MovieChat Forums > Eight O'Clock Walk (1954) Discussion > What a diference 60 yesrs makes! SPOLIER...

What a diference 60 yesrs makes! SPOLIERS!!!!

posted 10 years ago by SkiesAreBlue
11 replies | jump to latest

Love these British movies. We are having a spate of them on GEM Channel 90 in Sydney at 12 noon everyday. This is a great movie and great actors. Saw another one recently where an innocent man was being accused of murder and at the eleventh hour was acquitted.

What a difference 60 years makes! A little girl taking a man in to a bomb site because she said she had lost her dog. It's usually the other way around. No legal representation when the accused was taken into custody and his own defense lawyer barely lifting a finger to move heaven and earth to prove his innocence. All a bit frustrating watching it now but no less enjoyable.

SkiesAreBlue

[–] Ambak 10 years ago

She lost her doll, not dog! Surprisingly, I had never seen this movie before in spite of being an afficionado of British movies of the fifties, and particularly the B movies directed by the likes of Lance Comfort (as in this case). This is a cut above the typical B movie of the time in both casting and running time and one supposes that it was intended as part of a double bill programme rather than support feature. The title is somewhat unfathomable and the plotline involving the judge's wife is totally irrelevant, but all in all this is a decent little film.

[–] SkiesAreBlue 10 years ago

My apologies. The audio wasn't that good, I thought she said dog.

SkiesAreBlue

[–] streetlegal 10 years ago

(Spoilers)

Good film but was it sensible to make it obvious Attenborough's character was innocent from the outset? The shots of the killer in shadow at the girls funeral & at the start of the trial meant that the true culprit would be unmasked during the trial and it really could only be one person.
If those scenes 'showing' the real killer weren't there then the possibility would have remained that Dicky was actually guilty.

[–] Ambak 10 years ago

I would guess that showing the killer only in shadow was an attempt to make us think that it might have been Attenborough's character,and thus put some doubt in our minds.

[–] streetlegal 10 years ago

The trouble is-after showing the shadowy figure at the murder scene-the same happened at the girls funeral and also walking into the public court entrance at the start of the trial.
The latter 2 couldn't have been Attenborough's character.

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

It was kind of easy to guess who the murderer could be once we saw the shadowy figure in court.

Its that man again!!

[–] SkiesAreBlue 10 years ago

Perhaps it was to "whip" the audience into a slight frenzy seeing that Attenborough's innocent character will hang unless some evidence comes to light and it did at the eleventh hour.

SkiesAreBlue

[–] streetlegal 10 years ago

Hadn't thought of that, think you might well be right.

[–] RiverAvon 10 years ago

"The title is somewhat unfathomable"

It refers to the walk to the gallows at the execution.

[–] Annabelle2918 8 years ago

She lost her doll, not dog!

Are you sure about that? The official summary says it was her dog...

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

I thought it was dog too.🐭