The Frightened Man

I just feel the need to begin by noting that the promotional poster/art for this film is very misleading and should be disregarded. Now, onto the film itself: I was anticipating something good but my expectations were greatly exceeded. The story itself is very solid and the script fully supports it through to its final conclusion. The entire cast does a fine job with Victor, Walsh, and Murray all delivering exceptional performances. Gilling does well in directing this thoroughly engaging and interesting film from beginning to end. Its is very British in all of the best ways and I can hardly think of a recent film that so thoroughly delivered such entertainment in such a short run time. The Frightened Man is definitely one to check out.

I saw this on the television last night. It is a good 1950's B-movie thriller. Whilst the plot is a bit hackneyed in places, it is well acted and well directed. If you like this sort of film it is well worth a viewing. If you are not a fan of this sort of film, but want to kill 69 minutes, it should do the job.

A bit of a misleading title given that there is really nothing frightening going on here at all. Obnoxious Dermot Walsh (Julius) is expelled from university. It doesn't matter that we don't know the specifics but it is quite clearly deserved. He is horrible. His dad Charles Victor (Rosselli) offers him a partnership in the family-run antiques business but Walsh refuses it, especially given that homosexual Michael Ward (Cornelius) works there and smells so fragrant. Walsh is not having anything to do with him. We follow Walsh's story as he steals someone's girlfriend and gets in with a bad crowd. Does he make the correct decision...?

Unfortunately, the film never gets going. We are given nobody to root for and the female roles are totally insignificant other than to stress to us that the men are bad. Annette Simmonds (Marcella) should have been given a bigger role. We get an opportunity for both women to shine when they rumble certain situations but nothing is developed for them down this route. This is something the film really needed as ultimately, there is no tension and the film just wraps up. The end.

John Gilling directed and provided the script for THE FRIGHTENED MAN - and I readily admit that he did well on both counts. The copy that I watched could never rate good, let alone pristine, with some truncated bits where dialogue was lost. That said, it was clear enough to deserve praise for cinematography by Monty Berman.

Those lost words notwithstanding, dialogue struck me as both convincing and involving, assisted by two very fine actor performances from Dermot Walsh as the worthless, cheating, mendacious Julius, the son of Rosselli (superbly portrayed by Charles Victor as the caring father with a past about to catch up with him). Martin Benson plays very effectively the shifty villain Alec Stone.

I found the film arresting from beginning to end without needing any extraordinary amount of action. The characters came across as believable and well rounded. With a length of 69 minutes, it is short enough that it is a pleasure to view and review. 7/10.

I watched this film on Talking Pictures a few weeks ago and I can only say that it had a good story line. Although I think with more famous and charismatic actors, along with higher production values, the film could have been one of the more popular films of the 1950s.

I will again emphasise that it was a very good story line, but more could have been done with the plot.

It was unusual to see Dermot Walsh as a delusional, misguided and inexperienced robber. He usually plays the noble hero. Many people of my age will remember him in the television series "Richard the Lionheart" in the early 1960s, which was very popular with a lot of children - the episodes were often reconstructed when we went out to play afterwards.

But going back to "The Frightened Man", maybe I have missed the point of the whole film - before I submit this review, I may have watch it again on the recording that I made of it.

The enlightening qualities of the film, as well as showing that crime does not pay - not very well anyway - it depicted the more seamier and less glamourous side of London in the early 1950s. Whereas other films such as "Doctor in the House" and "Genevieve" make the era look envious and make us all yearn for the "good old days" when life seemed a lot simpler, this film gave us the opposite view.

The film depicted people working hard to make enough money just to survive on. It showed grey buildings, still dilapidated after the effects of the Second World War - and if other films showed us how nice people were in those days, this film didn't - there were a lot of bad people around in those days.

However, the film had a neat twist at the end and the closing scenes were so poignant that I nearly had tears in my eyes.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about Charles Victor, a very undervalued character actor of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. If this film had been anything more than a 'B' picture and second programmer, his performance as an old Jewish, junk dealer, with contacts everywhere, would have been worthy of an Academy Award.