Did she commit suicide? A jury has to decide whether he will hang, even as Parliament debates the end of the death penalty.

It's an interesting story, because of the ambiguities in the handling, and Terence Fisher has never done better. I would like to extend some of the credit to Maurice Elvey, who is credited, along with the author of the book it is based on, with the adaptation.

The last two minutes of the movie make no sense to me.

Had "The Last Man to Hang" not ending on an incredibly improbable and unnecessary twist, I probably would have given it an 8. It was well acted, realistic an very well written. But, with the twist ending, I think it dropped the film to an overall score of 6.

Roderick (Tom Conway) is married to a difficult and neurotic wife. Possibly as a result, he began an affair with another woman. The wife, when told later he wanted a divorce, behaved quite emotionally and irrationally...more so than would be usual in a case like this. Soon after, she is dead from an apparent overdose of a strong sleeping pill....and the husband is being charged for it, as he admits having given her a dose of sleeping pills. While he does not in any way deny this, he does deny that he knew she'd already been given a dose. In other words, he contends he never tried to kill her. It's a case of he says/she says and the film shows not just the events leading up to the trial but the trial and jury deliberations....as well as a completely unnecessary ending that was cool but wasn't logical...leaving MANY questions unanswered...too many to be an ending anyone could enjoy.

Up until the ending, I loved the film. Why, then, come up with such a ridiculous twist which actually contracts much of the film...or at least needs a lot of explaining...which you never got in the movie! Frustrating...especially when the rest of the production was so strong.

By the way, she film showed something that confused me and is perhaps a way that British and American juries differ. In one scene, before the case was handed to the jury to decide, they show the jurors in a room discussing the case and what they thought about Roderick's apparent guilt. If such a meeting and conversations occurred in an American trial, it would be grounds for a mistrial, as jurors are NOT allowed to discuss the case until the defense and prosecution have concluded. It is possible the American and British systems are the same and an editing error placed this scene in the wrong place....instead of about 10 minutes later. I just don't know.