Hangman's Wharf

Based on a radio serial, hence all the talk in this amiably inept E. J. Fancey quickie for which ample use of authentic locations and night-for-photography, an attractive and capable heroine in Genine Graham and a poised villainess in Patricia Laffan go some way to atoning for John Witty's spectacularly feeble attempt at a Scots accent.

But not much.

John Witty is a doctor without much of a practice in the Scilly Islands. And someone is trying to kill him. So he and Genine Graham try to figure out who, even as local policeman Campbell Singer tries to put him in jail for some other murders.

It's co-written, directed, photographed and edited by Cecil H. Williamson. I had never noticed his name before and judging by this movie, he was a good editor. Although the dialogue and plot are poor, the performers can't be expected to remember their lines, and the camerawork is dull, despite potentially interesting settings, this moves along at a good clip, from one poorly motivated shot to the next. Both leads are supposed to be from Scotland, but can't be bothered to maintain consistent accents..... no, that's not true, Miss Graham, who's supposed to be from Inverness, sound like she's just come from a posh finishing school.

OK, first of all you have to accept that the accents here - ostensibly Scots (?) are all o'er the place. John Witty plays a doctor ("Galloway" not "Finlay") who is summoned to a ship late at night on a hoax visit; on his way home again he narrowly escapes death from a falling oil drum by the timely intervention of Genine Graham and they both become embroiled in an investigation of murder and intrigue. It's based on a BBC serial and the production values are maybe a bit higher than you might expect. Campbell Singer (who always seems to pop us as a jovial Scotland Yard inspector) is quite good; and you might recognise Patricia Laffan as the wife of the baddie (she played "Poppaea in "Quo Vadis" one year later).

Please read other reviews for plot etc. In short, it's a Hitchcockian type thriller.

I did enjoy this, and here are my reasons. The shooting is all done outside (to save studio costs), it is a grainy film with shadows doing the best acting and there is a scratchy sound track. The dialogue probably took less time then I did to write this review, and it has a plot that became lost halfway through the film, and has to be explained in the wrap up. The plot still has more holes than Swiss cheese, and the film must have been knocked out by the studio in "no time" at all. What's not to like here? My type of "bad" movie.

It's a slow burner thriller that fortunately takes off and doesn't hang about. A good job really as 90 minutes of this would be too much to bear.

If you want nostalgia, then this is for you, although there is nothing cool here. If there is any chance a sub standard B movie is your worst nightmare, then stay away.

I did find it entertaining myself, but couldn't watch these type of movies more than a few times a year. I gave a 7 score, but wouldn't argue if others gave it a 5 or less.

I'm inserting reviews for films that currently lack one, this deserved rarity, not yet got 5 votes, has recently been shown on UK satellite channel Talking Pictures, where I saw it, so should become better known, note their 'restored' print is about 56 min' so is missing some 16 min' (ajusting for different cinema / TV frame rates) of the original, review.... 'Flimsy plot involving a doctor framed for murder and a female journalist, together they attempt to sort out what's happening, not helped by an average cast, and below average plot that's full of holes, but (in this version) it's short, and though mostly studio bound, there are a few interesting exteriors, some dockyard scenes, the Albert Memorial, and a West coast fishing village, watchable if you like old British films, otherwise avoid.'