User reviews

Fast moving direction makes this one-hour British crime caper just about watchable. The audio has been dubbed on in the studio and it's noticeable, so that's annoying.

That aside, the characters are zany and engaging... the plot is outrageously campy and the whole thing feels like a helter-skelter ride... bumpy, uneven and you feel a bit dizzy when it's over!

The plot is confusing, but there's a murder, some communists, some drugs and a suspicious briefcase!

Not a patch on the 'newsroom screwball comedies' from America but still - it's not an hour wasted for us British oldies.

Seven years earlier Liam Redmond was investigating a cell of enemy agents at large in London in the Boulting Brothers' 'High Treason'. This time he helps thwart embassy staff engaged in the considerably more prosaically mercenary business of drug smuggling.

Johnny Briggs (who died yesterday aged 85) is here reincarnated at the age of 22, while Robin Bailey plays a rare lead opposite cool blonde Susan Shaw as rival reporters (as usual being pressured by the usual tyrannical editor played by Charles Farrell) in this breezy little potboiler which despite a plot involving heroin, one character going under a train (off-camera of course) and us actually seeing the police photograph of the title corpse treats it all in a light-hearted fashion appropriate to it's tongue-in-cheek title.

When the unseen newspaper publisher demands that the corpse found floating by the docks be given full coverage, editor Bill Shine orders crime reporter Robin Bailey to the scene. It's almost written off until it turns out to be a member of a foreign embassy.

With its title, I came to this movie expecting a comedy. Although there were some light-hearted moments, it's mostly a well-written and performed mystery with stock characters: Robin Bailey as the cynical crime reporter, Susan Shaw as the reporter stuck in fashion, hoping for a byline on a serious story, Bill Shine as the shouty editor, and Charles Farrell -- the English supporting player, not the American co-star of Janet Gaynor -- as the reporter on the diplomatic beat, who has high tea at his desk. It does run out of steam when the motive shows up, revealing the answer to the mystery about two-thirds of the way through. Also there are some typical issues with reality: the ability of Miss Shaw to race quickly down stairs in heels, and the ease with which she is extracted from a foreign embassy are both unlikely, but one expects a few corners to be cut in a 65-minute movie. Overall, it is a watchable effort.

This film,like many others ,owes a great deal to The Front Page. Man and Woman reporters vying for a big scoop. You could say that there is more in the way of comedy than thrills. Charles Farrell plays the newspaper editor in a familiar blustering over the top manner. Robin Bailey and Susan Shaw play pleasant,if anodyne leads. Niall McGuiness plays the familiar role of the detective always one step behind the journalists.

BOY!!! yells the newspaper editor. The meekly subservient copy-boy dashes past the blonde fashion reporter at her typewriter (male reporters don't seem to have typewriters) while the diplomatic correspondent serves tea at his desk from a china teapot.

Ah what bliss to make movies in the 1950s, when every cliché was still fresh and nobody questioned the established social order. This flimsily plotted movie is a perfect example of its type, in which foreign crooks are pursued by London newspaper reporters and police to a highly predictable ending.

It is undemanding and formulaic but quite enjoyable as a late night time-filler.

I enjoyed watching this film as I do a lot with films from this era. It's a romp by that I mean it is more of a tongue in cheek crime story... although I am sure it will please many viewers from that genre.... of course it's to be taken as it was meant, that is to entertain and that it does...!

What really interested me was how the choice of leading man was made..... I am not suggesting that Robin Bailey is a bad actor , far from it, he was a talented character actor but for this film his approach to his character and his look just don't work in my humble opinion, the choice for him to do this is almost as bad as the choice of 'has been' American actors that we saw around this time and mainly in the quota films of that time.

I am sure that other actors must have been approached for the part before the final choice of Mr Bailey.... but no matter I would like to find out why he was chosen to lead.... when there were so many options available at the time.... I am reminded of that film The Cover Girl Killer 1959, in which the lead, Spencer Teakle, who was also miscast for this film and hopefully anyone who has seen that film might understand what I mean...

Sorry if I am coming across as harsh that's not my intention, I am just curious to know why Mr Bailey was given the lead... I didnt let my curiosity ruin the film as even with Mr Bailey I enjoyed the film... Personally I would have preferred, for example, Dermot Walsh or even Paul Carpenter etc.... rather than Mr Bailey..

If, like me, you enjoy the British films (Quota Quickies, B Films etc) from this era, then I don't doubt you will also enjoy this film as I did...