What makes it different from others?

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

I knew vaguely of British thriller writer Francis Durbridge, but was unaware that he had created a husband-and-wife team of sleuths obviously modeled on Nick and Nora Charles of "The Thin Man" fame and which had a similar run of 'vehicles' on the big screen; even so, the characters here (at least judging by this one film) lacked the foibles, the banter and the canine assistant – which is basically what had endeared the prototype to audiences – but, then, these were made within the framework of the then-prevalent "quota quickies".Incidentally, I only came upon this as yet another early role for Christopher Lee: watching him in his few (albeit pivotal) scenes, it is evident that it was only a matter of time before his star quality was recognized – it would merely take the right set of circumstances and collaborators! Anyway, the film provides standard thrills, with the life-threatening devices in this case involving deliberate road accidents, electric fences and even a snake on the loose (not unlike the Edgar Wallace-derived "Krimis" Lee would himself add to his resume during the next decade – indeed, I should be checking two of those out presently!), not to mention numerous suspects (Lee as a suavely bearded, bespectacled and pipe-smoking archaeologist is one of them, of course…and another is Robert Urquhart, a fellow actor in the horror icon's breakthrough movie THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN {1957}!). That said, I was able to figure out the guilty party well before the end!For the record, this was the fourth and final entry in the Paul Temple movie series (three had the same director and leading man – John Bentley, at times bearing a striking resemblance to the young Sean Connery!): he had originated on radio and would be resurrected on TV but, as I said, this particular figure has not stuck with the public consciousness simply because he exhibited no character traits to distinguish him from the flood of cops and private investigators that have populated the genre over the years (the fact that the central couple had a complacent Indian servant at their constant beck and call certainly did not help matters)! Finally, the U.S. retitling – BOMBAY WATERFRONT, despite its definite connection to the plot – only served to make the whole seem even less appetizing! In any case, I enjoy this entry well enough to acquire another one in the series soon after, SEND FOR PAUL TEMPLE (1946)

One of Edgar Wallace's trademarks was to have a gang of criminals led by an unknown person who went by such nicknames as "The Frog".In order to let us all in on the fun we would have a disguised glimpse if the head of the gang so that we could try and workout who was the ringleader.Here we are given no such help.We see a number of what are on the surface some unrelated incidents which of course in the end lead us to the head of the gang.I found that after the first couple of murders i became rather uninvolved and couldn't really care who was the chief villain.the film has a very decent cast but unless you are into this particular genre it is actually rather a bore.

This film, released in America as BOMBAY WATERFRONT, is the last of the four feature films made between 1946 and 1952 which were based upon the stories of Frances Durbridge and featured her character, the detective Paul Temple. Anthony Hulme played Temple in the first film (SEND FOR PAUL TEMPLE, 1946, see my review) and John Bentley played the character in the succeeding three films, including this one. Temple's wife 'Steve' was played in succession by Joy Shelton, Dinah Sheridan (twice), and Patricia Dainton here. The third film in the series, PAUL TEMPLE'S TRIUMPH (1950) is unavailable, having never been released on video or DVD. The other three are readily available on DVD in digitally remastered form. CALLING PAUL TEMPLE (1948, see my review) is a rather limp and unsatisfactory film. This one is much better. The atmosphere is mysterious and effective, despite the low budget. John Bentley is an engaging, if somewhat lightweight, hero. One of the finest performances in the film is by the seventy-something Peter Gawthorne, as Sir Graham Forbes, the head of Scotland Yard. The young Robert Urquhart, later a fine actor, is strangely ineffectual here. Christopher Lee, who had already appeared in many films, does well as usual. This story is based on Durbridge's radio serial PAUL TEMPLE INTERVENES, which was broadcast on the BBC in 1952. The story concerns a series of mysterious murders of people who appear to have no connection with one another. But eventually the common thread is discovered to be a secret papyrus recently excavated in Egypt by the character played by Lee, which contains the antidote for all narcotic drugs, and could destroy the world narcotics cartels if it became known. The unknown killer calls himself 'The Marquess', though the reason for the name is never given. There are many candidates for 'The Marquess', and it is made as difficult as possible for us to guess his or her identity. The film is very entertaining if you like this kind of thing. There are numerous interesting shots of the London streets as they were in 1952, particularly at night.

Last of the brief Paul Temple film series has England rocked by the Marquis murders. A fiend is bumping people off and signing the name to his handiwork. Temple meanwhile is on holiday in New York where he is warned by the Marquis not to get involved at the same time he is asked to gather information on one of the victims, a New York City police officer. Upon returning to New York Temple and his wife Steve find themselves in the thick of it.Good murder mystery that doesn't seem like the first two Temple films (Calling... and Send for...) in that the film seems to have more locations and move at a faster clip. The film also seems to have been been influenced by the Film Noir movement which was beginning to reach its zenith about the time the film was made. Its probably as needlessly convoluted as the earlier entries but the cast of British character actors such as Christopher Lee and Valentine Dyall manage to make you not care. One of the better films in the series. Definitely worth a look.