Query (1945) Poster

(1945)

User Reviews

Review this title
18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Ingenious wronged-man thriller
Igenlode Wordsmith24 June 2010
This film has a great deal going for it, including an excellent performance from silent-era siren Chili Bouchier in the fairly thankless role of the wife, an effective child performance from Petula Clark, and a rather charming lolloping-puppy act from Jimmy Hanley in what could otherwise have been an irritating role as a none-too-successful cub reporter. There is a nail-biting (although credibility-stretching) chase which doesn't end up as we have been conditioned to expect, and an ingenious plot twist based on the original source, a short story called "Query". The flashback section also provides the spectacle of post-war production waxing nostalgic over 1930s Limehouse, with its references to the novel 'talkies', its thriving docks and its Chinese laundry.

I mainly went to see this film on account of the advertised starring role of William Hartnell, whom I have always found to give good value on screen.. Here he takes the lead in an impressive character performance which involves his playing the whole of the first half in an East End accent and the second half as a prematurely aged man combining both wizened malevolence and the vague kindness of a silver-haired uncle. Masterick is a tough act to pull off, a man obsessed and bitter, and yet still human, and Hartnell largely manages it, although I felt that his interpretation of the two scenes where the voice-over requires him to behave abnormally -- when he reads his wife's note, and when the verdict is given in the courtroom -- was unconvincing. Presumably this what was the director asked for.

Masterick's final scene with his wife (whose history is skilfully implied without ever being stated outright) is moving and effective, and the relationship between the two young lovers -- with the girl obviously being the leading light of the pair! -- is both sweet and amusing. I did feel that there were some plot holes (do neither Masterick or young Rogers ever learn who Jill really is?), chief of which is the fact that it never occurs to Masterick that his target might have changed his name... or, even more oddly, to the offender! However, overall it is an effective and atmospheric piece of entertainment that rarely rings false. One to recommend: but perhaps it might have been even better.

It is perhaps worth adding, for clarification, that there is no 'crimelord', no 'London gang' and no 'prison grapevine' in the film: the IMDb plot outline is accurate so far as it goes.
18 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Masterick Entreaty
richardchatten13 October 2022
Yet another enterprising production from Louis H. Jackson's ill-fated British National Pictures is this extraordinary drama from the brief period when William Hartnell was commanding film leads.

During the course of the film Hartnell ages 15 years with the application of white hair which has the striking effect of transforming him into a dead ringer for Dr Who. Another later TV favourite is John Slater, looking exactly the same as he did during the seventies in 'Z Cars'. One of several other surprises is a fleeting glimpse of a very young Pet Clark who in a truly bizarre twist grows up into Dinah Sheridan (appearing opposite her husband Jimmy Hanley) without the latter ever becoming aware of the fact.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Location for Murder in Reverse
sydneyappleton10 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I would love to get hold of a copy of this film on video. For the reason that a substantial part was filmed on location in Gravesend and the surrounding marshes, something I have not seen mentioned elsewhere. Much of the locations between the promenade and near the old pier are gone, victim of the relentless march of progress and re-development. However, like an insect caught in amber, this is a moment in history that should be preserved and cherished. I was astonished when I first saw the film, in my youth - on BBC I think. I recognized the town and its backstreets and the surroundings of my youth, with clarity. This belongs to the patrimony of old Gravesend and deserves conservation and reissue. To add more clarity: TVGuide wrote "Taut, grim crime film starring Hartnell as an ex-convict who, upon his release from a 15-year prison sentence for a murder that never happened, sets out to find his "victim" and clear his name. Obsessed with righting the wrong that was done to him, Hartnell lets nothing stand in his way. The crazed Hartnell eventually tracks down the man and kills him in front of a shocked courtroom. Having already been tried and having served his sentence for the murder, Hartnell dares the courts to do it again. Powerful." Although if memory serves me correctly, it wasn't in front of a courtroom that he killed his 'victim' but at a dinner party at the judges residence.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The first of many
tony-70-6679206 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This film , made in 1945, was director Montgomery Tully's first. Over the next 22 years he made 39 more, which judging by their length must have been nearly all been second features (given its stars " The Boys in Brown" was presumably an A.) He was also the main director on the excellent half-hour "Scotland Yard" films, narrated by Edgar Lustgarten, making 14 of the 39.

I won't outline the plot. Others have done that, but ignore FGwynplaineMacintyre 's second paragraph, which is bizarre and misleading. There were several questions that occurred to me. Why did the lover of Masterick's wife climb up a crane when running from the sword-wielding husband? Both common sense and film-going should have told him that fleeing upwards never ends well. Why was Masterick convicted of murder when the body retrieved from the Thames presumably had no sword cuts? Why did Masterick's daughter have no memory of him? (Petula Clark, who played her at the time of the trial, was 12 when this film was made.) Why did Masterick emerge from 15 years in prison with an altogether more cultured voice? Why did lover boy, after a time at sea, return to the East End without changing his name?

Perhaps I'm easy to please, but none of these plot holes stopped me from enjoying this well-acted and well-directed film. I saw it on Talking Pictures TV, which has also shown many of Tully's other films. Some are available on YouTube and Amazon too.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Excellent Premise, Good Performances
boblipton10 February 2023
Fifteen years before the events of the movie, stevedore William Hartnell (in his last performance credited as "Billy Hartnell") was married to Chili Bouchier, with Petula Clark their daughter. His wife was carrying on an affair with John Slater. Hartnell found out the hard way, when Miss Bouchier left him for her lover. The men ran into each other in a pub, and Hartnell chased him into the docks with a big sword, then suffered a fugue state and forgot about it, until neighbors grassed him to the police. As they took him away, he thought he spotted Slater on the deck of a ship, but that didn't stop them from convicting him of murder. It was only through the intervention of then reporter Brefni O'Rorke that a capital offense was commuted to life imprisonment; O'Rorke also adopted Miss Clark.

Now Hartnell has been released on a ticket-of-leave. O'Rorke, risen to editor, assigns Jimmy Hanley to go interview the man. Hanley -- who seems thoroughly inept as a reporter, probably kept on staff because O'Rorke's daughter, now grown into Dinah Sheridan, is in love with him -- can't find him, because Hartnell is in O'Rorke's office, asking after his girl, and explaining he's going to find Slater.

It's a very nice little movie, a first feature for writer-director Montgomery Tully. Hartnell is excellent in a leading role, and his old-man make-up makes him look as he would during his run in Doctor Who. DP Ernest Palmer offers some nice, dark lighting. It's a good story about high-sounding principles running up against official indifference, and worth a look.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Workable thriller with a solid premise
Leofwine_draca13 October 2022
I caught this one on Talking Pictures after it was previously unavailable for viewing for many years. It's a fun little 'wronged man' thriller which stars William Hartnell in a rare leading man performance, playing a guy suspected of murdering a love rival after being cuckolded by his wife. He goes to prison for 15 years but comes out convinced his 'victim' is still alive. Real-life husband and wife Jimmy Hanley and Dinah Sheridan help him out, and there's a bit of courtroom stuff too. Hartnell is unrecognisable in his old man makeup and very good in the part too, aided by a seedy John Slater and Montgomery Tully's brisk, workmanlike direction.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Searching for copy of Murder in Revserse
trevor-1603 November 2005
Murder in Reverse for some unknown reason sticks in my mind from my childhood more than any other film, and is one I would dearly love to see again. I always recall Hartnell passing by the berthed ship and seeing the man he 'killed' on board, but by MIA-reading the name of the ship it was never traced... I have scoured the TV listing to see it broadcast but gave up some years ago. The twist at the end is delicious. I have always been a fan of William Hartnell from the original 1950's Army Game through Carry On Sergeant to Dr Who. It had an impressive cast for the time of Hanley, Slater and Hartnell and you really felt sympathy for the man as he was led away to prison for a crime we all know he did not commit. Does anyone have a copy of this film or know if it has ever been released on video either in UK or overseas. Thanks, Trevor
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brilliant premise, so-so film
"Murder in Reverse" has the most fiendishly clever premise I've encountered in all my years of movie-watching. The plot outline listed for "Murder in Reverse" on this IMDb site is inaccurate, so I'll give you the set-up:

The crimelord of a London gang is murdered, his corpse is defaced, and the evidence points to dock labourer Tom Masterick. Unable to prove his innocence, Masterick is sentenced to a long prison term. Then, through the prison grapevine, Masterick learns the truth: the crimelord wanted to disappear and start over, so he staged his own murder and is living under a new identity, after framing Masterick for a crime that never took place. But now that he knows the truth, Masterick can't convince the authorities that the "murder" victim is still alive. Unable to get justice, Masterick plans revenge.

After a long sentence, Masterick is released from prison, aged and embittered. Now Masterick intends to do precisely what the Home Office insists he has already done: HE WILL MURDER THE MAN HE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDERING. He will commit a "Murder in Reverse".

Think about it: what can they possibly do to this poor bloke? If Masterick gets caught, he can't be convicted twice for the same murder ... or CAN he?

Unfortunately, after setting up this brilliant premise, "Murder in Reverse" loses steam. The ultimate payoff is unsatisfying, with a too-obvious twist. The old- age make-up on William Hartnell is crude and obvious. Petula Clark and Dinah Sheridan (sharing the role of Masterick's daughter, before and after his long bowl of porridge) give excellent performances: Petula Clark's success as a singer has always obscured her very real talents as a dramatic actress.

"Murder in Reverse" has much to recommend it, but not quite enough to make this movie the first-rate suspense yarn it very nearly could have been.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
State of injustice.
Sleepin_Dragon27 November 2022
Dock worker Tom Masterick chases his wife's lover out of a pub one night, and is later convicted for his murder.

I've seen many, many films from this era, this genre, but there was something about Murder in Reverse that was a little different. It's an excellent storyline, it's very well produced, the acting is excellent. It's well paced, it doesn't drag out, it moves along quickly, and features some impressive scenes.

How lovely to see William Hartnell as the leading man, of course I will forever adore him as The First Doctor, but he was a super talent, he's rather captivating here. Poor Hartnell is once again wearing a wig. The scene where he gets to shout about his justice was excellent.

I'm so glad I've finally gotten to see this forgotten gem, I thoroughly enjoyed it, 7/10.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A taut and satisfying thriller that, regrettably, is rarely seen today.
jamesraeburn200310 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
A London docker called Tom Masterick (played by William Hartnell) is sentenced to fifteen years in prison for killing his workmate, Fred Smith (played by John Slater), who was having an affair with his wife Doris (played by Chili Bouchier). A body was recovered from the Thames, although Masterick swore he saw him swimming away after he had fallen from a crane. Also, he claimed to have seen Smith on board a ship from the window of the police car as he was being taken into custody. But the jury didn't believe him and he was found guilty of murder. On his release from Dartmoor jail, Masterick remains convinced that Smith is still alive and vows to get revenge on him for refusing to come forward, thus allowing the world to believe he was dead and that he had died at his hand. Meanwhile, things are complicated because he was separated from his daughter, Jill (played by Petula Clark as a child and by Dinah Sheridan as an adult), who was adopted by newspaper editor Sullivan (played by Brefni O' Rorke). It was his paper running a campaign in sympathy for him that got his sentence reduced to long term imprisonment and saving him from the gallows. She has grown up unaware of her true identity and who her real father is...

A box office success at the time though, regrettably, it is rarely seen nowadays despite the fact that it was one of the earliest films to bring William Hartnell to the public's attention. Here he offers a strong performance as the everyday guy wrongly convicted of murder who is hardened by the ordeal of many years behind bars. His determination to get justice in his own way is driven by the fact that he has lost all faith in the legal establishment for causing him to lose fifteen years of his life. There is a strong emotional centre to the story in the form of Dinah Sheridan as his daughter who has no idea that the broken man who her journalist boyfriend (played by Jimmy Hanley) is following to get the next big story is really her father. There is a moving scene where Masterick is in Sullivan's office and Jill comes in pestering her foster dad for money to buy some new clothes in the way that all children do. We see how being separated from her has deprived him from being able to bond with her as his daughter. This was the feature film debut of director Montgomery Tully, who in the 1950's-60's would become one of Britain's most prolific makers of 'B'-pictures, and he directs his own fine screenplay with verve and pace aided by superb editing by Douglas Myers. It remains a taut and satisfying thriller and it builds to an ingenious and particularly effective climax where our man's revenge interrupts the self-satisfied and rather pompous dinner party being held to celebrate the long career of the barrister who got him sent down by his colleagues in the legal profession. Simply unmissable!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Revengr is a dish best served cold
malcolmgsw22 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I first saw this f I'll at the National Film Theatre in 2010..Since then it has been residing untouched in the National Film And Television Archive until October 2022 when it was fun out by Talking Pictures TV..It is an excellent atmospheric thriller set in the early post war years London docks.

William,here in his Billy phase,Hartnell puts in an excellent performance as the unjustly convicted murderer looking for John Slater,able to play villains and cops equally well. I met him when he played in the same cricket team as my dad. Chilli Bouchier reliably plays the fairness wife and Kynaston Reeves plays a crusty judge as usual.

The last across worth waiting for.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Clever script raises valid man-made law questions
adrianovasconcelos30 January 2024
The name Montgomery Tully does not ring any loud bells with me as far directors' names go, but in MURDER IN REVERSE he strikes me as a capable crew handler to deliver a film that raises pertinent questions about the law, innocence, and compensation when man-made law has failed and meted out the wrong punishment.

Admittedly, the premise of the story places you before a situation fraught with the possibility of erroneous interpretation by court: Tom Masterick (well played by William Hartnell) is a dedicated family man whose wife cheats and who loses his beloved daughter to adoption after he chases his wife's lover with a long knife in his hand and apparently kills him.

You can question several details: William Hartnell, the alleged killer, does age; the alleged deceased, John Slater, does not (could it mean that his life has remained intact while Masterick's was wasted?); how did the authorities allow a man called Fred Smith, like the alleged murdereed man, to open and own a pub under that very name?; the convenience of those developments that lead to Masterick rotting in jail for 15 precious years raises all manner of doubt.

However, ultimately, when presented with evidence that the supposedly murdered man is actually very much alive, the wheels of law find it very difficult to turn around to right the wrong, and use all manner of semantics, not to have to admit the error.

As the saying goes, better let a criminal free than place an innocent man in jail. I liked MURDER IN THE REVERSE? Very much, all logic holes notwithstanding, because of the issues it raises. In cinematographic terms, it is strictly competent.

Lovely to see the very young Petula Clark. 8/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sdrawkcab murder case
kalbimassey15 October 2022
Yeah!..okay, I get it. It's all about entertainment, building tension, suspense and excitement, but should I ever be running for my life, with an insanely jealous, sword wielding husband in hot pursuit, it's unlikely that I would seek refuge on the jib of a large industrial crane. At the end of his rope....literally, John Slater takes a long plunge into the murky depths of the harbour. The evidence of a corpse, washed up near Southend, is sufficient to convict William Hartnell of murder. A charge he vehemently denies, claiming that Slater is alive and working on a freighter.

Fifteen years of hard labour transforms Hartnell from an energetic forty something into a white haired, pork pie hatted, aged man. Older, sadder, but much wiser and entirely consumed by the singular purpose of locating Slater to prove his innocence. In a world largely sold on the belief that his quarry is long dead, it's the ultimate needle in a haystack scenario.

Garnering support from enthusiastic, but chaotic reporter, Jimmy Hanley and his love interest Dinah Sheridan, he seeks clues which may smoke out the elusive Slater. It culminates in a final scene, involving a bunch of puffed-up, pompous, plum in the mouth barristers, all deeply in love....with the sound of their own voices, who pontificate, deliberate and generally waffle over cases from the past and each other's shortcomings. Their abject failure to confront and resolve the salient issue before them produces jaw-dropping results.

With its meager sets and sporadically starchy performances, 'Murder in Reverse' not only looks, but sounds dated. Nonetheless, it exudes an unquestionable period charm, an almost tangibly quaint allure. The tricky plot, the dramatic finish and its inscrutable aftermath leave a lingering resonance which remains long after the closing credits have disappeared over the horizon.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Did we all see the same movie?...
AlsExGal9 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
... because I'm just not getting the "clever and thrilling" vibe everybody else did.

This popped up on youtube, and I decided to watch it because William Hartnell is a very talented actor, and nothing bad that happens here can be laid at his feet, so I guessed right there. But that script is just so improbable to the point of being laughable.

The film opens with a newspaper publisher scolding a reporter for being lazy by talking about when he was a cub reporter 15 years before covering the Masterick case. Tom Masterick (William Hartnell) was a stevedore at the time, and married to an unfaithful wife who was cheating on him with fellow dockworker Fred Smith. When Tom finds out about the affair, he tracks down Fred to a local pub and he starts a fight with him that culminates in Tom taking a sword down off the pub wall and chasing Fred all the way to the port where they work, chasing Fred up a tall crane, and then Fred loses his balance and falls into the water. Weeks pass and Fred is missing and presumed dead by the police. Tom is charged with and convicted of Fred's murder after a body is found in the water matching Fred's description (dental records anybody?) . But the circumstances have the jury calling for lenience and Tom is sentenced to 15 years rather than hanging.

So in present day Tom gets out of jail. He knows Fred is alive because he saw him AFTER he supposedly killed him but could not prove his story, so now he is going to track him down. So far, the movie has consisted of a fairly hackneyed wrong man/ wronged man melodrama, but this is where it gets completely silly. Tom doesn't have to do much tracking. He easily finds his former wife who actually LIVED with Fred for the first ten years he was in jail. He then easily finds Fred himself running a pub under his right name. Why didn't anybody, including Fred, tell the authorities this guy was alive and where he was? Nobody apparently hated Tom, yet they let him rot in jail. And that editor who was telling this story to prove he was a great cub reporter in his day? Why was he not able to easily find Fred? I think he needs to ease up on that cub reporter he is scolding.

Now for all of the little things - At the end of 15 years Tom is completely gray as in white haired, and all stooped over like a man of 60 or more when he was a young vital dockworker fifteen years before. But everybody he knew including his former wife and Fred look EXACTLY like they did fifteen years before, His daughter looked to be 8-10 when Fred was imprisoned yet does not even recognize him or apparently remember her last name of Masterick from childhood. And I'll leave the ending for you to see, but it is a truly preposterous ending to a preposterous film.

I was going to rate this even lower than I did, but there were two mitigating factors. One is Hartnell - even in this weird movie he excels in his role. The other is the fact that this film was made in Britain just as WWII was ending after five years of being constantly bombarded by the Germans. Thus they probably did not have that much in the way of money and talent behind the camera to do better than this.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bit dull
cliveyahoo200529 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
William Hartnell.is usually worth a watch, but this film IMO is a bit disappointing.

Hartnell character. Masterick is wrongly jailed for the murder of. Fred Smith.

The jury found him guilty of murder, but bizarrely requested mercy - presumably being hanged would of made the film too short.

We jump 15 years to Masterick's release from Prison.

Materick is out to prove Smith is still alive - to prove his innocence.

The film title is a spoiler.

Mastrerick finds Smith and kills him. He believes he can not be charged for murder twice.

Not sure on the law but it is obvious you can not kill people without some punishment.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Murder in Reverse?
CinemaSerf28 January 2024
This is definitely not just one of the better Monty Tully thrillers but also one of William Hartnell's more characterful performances as we retro-fit a murder conviction. We know "Masterick" has been charged and convicted of murder, but has luckily been spared the black hat. Now, fifteen years later and released from His Majesty's hospitality, he decides to prove his innocence. He's been away for quite a while so picking up this very cold trail isn't going to be easy, especially as his former wife "Doris" (Chili Bouchier) hasn't exactly been hanging around for him. The commutation of his sentence was largely down to the intervention of a local journalist who has now risen to be the editor of his paper. "Sullivan" (Brefni O'Rorke), who also adopted his daughter (Petula Clark who morphs, seamlessly, into Dinah Sheridan), agrees to assign the pretty hopeless "Rogers" (Jimmy Hanley) to help him out and soon we begin to wonder if anything was quite as it appeared all these years ago. It doesn't takes us very long to put the puzzle together, but as we do there's enough intrigue with decent acting and writing to pass eighty minutes without much effort and though I doubt you'll recall this for long afterwards, it's quite an amiable watch.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Enthralling storyline in British 'B' release
tonypeacock-110 December 2023
As the review title states this British 'B' release from 1945 has a gripping plot line that keeps you engrossed to the end.

The plot concerns a London dockyard worker, Tom Masterick who finds out his wife is having an affair and proceeds to murder the man, Fred Smith involved. Or did he? Did an apparent miscarriage of justice occur leading to a fifteen year prison term?

On release from said 15 years Masterick is determined to clear his name until the crescendo leads to a murder in reverse scenario!

One that got to me when watching the film. Masterick has a young daughter who is promptly adopted after the murder. She fails to recognize him 15 years later on his release. Would he look that different? Surely she would recognize him?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Murder in Reverse
Prismark1020 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
A rare starring role for William Hartnell. In this B movie he plays dock worker Tom Masterick.

He suspects his wife of having an affair and confronts her lover in a pub.

Later the lover, Fred Smith is killed and Materick becomes the main suspect.

Only Masterick claims that he saw Smith on a boat as he was driven to the police station for questioning.

A newspaper took up Masterick's cause. Although he was found guilty, there was enough pressure for him not to get the death sentence.

Many years later Masterick is out of prison and is determined to find Smith. The journalist who took up his cause is now the editor and adopted Masterick's young daughter.

The editor has assigned a reporter to interview Masterick who is fresh out of prison.

Hartnell can be slightly hysterical but is convincing in his elderly man makeup. He was only in his late 30s when the film was made.

There are some flaws in the story. Masterick must have good eyesight to spot Smith on a boat far away. His daughter could not remember him from childhood.

Nobody recognised Smith in all these years and he was a publican. Masterick's floozy wife could had grassed Smith up after he abandoned her.

The title makes reference to double jeopardy. Having served a sentence for murdering Smith, he cannot be convicted for actually killing him this time.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed