Headline

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.