Headline

A girl is murdered in the flat of her playboy lover. A "mystery woman" is also present. The newspaper editor wants to know the identity of the woman. Enter daring crime reporter Farrar. The viewer is though one step ahead of the cast – we know the identity of the mystery woman and the consequences should her identity be revealed.

The film drags for the most part as rival news organisations try to beat the police to the mystery woman and the murderer (who has gone into hiding). Things hot up in the last 20 minutes. The conclusion is a little unexpected so don't pull out early.

Farrar manages not to be too objectionable in his "clever clogs" role – always one step ahead of the pack (fellow crime reporter Hartnell and the police) but not too smug. While the storyline is ordinary, the direction and acting make this easy to watch. Don't cancel a night out to watch this but it is worth a look if it hits the schedules.

I'm a mystery fan and although there is little mystery in this film (we know who did it from the beginning) I did enjoy this one. David Farrar, who fans may remember as Sexton Blake, and William "Billy" Hartnell, better known as the first Doctor Who are rival newspaper reporters with the latter usually getting the best of Farrar at his bosses frustration. Farrar's boss Ellington (John Stuart) is one of those hard-core editors who is married to the job and just wants the story. In fact he's so married to the paper that he's ignoring his wife. That's where the story starts. Tired of being stood up by her husband Mrs. Ellington goes to the flat of a friend, Paul Grayson, who is confronted by an old girlfriend with a gun. Grayson wrestles the gun from the girl and then shoots and kills her. When the police investigate a witness tells of the jilted girlfriend and the mystery lady who was with Grayson at the time of the murder. Farrar is the first to learn of the mystery lady and his boss, not knowing that it is his wife, is obsessed with having Farrar discover who it is. A bizarre informant who is dismissed as a wacko by Harnell is then sent to Farrar provides a key to finding the missing Grayson. No spoilers here; you'll have to watch the rest of the film to see what happens but I found it entertaining. It's definitely worth 75 minutes of your time if for no other reason to see a young Hartnell and to see a young Anne Crawford who died tragically in 1956.

I like crime films and David Farrar,so this film came as rather a disappointment.The climax is really phoney.There is a very reasonable cast to support him but they cannot save the film from mediocrity.I was more interested in the reasonably authentic representation of the Waterloo news cinema with which I was very familiar.Before 3pm there was a one hour news programme and after old British films.It was operated by the classic circuit.

Newspaper boss John Stuart (Ellington) looks like an old school friend of mine who had a peculiar face. He wants his reporter David Farrar (Brookie) to get a news headline for once. He's a nasty character, really. There's been a murder and a mystery woman was seen at the scene. Farrar's brief is to get hold of the mystery woman. So, we follow Farrar's investigation alongside newspaper rival William Hartnell (Dell) as they try and get the scoop on the story.

We know who the murderer is and who the mystery woman is from the beginning. This makes the film interesting as we are kept in suspense as to how she will be revealed. You know she will, it's just a matter of time………. Or will she? I'm pleased to say that the film has an unexpected ending with a bit of tension along the way on a train journey. But check out those fake punches…….oh dear…! Farrar is good in the lead and we get a good scene when he and the mystery lady come face to face and both realize what is happening.

So, never believe what you read in newspapers as it is never quite the whole truth.

I found this pretty enjoyable from beginning to end, fairly lighthearted in its journalism aspects, and solid enough dramatically in its more serious moments. However, I have an important question that no other reviewer seems to have thought about (and no spoilers here, as the viewing audience knows everything right from the beginning) and it is this: Why in heaven's name does the villain Paul Grayson shoot the victim? She had a pistol, he easily disarmed her in the presence of another female visitor, and then, when she had fallen to the floor and is a threat to no one, he stands over her, still in the presence of his visitor, and shoots her twice in the stomach. Why? We never hear a word out of him in explanation or justification, the action will ruin his life, he has a witness to his crime, and up to that point he appears a charming and friendly fellow. Later, from the police, we find that the woman he shot was pregnant and had expected marriage, but that hardly seems reason enough to shoot her in front of a witness he has no plans to also kill. Come to think of it, other than being a friend of the witness, we learn just about nothing of his past or his character for the rest of the film. It is the only narrative problem for me in the movie and could probably have been completely covered in about one minute of explanation, but it never is. Still, it's a very enjoyable film with lots of good performances, not the least of which is that given by William Hartnell.