jamesraeburn2003
Police Supt. Chadwick (John Arnatt) has a mad killer on the loose who targets young blonde women walking across an area of waste ground known as 'The Flats' on each night of the full moon. His chief suspect is ex- jailbird and juvenile delinquent George Mallon (David Sumner) who lives at a hostel for just released prisoners run by the kindly Tom Daniels (James Hayter). Mallon was seen quarreling with one of the victims, the shop worker Muriel Masterson, who had been dating him but dumped him when she found out about his past. However, the problem is that he has a rock solid alibi which is verified so Chadwick recruits a young WPC called June Lock (Susan Travers) to work undercover at the furnishing company where Mallon has landed a job. The plan is for her to win his confidence in the hope he will go on a date with her and, if he is the killer, lure her out to The Flats and attempt to kill her; only Chadwick and his men will be monitoring their movements closely and catch him in the act. Is Mallon really Chadwick's psychopath or is it a case of the police and everybody in town wanting it to be him no matter what because of his surly manner and troubled past?British b-pic director Montgomery Tully was one of the most persistent filmmakers in his field who would bend over backwards to make something worthwhile out of even the most unpromising of material. This 1962 Eternal production for whom he made one of his best thrillers, The Third Alibi in 1961, is setback by its small budget that means it is trapped within the confines of a few tiny studio bound, indoorsy sets. It very rarely gets outside at all and relies on talk rather than action - the murders happen off screen - and it runs the risk of being unbearably tedious as a result of that.However, it is rescued by the director's decision in the script he co- wrote with producer Maurice J Wilson to place its emphasis on character. It's basic plot about a manhunt for a crazed moonlight killer takes a back seat and focuses on the plight of the young tearaway suspected of committing the murders. Competently played by David Sumner, Mallon earns our sympathy as it soon becomes clear that everybody in the town, as well as the cops, automatically assume he is a criminal lunatic because of his troubled past. In fact, they more or less want it to be him even though he has an unshakable alibi! We can see that Mallon is looking to go straight and asks his mother who has disowned him to give him another chance, but she rejects him. We understand the reasons for his apparent insolence, defensiveness and surly manner: he thinks the whole world is against him. Funnily enough, it is the young WPC sent to trap him who genuinely believes that he's not such a bad lad underneath it all and takes rather a shine to him. She spots his talent for drawing when nobody else cares and puts him on to a professional artist who could get him a job. Yet, in a sombre ending, in which he twigs that she is an undercover cop he is left with his negative and pessimistic view of life and his fellow human beings.At the climax, the suspense suddenly springs into life after it has been lacking throughout in which Mallon lures June on to The Flats acting in a frightening and suspicious manner making her question that she was perhaps wrong about him all along. In a spine chilling moment on the fog shrouded Flats, the killer nearly claims her as his next victim and we discover the truth about the George Mallon who everyone thought was bad news.
DPMay
The basis of this film is fairly simple: a series of murders begins just as a man arrives in the area having been released from prison. Whilst perhaps not the most innovative of ideas there is certainly no shortage of potential from which to craft an intriguing and entertaining thriller. Unfortunately the film becomes something of a frustrating watch as it consistently fails to make the most of its opportunities.The murders - well, there are only two, as it happens - take place in the fog on a patch of undeveloped land within the city on nights when there is a full moon, and the victims are young blonde women who get strangled. You would imagine that this would be fertile ground for a film director, and that such visual imagery would be ideal for audiences, but the events are only ever mentioned rather than portrayed, as is also the case with an attack on a third victim who manages to escape.In fact the majority of the film takes place indoors, probably the result of a lack of time and money, and so rather than being a creepy thriller, the film takes on the guise of a character piece centering around newly-released jailbird George Mallon. Mallon, with nowhere else to go, is given board by an altruistic old gentleman who is helping to rehabilitate ex-convicts and re-integrate them into society, consequently Mallon finds himself sharing digs with a host of other crooks. However, whereas they are a close-knit group, and not necessarily keen on the idea of reform, Mallon rebuffs all opportunities to join their coterie, keeping himself very much to himself. In the aftermath of the first murder, however, the police learn that he was at the scene around about the time of the offence, and so becomes a suspect, and as their enquiries - and more attacks on women - continue, nothing arises which comprehensively eliminates Mallon from the enquiry. Indeed, the circumstantial evidence grows, since a subsequent murder victim was seen arguing with him in a coffee bar shortly before she was killed.In a desperate bid to snare their man the police use an undercover WPC as bait, getting their prettiest blonde to ingratiate herself with Mallon. Sure enough, events contrive to have Mallon and the policewoman alone together on a foggy night under the full moon and the audience will soon find out whether or not Mallon really is the serial killer...The film's first mistake is that very few of the characters are likable. Mallon, presumably to convince the viewer that he is a credible suspect, is portrayed as harsh and abrasive throughout regardless of who he is interacting with, which hardly elicits any sympathy for his situation from the audience. He continually insists that people have no time for ex-cons, yet his attitude does him no favours. The other crooks sharing the house are more genial, but nevertheless all to a man they are taking advantage of their host's good nature whilst simultaneously plotting more crimes. As for the police, they are portrayed as bullies. Mallon is quite right in saying that the Sergeant shouldn't have gone through his room without a search warrant. Their skills in investigation and detection would appear to be decidedly limited. Not once is it questioned why a man with form for robbery should suddenly turn his hand to murder, nor why he should volunteer that he was at the scene of the crime when he had the option of an alibi. They give the victim who survives, useless though she is, the briefest of interrogations and don't even bother to get her to take them to the place of the attack so that they can look for clues, or to speak to her boyfriend who allegedly frightened the attacker off. Instead the Superintendent comes up with the ludicrous theory that the murders are taking place on nights where there is a full moon (he somehow knows there was a full moon on each date where an attack previously took place), as though a full moon can be seen in thick fog anyway. Why not just assume the attacker chose to work under the cover of fog?Only when Susan Travers enters the fray about halfway through the film as the policewoman asked to go undercover do we get a character we can warm to and although there is a suggestion that Mallon has a softer side which might show through, we never quite get to see it. There are hints at there being much more to him, in his meeting with his mother and his propensity to sketch women, but nothing is ever really developed, and the other characters are all rather one-dimensional, especially the policemen who are essentially just men doing their jobs rather than personalities in their own right. The film is rather dated in its style now, of course, with some hammy dialogue, exaggerated accents and some very intrusive incidental music. The saving grace is the cast, which contains a rich array of character actors, the majority of whom rise above the pervading flatness of the whole thing to deliver performances which are interesting to watch. The likes of George Woodbridge and James Hayter may only be confined to smallish parts, but they are somehow compelling all the same. A fairly short running time prevents the plot from ever dragging and so this title is entertaining even if it never hits the heights it should. But the 'ex-con released back into society' routine had already been done to much more exemplary effect in "Hell Drivers" a few years earlier, and sadly even the comedic "Carry On Screaming" had a better idea of how to draw suspense from women being stalked in foggy woodlands than this film does.
waldog2006
Under-rated, unpretentious B-movie that keeps you guessing till the end. David Sumner's 'surly' and unlikeable lead grows on you once you realise that he never lets up; and the ending doesn't let you down. An uncompromising gem. Made on the cheap, for sure - they even stint on the fog - and Montgomery Tully was a hit-and-miss director at best, but this film is about ten years ahead of its time and still has a kind of individualism that weathers the fifty-or-so years that have elapsed since then rather well. From prison to a halfway house to eventual employment to a tentative relationship with a woman who ditches our 'hero' as soon as she finds out about his criminal past ...and then a trap is set, for he is under constant suspicion. This is one of those stories where much of the 'important' stuff -the killings, the planning of a heist- happens off-screen. And it's all the better for it.
