It Takes a Thief / The Challenge (1960) ****

Extremely dark-edged thriller at least a decade ahead of its time. Absolute corker of a sting in the tail. Instead of being the gangster’s moll, Jayne Mansfield – following on from another British-made thriller Playgirl After Dark / Too Hot to Handle (1960) – turns the genre on its head by playing the smart leader of a gang of bank robbers constantly evading detection by the police. Anthony Quayle (East of Sudan, 1964) drops his good guy stiff upper lip screen persona in favor of a villain.

Most heist movies either fall into the category of mostly heist (Topkapi, 1964) and half-heist and half-aftermath. Here the heist is dealt with pretty quickly and then we’re into a complicated aftermath with double cross the order of the day. Even the supposed good guys – a cop and a union leader – have a distinctly mean streak. And on top of that we have a whole load of car chases. Just one would be unusual at the time for this budget category, but here we have three, complete with crashes and cars totaled off the road. And on top of that there’s an exceptionally creepy attempt at getting an inconvenient young child to commit suicide by playing chicken on a railway line.

Widowed lorry driver Jim (Anthony Quayle), who has dreams of owning a farm, is seduced into acting as the driver for the latest bank heist organized by Billy (Jayne Mansfield). While his van loaded with the loot tootles off unimpeded, she acts as bait in another car to snooker the cops into pursuing the rest of the gang. As proof of her love for him, she entrusts him with burying the loot in a place of his choosing.

He doesn’t get the chance to dig it up again because someone’s snitched on him, most likely Billy’s ex Kristy (Carl Mohner). And since he can’t snitch on the gang to save his own skin he ends up doing a five-year stretch. When he comes out, he finds the cops shadowing his every move, and Kristy taking his place in Billy’s bed. Det Sgt Gittens (Edward Judd) decides to play dirty by suggesting that Jim is intent on double-crossing her.

The gang, determined on recovering the loot as soon as possible, have their own arsenal of dirty tricks, beating up Jim’s mother and kidnapping his son.  You’d think that with his mum black and blue and his son in the hands of the crooks that Jim would give up the loot. But, as I said, he’s not a good guy and is willing to risk all he supposedly holds dearly to get his hands on the dosh.

There’s a twist that Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974) later down the line exploit. Instead of someone building a school over the hiding place as with the Clint Eastwood picture, here it is hidden under dozens of barrels of high explosive encased in barbed wire. With the deadline approaching for killing his son, Jim attempts to enlist a bunch of local laborers only to be stopped in his tracks by the bureaucracy of a union shop steward.

Meanwhile, the couple, and despite all the motherliness of the childless wife (Barbara Mullen), forced to hide the child aren’t making the slightest attempt to help him escape. Instead, we watch with incredulity as one of the hoods, stumbling upon an easy way to get rid of a body, tempts the child into playing the aforementioned game of chicken.

Tension remains at a peak all the way through, in part because audiences are expecting Anthony Quayle to rouse himself from the depths of criminality and do the right thing, but mostly, in the template that Christopher Nolan would follow, three sets of narrative constantly come together.

There are two stings in the tail. Firstly, the burial site is obliterated when the barrels of high explosive shoot sky high. Secondly, with decided relish, Sgt Gittens informs Billy that the cops recovered the loot years before, so he’d risked mother and son for nothing. You can’t get blacker irony than that.

Jayne Mansfield was a much bigger attraction than Anthony Quayle and she puts in a superb performance as the mastermind and the practical woman, not willing to put career or love life on hold while Jim does his time. And while she’s slinky enough and occasionally brazen, she’s also decidedly human, but no more inclined than Jim to allow anybody to get in the way of the rewards of crime.

Like the crime pictures Britain showed a distinct aptitude for in the 1970s – Get Carter (1971), Villain (1971) and Sitting Target (1972) – this stays resolutely on the wrong side of the fence with not a single redeemable character.

Written and directed by John Gilling before he shifted into horror (The Reptile, 1966), this is a more than able piece, pulling no punches and resisting the temptation to sneak in any sentimentality.

Minor gem.

Catch it on Talking Pictures TV.

A Question of Suspense (1961) ***

Only a streamer could have a film designated as released in 2023 when it was made 60 years earlier. I wonder if that’s one of those deliberate streaming errors where an old movie is classified as a new one just because it’s appearing on a streamer for the first time. You might think someone might have wondered how a director who died in 1996 ctually managed to make a movie in 2023.   

The British had another word for the B-film. They called it a “quota quickie.” By law, 20 per cent of the films shown in cinemas in Britain had to be home-grown. Bear in mind that except in London’s West End, movies shown in first run only lasted a week, and small neighborhood houses, requiring to screen double bills, might get through five or six pictures a week. There was no way the British industry could produce that number of quality films.

So movies made on tiny budgets came in to fill the gap – and fulfil the quota. This is one of the better ones. It didn’t last long – barely an hour – and in Britain went out on the Odeon circuit as the supporting feature for John Ford’s Two Rode Together (1961).

Above and below: the absence of any poster featuring the movie I’m reviewing has forced me to compensate with two others top-billing the star.

Smarmy rich company owner Jim (Peter Reynolds) expects employee and childhood buddy Frank (Norman Rodway) to go along with a fraud involving £30,000 – equivalent to over £500,000 today. When Frank refuses Jim kills him, burying him close to a childhood haunt. As far as the cops are concerned, Frank has just disappeared, in their eyes hardly surprising when the fraud comes to light.

Turns out, to Jim’s surprise, Frank has a wife, Rose (Noelle Middleton), and partly to keep tabs on her and stop her investigating further, and partly because he was sweet on her when he was a teenager, and partly, I guess, because he’s the type of man who thinks all women should fall at his feet, he starts to romance her. He’s a bit of a swine in the romantic department because it’s quite obvious that he’s being having an affair with his secretary Jean (Yvonne Buckingham).

Rose is suspicious of his ardor and when other clues come to light suspects Frank was actually murdered and she determines to act as bait to catch him.

When I say this film had a tiny budget, it might have well have been shot in a week or ten days. So it’s instructive how French director Max Varnel makes clever use of what must have been very limited location and studio space. Jim drives a Jaguar and lives in a posh house. Everything about him is spacious. His office is very long, the rooms in his house very big, so that instead of the claustrophobia of film noir, you get the opposite. And why would you waste any time on atmospheric lighting when you can create that with quick snips of music. And it’s not one of those Hollywood pictures where villains knock back whisky in quick shots. Jim likes his booze, but mostly he sips it, and from the balloon glasses he uses it looks like brandy.

The cops aren’t from the American tough-guy template either and if a guy disappears having stolen a huge amount of money they are liable to settle for the obvious – that he’s done a runner – rather than assume foul play.

The beauty of this kind of picture is that most of the time you expect the villain to get away with it. He’s so smart, one step ahead, and everyone else is so dumb, and a relatively plain girl like Rose should be delighted he’s paying her any attention at all and showering her with gifts – he rents her a flat and a car, takes her out to expensive restaurants.

Peter Reynolds (Spare the Rod, 1961) is impressive as the cocky villain but in terms of screen charisma Yvonne Buckingham (The Christine Keeler Story, 1963) takes precedence over Noelle Middleton (Bafta nominated for Court Martial, 1954) and the picture suffers when she disappears about one-third of the way in. Max Vernal (Part-Time Wife, 1961) does a good job with limited resources. Roy Vickers (Rebound, 1959) and Lawrence Huntingdon (The Vulture, 1966) dreamed it up.

But, as I said, it’s pretty short (just 63 minutes) so no need to worry about sub-plots or be drowned in self-justification, self-pity or backstory. A bit more fleshing out and some more money spent and it would be pretty good. As it is, it’s way better than two-star but possibly only nudging into the three-star category.

Discover WordPress

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

The Atavist Magazine

by Brian Hannan

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.