Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Maddyclassicfilms Tomorrow at ten is directed by Lance Comfort. The film stars John Gregson, Robert Shaw,Alec Clunes, William Hartnell, Kenneth Cope, Piers Bishop and Alan Wheatley.A shifty criminal called Marlowe(Robert Shaw)kidnaps young Jonathan Chester(Piers Bishop)the son of a wealthy man. Marlowe takes him to an abandoned house and locks him in.Marlow has put a bomb which is set to go off the following day in a toy left with the boy. Marlowe goes to the boys father (Alec Clunes)and demands fifty thousand pounds, in exchange for the money Marlowe will take Chester to his son. If the police become involved Marlowe won't say where Jonathan is, this will mean he will be killed when the bomb explodes.Jonathan's nanny phones the police when Marlowe comes to speak to Mr. Chester. Tough police Inspector Parnell (John Gregson)is sent to deal with the situation. Parnell tries to intimidate Marlow, he want's to arrest him but is prevented from doing so by his boss (Alan Wheatley). Parnell must try and get Marlowe to reveal some information about where Jonathan is before it's too late.I've never been much of a fan of John Gregson, but he really impressed me in this, playing Parnell as a no nonsense copper who treats criminals exactly how they deserve to be treated. Robert Shaw is very good as the deranged Marlowe, he manages to steal every scene he's in with just a look.The supporting cast all deliver solid performances and there's lots of suspense. Is it believable that Mr. Chester would be allowed to be left alone with Marlowe when time was running out? Probably not, and I think that is a flaw for the film; it doesn't make this any less enjoyable though.Good performances and plenty of suspense help make this well worth a watch.

dbdumonteil Suspenseful thriller in which Robert Shaw gets the lion's share as a kidnapper of a wealthy man's only son.The story almost entirely focuses on the villain and (it's rare ) tries to explain the reason why he did it .It's not only a matter of money as the viewer little by little discovers .The things themselves play a prominent part ,the ticking of the clocks or a jumping jack .The kidnapper is at hand ,under the police's eye ,like in more modern thrillers such as "oxygen" ;and of course there is a quarrel between the scared father and the police .The whole film is a race against the clock ,for the boy is in a house with a time bomb.

agreaves-8-151592 Tomorrow at 10 (1962) is a minor masterpiece only let down by a short running time (77 minutes) which does not allow its themes to be more thoroughly explored. But with a stand out performance from a young Robert Shaw (Jaws), and an effective film noir style adopted by underrated British 'B' film director Lance Comfort, it is worth watching.Briefly this is a story of child abduction. A crook kidnaps the child of a wealthy industrialist and locks him in the room of an abandoned house with a time bomb. But woven into the narrative is the issue of class (particularly relevant in 1950s/early 1960s Britain). Robert Shaw is working class, and it is with him that our sympathies lie – not with Alec Clunes' arrogant Anthony Chester who believes that any problem can be solved if enough money is thrown at it.Lines like "they probably met at a hunt ball" and "that's what I like about the police force...the informal relationship that exists between all ranks" delivered by John Gregson's honest detective about the social climbing Commissioner Bewley, highlight a sneering attitude towards class, rank and insignia. And ironically, it is the respectable and bourgeois Chester who commits murder.Tomorrow at 10 works because it does not waste time with police procedure, and the result is taut and fast paced. Sharp and terse dialogue combine with Comfort's fluid camera work and Peter Pitt's economic editing to keep the viewer alert as every action seems to provoke an immediate reaction.Finally, this review would not be complete without mentioning the opprobrious 'Golly' that appears in the film. Unjustly stigmatised by the politically correct, the Golly's origins are relatively innocent, and it is nice to know that there was a time when this harmless toy could be used without fears of reprisal. Here it serves its purpose as a totemic emblem of Robert Shaw's corrupted childhood, appropriate then that it should be stuffed with a time bomb and given to his child victim.

gordonl56 Robert Shaw kidnaps the child of a wealthy industrialist and stashes the kid in a rented house. He then just walks into the boy's family home and lays out his terms to the boy's father. 50,000 pounds in cash and no calling the police. Of course the police are called and headed by John Gregson put in a quick appearance. They are about to haul Shaw off to jail for a bit of third degree when he pulls out his ace in the hole. Shaws tells them that he has left the boy in a locked room with a time bomb. If he does not get the cash and then allowed on a flight to Rio, the boy will die. They have till ten the next morning to decide. The father loses his temper and supplies several right hands to Shaw. Shaw goes down in a heap smashing his head in on the fireplace. Of course Shaw dies without telling them where the boy is. Now how do they find the boy? It is the old race against time routine. It works though as they track down every possible clue before rescuing the boy in the nick of time. Nice cameo bit by William Hartnel as Shaw's father. Decent time-waster. (b/w)