Amazing! I gave this movie 64% in my original review back in 1956. At that time, the local screens were cluttered with British "B" features set in a court room. And no wonder! One major set and one major set only -- a "B" movie producer's dream scenario. This one, however, is more interesting than most as it anticipates "Twelve Angry Men" in an amazingly large number of particulars. No wonder it has been suppressed! The acting here, however, is very up and down. Tom Conway takes only a mediocre stab as the harassed husband, and the normally extremely reliable Freda Jackson is most disappointing as the hateful housekeeper. This would seem to be a made-to-order role for her. Maybe she had a row with director Terence Fisher who also seems to be at home only in the courtroom, never in the flashbacks! Admittedly, these begin promisingly with the memorable line, "I suppose it all began that day in Broadcasting House", but soon become distressingly tedious. At least Raymond Huntley and David Horne cross swords with relish. And whilst admitting that the photography is competent, I expected much more from a fine cameraman like Desmond Dickinson.
Add a Review
-
richardchatten1 July 2020If presented with this along with 'The Intimate Stranger' and 'Hell is a City', the Losey might prove tricky to pick out. Five years later Losey and Guest were still both making black & white thrillers (of which those by Guest probably had the edge) but Fisher was by now firmly established as a director of Technicolor morsels for Hammer; while at the time of this astringent courtroom drama he was the only one never to have worked in colour.
Like most British films of the era it has an extraordinary supporting cast; including fleeting appearances by John Schlesinger as a doctor called Goldfinger and an already worldly-looking young Gillian Lynne as Anthony Newley's girlfriend. -
Leofwine_draca22 July 2018THE LAST MAN TO HANG? is a British crime mystery film that feels very much like a precursor to that Hollywood classic of the following year, TWELVE ANGRY MEN. Sadly, this film is very much an average kind of movie, with pedestrian storytelling and a genuine lack of suspense that renders it middling more than anything else; Terence Fisher doesn't seem particularly interested in his subject matter here. The first half is the usual murder mystery, with a poorly-cast Tom Conway being particularly unsympathetic as the figure accused of his wife's murder. Later, the story turns into a courtroom drama and picks up a little, with some nicely-judged turns from ensemble players including Victor Maddern, Anthony Newley, and Harold Goodwin. Eunice Gayson pops up to be as ravishing as ever, and Elizabeth Sellars briefly plays one of those sickly kind of characters that she essayed so effectively.
-
trimmerb123415 July 2018As reviewer John Howard Reid has pointed out, there is a section in the film too close for coincidence with the entirely famous and superior 1957 "12 Angry Men! where one juror holds out against the rest
This is a film of two halves, so different in quality as to be quite mystifying. The first half features the rather wooden Tom Conway who is really not up to interpreting his rather poorly scripted role but fairly essential viewing to understand the second half, the murder trial at the Old Bailey. This is well done by nearly all concerned - far better written, acted and directed. This is the engrossing part, the first half just a make weight. Quite a good cast including an impressive young Anthony Newley -
Well the film plot is appalling so why the 7/10? The plot calls for a mystifying added conclusion. Why? The film should have cut to the forgiving husband who accidentally killed his wife but we get something else, something mystifying in the extreme?
OK. Why the 7/10? It's for the court scene - very worthy and Vic Madden an unsung hero of the 20th c (gone far too soon). Did he ever act badly? Much more than a Sam Kydd type. This man was an actor. He should, perhaps, have struck out for fame instead he diversified. Taken too soon I believe a few more films and he would have been held today in the same high esteem of a Tom Courtney or a Freddy Jones.
The film about a man struggling to come to terms with self-blame of the death of his wife, is shallowed by the lead actor. Perhaps the last man to hang was indeed Tom Conway. Miss Sellers could have been asked for a POV, but alas it's now just too late! (RIP dear lady). -
boblipton9 August 2020Tom Conway is on trial for the murder of his wife. The facts seem to suggest a degree of responsibility, if not, indeed, culpability; he gave her sleeping pills which resulted in her death. However, did he know that? Was the overdose accidental? Did she commit suicide? A jury has to decide whether he will hang, even as Parliament debates the end of the death penalty.
It's an interesting story, because of the ambiguities in the handling, and Terence Fisher has never done better. I would like to extend some of the credit to Maurice Elvey, who is credited, along with the author of the book it is based on, with the adaptation.
The last two minutes of the movie make no sense to me. -
Had "The Last Man to Hang" not ending on an incredibly improbable and unnecessary twist, I probably would have given it an 8. It was well acted, realistic an very well written. But, with the twist ending, I think it dropped the film to an overall score of 6.
Roderick (Tom Conway) is married to a difficult and neurotic wife. Possibly as a result, he began an affair with another woman. The wife, when told later he wanted a divorce, behaved quite emotionally and irrationally...more so than would be usual in a case like this. Soon after, she is dead from an apparent overdose of a strong sleeping pill....and the husband is being charged for it, as he admits having given her a dose of sleeping pills. While he does not in any way deny this, he does deny that he knew she'd already been given a dose. In other words, he contends he never tried to kill her. It's a case of he says/she says and the film shows not just the events leading up to the trial but the trial and jury deliberations....as well as a completely unnecessary ending that was cool but wasn't logical...leaving MANY questions unanswered...too many to be an ending anyone could enjoy.
Up until the ending, I loved the film. Why, then, come up with such a ridiculous twist which actually contracts much of the film...or at least needs a lot of explaining...which you never got in the movie! Frustrating...especially when the rest of the production was so strong.
By the way, she film showed something that confused me and is perhaps a way that British and American juries differ. In one scene, before the case was handed to the jury to decide, they show the jurors in a room discussing the case and what they thought about Roderick's apparent guilt. If such a meeting and conversations occurred in an American trial, it would be grounds for a mistrial, as jurors are NOT allowed to discuss the case until the defense and prosecution have concluded. It is possible the American and British systems are the same and an editing error placed this scene in the wrong place....instead of about 10 minutes later. I just don't know. -
malcolmgsw6 September 2018Presumably the title was an attempt to cash in on the then current debate about the abolition of capital punishment.However the film is totally ruined by the ridiculous contrivance which allows housekeeper Friday Jackson to identify the body of a complete stranger as Elizabeth Sellers. At the end of the film Jackson confesses that Sellers is alive.So where was sellers all this time.The film is worthy of no further consideration
-
I posted a semi-review of this a while ago when I'd only seen the second half of the film. Having now seen it all, I stand by much of what I then wrote - good to see Victor Madden in a half-decent role, Tom Conway is completely mis-cast as a man who is meant to arouse passion in attractive younger women, nice cameo from Joan Hickson and so on. On first half-viewing the twist ending just seemed to be a mystery, but now ....it's utterly absurd. We are supposed to believe that the hospital accidentally showed the housekeeper the wrong corpse to identify, and this mistake was never spotted??? That raises so many obvious issues that would make the plot entirely impossible to proceed as it does that I won't even bother to list them. I should have stuck with my half-viewing. And I still don't know why the housekeeper has a change of heart at the end.
-
stevemarwood1 July 2020Unless I missed something, the defendant pleaded not guilty, so where was the evidence here? First of all a body, which surely had to be positively identified by one or more reliable persons. Secondly, where was the evidence of the cause of death? Coroner's report, details of the medication prescribed, doseage etc. Surely it would have to be shown for a charge of murder that there was premeditation? Why did the housekeeper put the medication in a drink? The ending was totally ridiculous, and there were so many holes in the plot. Ruined what could have been a half decent film, very disappointing.
-
geoffm6029530 April 2019A very wooden, ageing Tim Conway, looks totally disinterested in his part and also makes little effort to engage the audience about his feelings towards his murdered wife. Since he seems to show little emotion about his own circumstances of being on trial for his life, and the fact that he 'wanders' through the film almost tight lipped, the film becomes lifeless and aimless! The only real interest comes in the courtroom scenes. Give this film a miss. A wasted opportunity of what could have been a dramatic and nail biting film. Instead it induces sleep!