It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

I first saw this when it came out in 1962 when I was almost the same age as the characters on trial. As the film opens we are presented with four resentful and aggressive looking young men on trial for robbery and murder. They are all wearing Italian style suits reflecting the fashion of the time and immediately give the impression of being thugs. We then hear the prosecution's case as delivered by Richard Todd and see flashbacks of the young men (well played by Dudley Sutton, Jess Conrad, Ronald Lacey and Tony Garnett) cutting what appears to be a menacing swathe through London. Next we see the all the same events but from the defendants' point of view but they are now placed in different context by the showing of what happens before and after the events described by the prosecution witnesses. It is a device that has been used before but it still grips here as we are encouraged to challenge our own prejudices. It demonstrates that whenever you see a situation you should not make judgements without knowing the entire history of events.

I came across this film channel-hopping late one night and got instantly hooked, partly by wondering how the writer might twist the courtroom action but mainly for the fabulous B/W images of working class London in the era between the dreary 50s and the swinging 60s.Well worth watching, too, for a sterling cast of British troupers, as well as a genuinely unexpected ending.And good, too, to see some political awareness slipped into the action with its portrayal of working-class Londoners, as well as an acknowledgement of boredom - not many many films are brave enough to show their characters genuinely trying to deal with boredom!

When I saw this film a couple of nights ago on late night TV I was struck by how much it captured the spirit of a time when I was a boy a little younger than 'The Boys' in the filmThe Boys in question are four teenagers charged with murder of an elderly night watchman during a robbery.Several social issues are 'on trial' Firstly, the generation gap. This was a time when 'teenagers' were a new concept in Britain (the four are described disparagingly by their elders as 'teddy boys'), and this perception his used by the defence to show that teenagers are harshly judged by their elders.The four in question are rowdy and ill mannered enough but rather too well spoken for real working class teenagers (particularly teen idol of the day Jess Conrad). However their plight is gripping enough to hold the interest of the viewer.In England in 1962 a) an 18 year old could hang for murder but not a younger accomplice (one of the most notorious incidents of the time was the hanging of 18 year old Derek Bentley - 1956 - while his younger accomplice who fired the fatal shot, could not be hanged) b) some types of murder - killing during a the commission of a crime - were capital, others not.The film points up these anomalies and was making a serious social criticism at the time.The film is a believable portrayal of poor lads on a night out that went disastrously wrong and has a nice little twist in the tailWorth hanging about to see this one - 8 out of 10

Four working class boys are accused of stabbing a night watchman at a garage for the money in the cashbox. It starts slowly as a courtroom drama, with lawyers and witnesses apparently attempting feeble comic turns. Where's the director? you wonder. Surely lawyers don't behave like this. The only good bits in this preamble are the flashbacks to the witnesses' encounters with the boys.Then Robert Morley as the boys' defence lawyer visits them in the cells and zap! the film comes alive. Perhaps because Morley's in control? He was a great actor, not to mention writer and director.The guys playing the boys are excellent too. They slouch in their chairs while Morley lays into them for not giving him anything to go on. He tells them how he was always taunted at school for being fat and gains their confidence.Then the boys go into the witness stand one by one and tell the story from their point of view. Yes - it's the Rashomon plot. We see their poor homes and parents, some antagonistic, some sympathetic. They tell the story of their attempt to have fun 'up west' in London's entertainment district, foiled by their lack of cash. See it if you want to know if they're guilty!There are some great British character actors including the lovely Betty Marsden, but the prosecuting lawyer is miscast - he looks about as dangerous as a kitten. Roy Kinnear is an embarrassment, but he's given the impossible task of trying to convey a witness with concealed and unspecified 'mental trouble' - something the British public were even more ignorant about back then.Dudley Sutton stands out as the gang leader. I believe he became an alcoholic and recovered and since the late 70s has popped up on television playing charming old buffers. xxxxxxx