User reviews

This film has a great deal going for it, including an excellent performance from silent-era siren Chili Bouchier in the fairly thankless role of the wife, an effective child performance from Petula Clark, and a rather charming lolloping-puppy act from Jimmy Hanley in what could otherwise have been an irritating role as a none-too-successful cub reporter. There is a nail-biting (although credibility-stretching) chase which doesn't end up as we have been conditioned to expect, and an ingenious plot twist based on the original source, a short story called "Query". The flashback section also provides the spectacle of post-war production waxing nostalgic over 1930s Limehouse, with its references to the novel 'talkies', its thriving docks and its Chinese laundry.

I mainly went to see this film on account of the advertised starring role of William Hartnell, whom I have always found to give good value on screen.. Here he takes the lead in an impressive character performance which involves his playing the whole of the first half in an East End accent and the second half as a prematurely aged man combining both wizened malevolence and the vague kindness of a silver-haired uncle. Masterick is a tough act to pull off, a man obsessed and bitter, and yet still human, and Hartnell largely manages it, although I felt that his interpretation of the two scenes where the voice-over requires him to behave abnormally -- when he reads his wife's note, and when the verdict is given in the courtroom -- was unconvincing. Presumably this what was the director asked for.

Masterick's final scene with his wife (whose history is skilfully implied without ever being stated outright) is moving and effective, and the relationship between the two young lovers -- with the girl obviously being the leading light of the pair! -- is both sweet and amusing. I did feel that there were some plot holes (do neither Masterick or young Rogers ever learn who Jill really is?), chief of which is the fact that it never occurs to Masterick that his target might have changed his name... or, even more oddly, to the offender! However, overall it is an effective and atmospheric piece of entertainment that rarely rings false. One to recommend: but perhaps it might have been even better.

It is perhaps worth adding, for clarification, that there is no 'crimelord', no 'London gang' and no 'prison grapevine' in the film: the IMDb plot outline is accurate so far as it goes.

Yet another enterprising production from Louis H. Jackson's ill-fated British National Pictures is this extraordinary drama from the brief period when William Hartnell was commanding film leads.

During the course of the film Hartnell ages 15 years with the application of white hair which has the striking effect of transforming him into a dead ringer for Dr Who. Another later TV favourite is John Slater, looking exactly the same as he did during the seventies in 'Z Cars'. One of several other surprises is a fleeting glimpse of a very young Pet Clark who in a truly bizarre twist grows up into Dinah Sheridan (appearing opposite her husband Jimmy Hanley) without the latter ever becoming aware of the fact.

Fifteen years before the events of the movie, stevedore William Hartnell (in his last performance credited as "Billy Hartnell") was married to Chili Bouchier, with Petula Clark their daughter. His wife was carrying on an affair with John Slater. Hartnell found out the hard way, when Miss Bouchier left him for her lover. The men ran into each other in a pub, and Hartnell chased him into the docks with a big sword, then suffered a fugue state and forgot about it, until neighbors grassed him to the police. As they took him away, he thought he spotted Slater on the deck of a ship, but that didn't stop them from convicting him of murder. It was only through the intervention of then reporter Brefni O'Rorke that a capital offense was commuted to life imprisonment; O'Rorke also adopted Miss Clark.

Now Hartnell has been released on a ticket-of-leave. O'Rorke, risen to editor, assigns Jimmy Hanley to go interview the man. Hanley -- who seems thoroughly inept as a reporter, probably kept on staff because O'Rorke's daughter, now grown into Dinah Sheridan, is in love with him -- can't find him, because Hartnell is in O'Rorke's office, asking after his girl, and explaining he's going to find Slater.

It's a very nice little movie, a first feature for writer-director Montgomery Tully. Hartnell is excellent in a leading role, and his old-man make-up makes him look as he would during his run in Doctor Who. DP Ernest Palmer offers some nice, dark lighting. It's a good story about high-sounding principles running up against official indifference, and worth a look.

Murder in Reverse for some unknown reason sticks in my mind from my childhood more than any other film, and is one I would dearly love to see again. I always recall Hartnell passing by the berthed ship and seeing the man he 'killed' on board, but by MIA-reading the name of the ship it was never traced... I have scoured the TV listing to see it broadcast but gave up some years ago. The twist at the end is delicious. I have always been a fan of William Hartnell from the original 1950's Army Game through Carry On Sergeant to Dr Who. It had an impressive cast for the time of Hanley, Slater and Hartnell and you really felt sympathy for the man as he was led away to prison for a crime we all know he did not commit. Does anyone have a copy of this film or know if it has ever been released on video either in UK or overseas. Thanks, Trevor

I caught this one on Talking Pictures after it was previously unavailable for viewing for many years. It's a fun little 'wronged man' thriller which stars William Hartnell in a rare leading man performance, playing a guy suspected of murdering a love rival after being cuckolded by his wife. He goes to prison for 15 years but comes out convinced his 'victim' is still alive. Real-life husband and wife Jimmy Hanley and Dinah Sheridan help him out, and there's a bit of courtroom stuff too. Hartnell is unrecognisable in his old man makeup and very good in the part too, aided by a seedy John Slater and Montgomery Tully's brisk, workmanlike direction.

"Murder in Reverse" has the most fiendishly clever premise I've encountered in all my years of movie-watching. The plot outline listed for "Murder in Reverse" on this IMDb site is inaccurate, so I'll give you the set-up:

The crimelord of a London gang is murdered, his corpse is defaced, and the evidence points to dock labourer Tom Masterick. Unable to prove his innocence, Masterick is sentenced to a long prison term. Then, through the prison grapevine, Masterick learns the truth: the crimelord wanted to disappear and start over, so he staged his own murder and is living under a new identity, after framing Masterick for a crime that never took place. But now that he knows the truth, Masterick can't convince the authorities that the "murder" victim is still alive. Unable to get justice, Masterick plans revenge.

After a long sentence, Masterick is released from prison, aged and embittered. Now Masterick intends to do precisely what the Home Office insists he has already done: HE WILL MURDER THE MAN HE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDERING. He will commit a "Murder in Reverse".

Think about it: what can they possibly do to this poor bloke? If Masterick gets caught, he can't be convicted twice for the same murder ... or CAN he?

Unfortunately, after setting up this brilliant premise, "Murder in Reverse" loses steam. The ultimate payoff is unsatisfying, with a too-obvious twist. The old- age make-up on William Hartnell is crude and obvious. Petula Clark and Dinah Sheridan (sharing the role of Masterick's daughter, before and after his long bowl of porridge) give excellent performances: Petula Clark's success as a singer has always obscured her very real talents as a dramatic actress.

"Murder in Reverse" has much to recommend it, but not quite enough to make this movie the first-rate suspense yarn it very nearly could have been.

Dock worker Tom Masterick chases his wife's lover out of a pub one night, and is later convicted for his murder.

I've seen many, many films from this era, this genre, but there was something about Murder in Reverse that was a little different. It's an excellent storyline, it's very well produced, the acting is excellent. It's well paced, it doesn't drag out, it moves along quickly, and features some impressive scenes.

How lovely to see William Hartnell as the leading man, of course I will forever adore him as The First Doctor, but he was a super talent, he's rather captivating here. Poor Hartnell is once again wearing a wig. The scene where he gets to shout about his justice was excellent.

I'm so glad I've finally gotten to see this forgotten gem, I thoroughly enjoyed it, 7/10.

The name Montgomery Tully does not ring any loud bells with me as far directors' names go, but in MURDER IN REVERSE he strikes me as a capable crew handler to deliver a film that raises pertinent questions about the law, innocence, and compensation when man-made law has failed and meted out the wrong punishment.

Admittedly, the premise of the story places you before a situation fraught with the possibility of erroneous interpretation by court: Tom Masterick (well played by William Hartnell) is a dedicated family man whose wife cheats and who loses his beloved daughter to adoption after he chases his wife's lover with a long knife in his hand and apparently kills him.

You can question several details: William Hartnell, the alleged killer, does age; the alleged deceased, John Slater, does not (could it mean that his life has remained intact while Masterick's was wasted?); how did the authorities allow a man called Fred Smith, like the alleged murdereed man, to open and own a pub under that very name?; the convenience of those developments that lead to Masterick rotting in jail for 15 precious years raises all manner of doubt.

However, ultimately, when presented with evidence that the supposedly murdered man is actually very much alive, the wheels of law find it very difficult to turn around to right the wrong, and use all manner of semantics, not to have to admit the error.

As the saying goes, better let a criminal free than place an innocent man in jail. I liked MURDER IN THE REVERSE? Very much, all logic holes notwithstanding, because of the issues it raises. In cinematographic terms, it is strictly competent.

Lovely to see the very young Petula Clark. 8/10.

Yeah!..okay, I get it. It's all about entertainment, building tension, suspense and excitement, but should I ever be running for my life, with an insanely jealous, sword wielding husband in hot pursuit, it's unlikely that I would seek refuge on the jib of a large industrial crane. At the end of his rope....literally, John Slater takes a long plunge into the murky depths of the harbour. The evidence of a corpse, washed up near Southend, is sufficient to convict William Hartnell of murder. A charge he vehemently denies, claiming that Slater is alive and working on a freighter.

Fifteen years of hard labour transforms Hartnell from an energetic forty something into a white haired, pork pie hatted, aged man. Older, sadder, but much wiser and entirely consumed by the singular purpose of locating Slater to prove his innocence. In a world largely sold on the belief that his quarry is long dead, it's the ultimate needle in a haystack scenario.

Garnering support from enthusiastic, but chaotic reporter, Jimmy Hanley and his love interest Dinah Sheridan, he seeks clues which may smoke out the elusive Slater. It culminates in a final scene, involving a bunch of puffed-up, pompous, plum in the mouth barristers, all deeply in love....with the sound of their own voices, who pontificate, deliberate and generally waffle over cases from the past and each other's shortcomings. Their abject failure to confront and resolve the salient issue before them produces jaw-dropping results.

With its meager sets and sporadically starchy performances, 'Murder in Reverse' not only looks, but sounds dated. Nonetheless, it exudes an unquestionable period charm, an almost tangibly quaint allure. The tricky plot, the dramatic finish and its inscrutable aftermath leave a lingering resonance which remains long after the closing credits have disappeared over the horizon.

This is definitely not just one of the better Monty Tully thrillers but also one of William Hartnell's more characterful performances as we retro-fit a murder conviction. We know "Masterick" has been charged and convicted of murder, but has luckily been spared the black hat. Now, fifteen years later and released from His Majesty's hospitality, he decides to prove his innocence. He's been away for quite a while so picking up this very cold trail isn't going to be easy, especially as his former wife "Doris" (Chili Bouchier) hasn't exactly been hanging around for him. The commutation of his sentence was largely down to the intervention of a local journalist who has now risen to be the editor of his paper. "Sullivan" (Brefni O'Rorke), who also adopted his daughter (Petula Clark who morphs, seamlessly, into Dinah Sheridan), agrees to assign the pretty hopeless "Rogers" (Jimmy Hanley) to help him out and soon we begin to wonder if anything was quite as it appeared all these years ago. It doesn't takes us very long to put the puzzle together, but as we do there's enough intrigue with decent acting and writing to pass eighty minutes without much effort and though I doubt you'll recall this for long afterwards, it's quite an amiable watch.

As the review title states this British 'B' release from 1945 has a gripping plot line that keeps you engrossed to the end.

The plot concerns a London dockyard worker, Tom Masterick who finds out his wife is having an affair and proceeds to murder the man, Fred Smith involved. Or did he? Did an apparent miscarriage of justice occur leading to a fifteen year prison term?

On release from said 15 years Masterick is determined to clear his name until the crescendo leads to a murder in reverse scenario!

One that got to me when watching the film. Masterick has a young daughter who is promptly adopted after the murder. She fails to recognize him 15 years later on his release. Would he look that different? Surely she would recognize him?