An adequately thrilling and reasonably well directed crime film, completed with an appropriately dark atmosphere clinging to it, the film does however unfortunately waste quite a bit of time on unnecessary supporting characters, and some of the acting feels a bit over-the-top. A few of the scenes also feel as if they are drawing out for too long too, as a number of them have little relevance to the story, but the film still holds up despite its drawbacks. The script and shot footage could have benefited from tighter editing, but as it is, the film is still effective for providing thrills and chills. It is worth a look.
13 Reviews
As the movie stands, six is generous!
JohnHowardReid27 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
After some very effective location work in the environs of an actual cinema, concluding with a brilliantly directed bus accident, this film reverts to standard Muriel Box form. It's obviously based on a stage play. Just about all the action is set in a hospital ward and it's certainly not a ward that anyone in their right mind would want to spend five minutes in – let alone five days or five weeks! Chatter? Yaketty, yaketty, yaketty! The patients get no rest night after night, with all sorts of characters bursting in and letting fly with their tongues. True, the cast credits look promising, but unfortunately Muriel Pavlow spends most of the film semi-conscious, while Belinda Lee has her premier claim to fame confined to a nurse's uniform. Sinden is handed quite a lot of the script's verbosity and his reaction is exactly what you might expect from a fine actor. He is bored stiff and understandably plays the part with virtually no enthusiasm at all – let alone charisma! Leslie Dwyer succumbs to an unconvincing cameo and even that superb pro, Allan Cuthbertson, doesn't bother to bring even a drop of his usual charisma to his couple of brief scenes as a police inspector. Would you believe that David Knight was handed a scene as an American serviceman and that Charles Victor has only one brief scene as a desk sergeant? Richard Wattis, however, plays his brief scene as an anesthetist with his usual aplomb. If I were the distributor, I'd go for skillful trimming of the lead characters. That would actually improve the movie enormously.
Solid suspenser
Leofwine_draca9 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
EYEWITNESS is a solid woman-in-peril thriller of 1956, notable for featuring some strong performances from the assembled cast alongside some well judged comic relief. The setting is a hospital ward, where a woman has been hit by a bus and brought in for observation overnight. Unfortunately for her, she witnessed a murder just before her accident and now the two killers are outside and wanting to silence her for good. Donald Sinden and Nigel Stock are the villains of the hour and very good with it, and there's solid support from the gorgeous Belinda Lee playing the dedicated nurse. Only Michael Craig seems out of place, included in a sub-plot that turns out to be entirely extraneous. EYEWITNESS could have done with more suspense and plot development, but it manages to build to a satisfying climax which makes it worthwhile viewing.
"She keeps seeing men the whole time"
hwg1957-102-26570429 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A witness to a robbery in a cinema Lucy Church is knocked down by a London bus while fleeing one of the thieves. Once taken to hospital the robbers stalk her and one of them tries to kill her. Complications ensue. Mainly set in a hospital this is a suspenseful film that works it way to an effective conclusion. Donald Sinden and Nigel Stock play the two thieves. Sinden as Wade is miscast as a villain with a moustache but Stock is excellent as the cringing Barney who just wants to go and live in New Zealand. Also good in the cast are Ada Reeve as the garrulous Mrs Hudson, Leslie Dwyer as the expectant father and Anna Turner in a short scene as the grieving widow. Other fine British character actors have brief but memorable moments like Charles Victor, Marianne Stone, Anthony Oliver, Allan Cuthbertson and Robert Brooks Turner as 'Man Standing Outside Cinema with Woman'.
The story is not that logical because there was really no need for Wade and Barney to pursue the eyewitness. She had not seen Wade kill the theatre manager and Barney was going off to New Zealand shortly. It would have been more plausible for Wade to kill the unreliable Barney and go off with all the money. But I suppose that would have made for a shorter film. Still, it's a watchable movie in any case, directed by Muriel Box, one of the few women directors of the 1950's and 1960's.
The story is not that logical because there was really no need for Wade and Barney to pursue the eyewitness. She had not seen Wade kill the theatre manager and Barney was going off to New Zealand shortly. It would have been more plausible for Wade to kill the unreliable Barney and go off with all the money. But I suppose that would have made for a shorter film. Still, it's a watchable movie in any case, directed by Muriel Box, one of the few women directors of the 1950's and 1960's.
The plot has flaws
sjanders-864302 January 2021
A man's wife runs out, because he bought a TV. 1957! Then she witnesses two men robbing the theater. She runs and is hit by a bus. The two bad guys spend the rest of the movie trying to kill the eyewitness. Again 1957. Then the husband takes three quarters of the movie to go to the police or hospital when she doesn't come home. One of the bad guys isn't really bad. Give me a break. By the end of the film I had completely lost interest. Why didn't they leave town? She only saw one hit the manager. She didn't see the shooting. Her husband is dumb and so is the plot.
But one thing is true today. and that is hospitals are dangerous. Think! You're lying there sedated, and anyone could come in an kill you.
Competent crime drama
Tom-44427 September 1999
Fans of those black-and-white British crime dramas of the 50s and 60s will appreciate Eyewitness, and its a cut above most in that genre. Suspense is maintained well in a hospital setting, with generally capable performances all round. For 1956, this film doesn't shy away from showing violence, and has a good, sinister atmosphere.
Silly plot and miscast leads deny the film any suspense
malcolmgsw30 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This film has 2 major failings.Firstly the silly plot.Pavlow witnesses a cinema manager being murdered ,runs out of the cinema straight into the path of a bus.Taken to hospital in a coma,the 2 robbers decide to go to the hospital to finish her off.Each time Sinden tries to murder Pavlow he is thwarted so that it ends up more like a Carry on.There are so many comings and goings ,particularly with an amorous night nurse that you half expect Hattie Jacques to come thundering down the corridors.Furthermore the 2 robbers,Donald Sinden and Nigel Stock are woefully miscast.Not in a month of Sundays are they believable.Mind you even if the robbers had been played by Stanley Baker and Herbert Lom would the situation have been any more believable.No doubt Rank had them under contract and had to find any vehicle to keep them busy.
The Seen and Unseen
boblipton9 December 2017
Muriel Pavlow quarrels with husband Michael Craig and walks out.... and goes to the movies. After a while, she goes to phone home, but sees Donald Sinden and Nigel Stock robbing the theater's safe. They chase her into traffic, where she is hit by a car. "Good enough," says Stock. "Nonsense," says sociopathic Sinden. "We'd best go to the hospital and if she isn't already dead, smother her with a pillow. It will be jolly" -- or words to that effect.
It's a movie that is watchable to the end, but more because of what it attempts to do than because of what it succeeds in. The script shows some nice gender reversal in the relationship between Miss Pavlow and Mr. Craig for the era, and it's shot so dark for much of its length that the actual key events, of Mr. Sinden being menacing can't be seen -- only his calmly and rationally insane voice. It's a lovely idea, but doesn't quite work for a motion picture, alas.
It's a movie that is watchable to the end, but more because of what it attempts to do than because of what it succeeds in. The script shows some nice gender reversal in the relationship between Miss Pavlow and Mr. Craig for the era, and it's shot so dark for much of its length that the actual key events, of Mr. Sinden being menacing can't be seen -- only his calmly and rationally insane voice. It's a lovely idea, but doesn't quite work for a motion picture, alas.
Film an underrated gem
GlLee25 November 2012
Only those of a certain age appreciate good character acting and dry wit, apparently, because that is what we have in this underrated classic British thriller. While there are a few chance coincidences, the film manages to keep the viewer guessing at the next turn while supplying a very amusing counterpoint of character acting, notably Ada Reeves playing the elderly patient Mrs. Hudson who sees "whole tribes of men skulking about outside the French doors" and is never believed.
I also credit the way the elderly woman patient's dialogue is staged to _Eye Witness's_ director Muriel Box, who the next year (1957) directed _The Truth about Women_, starring Lawrence Harvey and Julie Harris. The viewer may be baffled by some of the comings and goings inside and outside this general hospital (modern in design for its day) but there is nothing amateur about the staged activity. On the contrary, the skillful use of minor characters and near-misses of criminal and pursuers helps to build the tensions, rather than diminishing them.
At its outset, this film shows the realities of life in 1950s England where television ownership was a heady business that was not to be entered into lightly. The whole issue of buying on credit is what sets the initial plot and the first disturbance (the eye-witnessing of a crime)in motion. I recommend this film highly. It is one of those good finds for a Sunday afternoon's viewing.
I also credit the way the elderly woman patient's dialogue is staged to _Eye Witness's_ director Muriel Box, who the next year (1957) directed _The Truth about Women_, starring Lawrence Harvey and Julie Harris. The viewer may be baffled by some of the comings and goings inside and outside this general hospital (modern in design for its day) but there is nothing amateur about the staged activity. On the contrary, the skillful use of minor characters and near-misses of criminal and pursuers helps to build the tensions, rather than diminishing them.
At its outset, this film shows the realities of life in 1950s England where television ownership was a heady business that was not to be entered into lightly. The whole issue of buying on credit is what sets the initial plot and the first disturbance (the eye-witnessing of a crime)in motion. I recommend this film highly. It is one of those good finds for a Sunday afternoon's viewing.
Oodles of suspense.
Sleepin_Dragon28 March 2020
One night Lucy argues with her husband, in anger she runs off to the cinema. Leaving the film early she witnesses two men rob the cinema, one of them, Wade kills the Cinema manager, Lucy runs off in fear, and faces a night of sheer terror.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, I had expected a bit of a pot boiler, but far from it, it's a very good plot, with some excellent characters, and some real tense moments.
It has touches of melodrama at the beginning and end, but the main core of the film is a suspenseful thriller, with Lucy placed in permanently danger.
The patients are lovely characters, particularly Mrs Hudson, Grandma, she was so amusing. Sinden and Pavlow are just great here.
I'd recommend it, 8/10.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, I had expected a bit of a pot boiler, but far from it, it's a very good plot, with some excellent characters, and some real tense moments.
It has touches of melodrama at the beginning and end, but the main core of the film is a suspenseful thriller, with Lucy placed in permanently danger.
The patients are lovely characters, particularly Mrs Hudson, Grandma, she was so amusing. Sinden and Pavlow are just great here.
I'd recommend it, 8/10.
Carry on witnessing
orkneyislander30 September 2022
Enjoyed this thriller though maybe for the wrong reasons. The plot was engaging enough but seemed to evolve slowly into a 'Carry on' type hospital farce with characters running hither and thither intertwined with a moustachioed and inept villain (all that was missing was a black cloak) along with a romantic and tasty night nurse. Very entertaining though and I found that the unintentional humour just added to the enjoyment.
Some of the patients seemed a bit too perky to be laid up in an emergency ward but their acting was good even if it was more suited to a comedy. Lots of improbable scenes but still worth a watch!
Some of the patients seemed a bit too perky to be laid up in an emergency ward but their acting was good even if it was more suited to a comedy. Lots of improbable scenes but still worth a watch!
Thickening plots at a hospital with a murderer desperately trying to kill a patient
clanciai2 February 2023
Donald Sinden usually made sympathetic heroes and amiable gentlemen, but here he is a professional on the other side. With a blacksmith for an aid he breaks into a safe at a cinema, but unfortunately the robbery is jeopardised by an eyewitness and a manager arriving before the job is finished, so he has to be terminated. The rest is the tragedy of the two criminals, one ruthless and the other helpless. They go to the hospital where Muriel Pavlov as the eyewitness is taken in with a concussion after having been knocked down by a bus, running away from the murderer. It's in the hospital all the action takes place, in a wonderful polyphonic hide-and-seek merry-go-round, where Grannie as one of the patients actually is the lead, constantly observing the murderer and never being taken seriously. This is indeed gem of hospital thrillers, and all the characters, odd and serious, add to the splendid show of artfulness in invention - only you as an audience understand and see everything that happens, while all the actors can't understand a thing - until after the film is finished, and you as an audience will have to guess the rest.
Wonderfully camp and full of unintended humour.
davidallen-8412215 December 2021
I'll admit to relishing British films from the 1950's but not always for the right reasons. Many of the so-called comedies of the period raise
barely a chuckle from me these days even though I enjoy them for nostalgic reasons but Eyewitness makes me laugh out load throughout most
of the film. It's all so improbable ; Donald Sinden ineptly playing against type , Muriel Pavlov receiving star billing when she is un-conscious for
most of the film , Michael Craig and David Knight slotted in for their good looks alone , an over-lit and un-curtained hospital ward to encourage
peeping Toms that nurses an acute patient next to a child and a dotty old lady (deliciously played by Ada Reeve). I could go on and on e.g. The
charge nurse taking a sleeping pill out of her pocket and forcing it down the old girl's throat ; an action that would result in instant dismissal
today and an anaesthetist who fails to check the credentials of the sinister intruder. If it all sounds funnier than "Carry On Nurse" it really is.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
