Too much of everything

good back-story, and good acting

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

A court case ensues when four youths are on trial for the murder of a man at a garage, and theft of monies.The film is incredibly clever, the case is given for both prosecution and defense, with witness cross examined throughout. The film cleverly gives both sides of the argument, it asks the question 'can you judge a book by its cover?' Does the fact that someone looks a certain way mean that they'll behave in a certain way? It is such a clever film, one that makes you think and question all the way through.Fantastic production values, and superb performance, Richard Todd was excellent, but the show stealer for me had to be Robert Morley, a commanding and charismatic performance, he was superb.I was surprised by the level of quality here, 9/10

This social-conscience movie, made in Britain in the early sixties, makes an earnest plea for the abolition of the death penalty and though it's couched in the form of a courtroom drama, (the whole film is the trial with flashbacks leading up to the events in question in the form of the evidence given by the witnesses and the defendants), it lacks the urgency and excitement that you expect from either a good thriller or even a half-decent social conscience movie. Instead it plods along from one scene to the next as first the witnesses give their evidence then the defendants contradict it.The boys are Dudley Sutton, Jess Conrad, (a British pop star of the time cast obviously to draw the youth market), Ronald Lacey and Tony Garnett, (yes, that Tony Garnett before going on to fame as producer of real social-realist films made mainly for television), and they stand accused of killing a night-watchman as they tried to rob a garage. The film bounces back and forth between the courtroom and the night in question; (the courtroom scenes are dull and talkative and aim for an air of 'authenticity'). The prosecuting counsel is Richard Todd who can't seem to muster any enthusiasm while Robert Morley stands for the defence. Morley is the best thing about the film; he's lively and he gives the film something of a buzz. (He also gets to do the 'serious' speech at the end). Ultimately it's the kind of movie that at half its length and done on TV might just have made an impact but on a widescreen and at two hours plus just seems to drag on forever. Give me Judge Judy any day.

The writings of Charles Dickens are known, apart from their obvious entertainment value, as chronicles of the times in which he lived highlighted by over-the-top characterizations and true-to-life environments. So it is with this movie.I won't dwell on the plot - suffice it to say that it's presentation is sufficiently original to hold the viewer virtually spellbound in an emotional roller-coaster (big dipper to you Brits!) Rather, the value of this movie is the tantalizing peek it affords us to a Great Britain in general, and a London in particular, immediately pre-Beatles.This movie is a "must see" for those who wish to visit or re-live the London of 1962! It's a gritty, no holds barred look at the time between Harold (You-never-had-it-so-good) Macmillan's nineteen fifties and the Swinging Sixties.

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