User reviews

I came across this film channel-hopping late one night and got instantly hooked, partly by wondering how the writer might twist the courtroom action but mainly for the fabulous B/W images of working class London in the era between the dreary 50s and the swinging 60s.

Well worth watching, too, for a sterling cast of British troupers, as well as a genuinely unexpected ending.

And good, too, to see some political awareness slipped into the action with its portrayal of working-class Londoners, as well as an acknowledgement of boredom - not many many films are brave enough to show their characters genuinely trying to deal with boredom!

When I saw this film a couple of nights ago on late night TV I was struck by how much it captured the spirit of a time when I was a boy a little younger than 'The Boys' in the film

The Boys in question are four teenagers charged with murder of an elderly night watchman during a robbery.

Several social issues are 'on trial' Firstly, the generation gap. This was a time when 'teenagers' were a new concept in Britain (the four are described disparagingly by their elders as 'teddy boys'), and this perception his used by the defence to show that teenagers are harshly judged by their elders.

The four in question are rowdy and ill mannered enough but rather too well spoken for real working class teenagers (particularly teen idol of the day Jess Conrad). However their plight is gripping enough to hold the interest of the viewer.

In England in 1962 a) an 18 year old could hang for murder but not a younger accomplice (one of the most notorious incidents of the time was the hanging of 18 year old Derek Bentley - 1956 - while his younger accomplice who fired the fatal shot, could not be hanged) b) some types of murder - killing during a the commission of a crime - were capital, others not.

The film points up these anomalies and was making a serious social criticism at the time.

The film is a believable portrayal of poor lads on a night out that went disastrously wrong and has a nice little twist in the tail

Worth hanging about to see this one - 8 out of 10

THE BOYS is a fine little film, very much of its era, that follows the court trial of a quartet of 'Teddy Boys' who are accused of knifing to death an old man. Via witness testimonials and the careful exploration of the case by both the defence and prosecution the story of one fateful night is told out through a mix of flashbacks and chronicled accounts.

All of this feels fresh and original in the hands of Sidney J. Furie (THE ENTITY), a superior director who's tried his hand at many genres during many decades. THE BOYS suffers from being overlong with a running time that eclipses two hours but is quietly gripping for the most part and also very well acted. I particularly liked the way the accused are portrayed as mindless thugs at the outset, and yet when you get to hear their own story they change and become sympathetic; it's a little like RASHOMON. The ending completely wrongfoots the viewer, leaving this an unpredictable film throughout.

The casting is exemplary. Richard Todd and Robert Morley are the big name stars here but it's the youths who really shine: in particular Dudley Sutton (aka LOVEJOY's Tinker!) is outstanding as the knife-wielding Teddy Boy. Ronald Lacey delivers a desperate turn some two decades before RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, and only Jess Conrad feels wooden. The supporting cast is an endless parade of familiar faces: Patrick Magee, Roy Kinnear, Wilfrid Brambell, Felix Aylmer, Allan Cuthbertson, David Lodge, and music by The Shadows to boot. It's really magnificent.

Why have I never heard of this film before? Why is it so unknown? I watched this last night on BBC4 as part of the courtroom drama season (I do love a good courtroom drama) and i wasn't exactly expecting much, I'd never even heard of 'The Boys' before. And sure enough, when the film opened, i got what i expected. It was clumsy, ill paced and badly timed. But THEN...it got going! After 20 minute i was gripped, amazed at how well the film manipulated my emotions, making me sympathise with different people at will, changing my mind at every turn! The flashbacks are dealt with superbly, without the cheesy, dreamy dissolves and instead the witness testimonies abruptly change in to the actually events. Without going into too much detail on the plot, the way that the truth is subtly hidden from the audience is masterful, and it grips you even as much as something like The Lady Vanishes (which is saying a lot!) From its unpromising start, the film just keeps on getting better until its chilling conclusion, not only will it provoke your emotions but also your mind. It certainly isn't as beautifully shot as To Kill a Mockingbird, or as well acted as 12 Angry Men, but it's every bit as powerful and i think that this deserves to be recognised as one of the all time great courtroom dramas.

I almost avoided this because of its low ratings in some film guides, but decided at the last minute to watch. This film works very well because it presents events from two perspectives - first, from everyone who encounters the four boys (accused of robbery and murder) during their night out, and then, from the viewpoint of the boys themselves as they give evidence. This means that most scenes are filmed and presented twice, which works well in the context of a courtroom drama.

What works especially well though is that the film does not conclude in the way you might expect, which makes it strong and relevant even many years after capital penalties for murder, for example, have been removed. Good performances from leads and cameos both.

A court case ensues when four youths are on trial for the murder of a man at a garage, and theft of monies.

The film is incredibly clever, the case is given for both prosecution and defense, with witness cross examined throughout. The film cleverly gives both sides of the argument, it asks the question 'can you judge a book by its cover?' Does the fact that someone looks a certain way mean that they'll behave in a certain way? It is such a clever film, one that makes you think and question all the way through.

Fantastic production values, and superb performance, Richard Todd was excellent, but the show stealer for me had to be Robert Morley, a commanding and charismatic performance, he was superb.

I was surprised by the level of quality here, 9/10

Four working class boys are accused of stabbing a night watchman at a garage for the money in the cashbox. It starts slowly as a courtroom drama, with lawyers and witnesses apparently attempting feeble comic turns. Where's the director? you wonder. Surely lawyers don't behave like this. The only good bits in this preamble are the flashbacks to the witnesses' encounters with the boys.

Then Robert Morley as the boys' defence lawyer visits them in the cells and zap! the film comes alive. Perhaps because Morley's in control? He was a great actor, not to mention writer and director.

The guys playing the boys are excellent too. They slouch in their chairs while Morley lays into them for not giving him anything to go on. He tells them how he was always taunted at school for being fat and gains their confidence.

Then the boys go into the witness stand one by one and tell the story from their point of view. Yes - it's the Rashomon plot. We see their poor homes and parents, some antagonistic, some sympathetic. They tell the story of their attempt to have fun 'up west' in London's entertainment district, foiled by their lack of cash. See it if you want to know if they're guilty!

There are some great British character actors including the lovely Betty Marsden, but the prosecuting lawyer is miscast - he looks about as dangerous as a kitten. Roy Kinnear is an embarrassment, but he's given the impossible task of trying to convey a witness with concealed and unspecified 'mental trouble' - something the British public were even more ignorant about back then.

Dudley Sutton stands out as the gang leader. I believe he became an alcoholic and recovered and since the late 70s has popped up on television playing charming old buffers. xxxxxxx

I'm not sure if anyone noticed but there was no forensic evidence introduced whatsoever in The Boys. I'm surprised at that, could these kids have been that clever that not a trace of them was left behind in this robbery/murder for which four teddy boys in 1962 Great Britain are being tried.

The four British teens are Dudley Sutton, Ronald Lacey, Tony Garnett, and Jess Conrad. All kids from working class background in London and all suffering the same teenage rebellion in music and clothes. They are accused of robbing a garage and killing it's elderly owner. They thought the cash box would have a lot of money. The proceeds of the robbery turn out to be fifteen shillings.

It's all Q and A in this courtroom drama. Prosecutor Richard Todd in building his circumstantial case calls several witnesses to talk of their encounters with the kids. Defense attorney Robert Morley calls the kids to give evidence and a lot is explained away.

Both Todd and Morley are well suited for their roles. Morley who has an outsize personality keeps it well in check here. A lot of scene stealing tricks he has available are not needed here. He matches Todd in seriousness in their roles. Felix Aylmer as the judge is also well cast. Every player woth his salt loves a courtroom film for the built in drama and all three of these pros do well.

It's Q&A and the information that's elicited that determines the truth. The Boys holds up well after more than half a century. It's a fine courtroom drama and a great picture of working class Great Britain in the 60s.

The writings of Charles Dickens are known, apart from their obvious entertainment value, as chronicles of the times in which he lived highlighted by over-the-top characterizations and true-to-life environments. So it is with this movie.

I won't dwell on the plot - suffice it to say that it's presentation is sufficiently original to hold the viewer virtually spellbound in an emotional roller-coaster (big dipper to you Brits!) Rather, the value of this movie is the tantalizing peek it affords us to a Great Britain in general, and a London in particular, immediately pre-Beatles.

This movie is a "must see" for those who wish to visit or re-live the London of 1962! It's a gritty, no holds barred look at the time between Harold (You-never-had-it-so-good) Macmillan's nineteen fifties and the Swinging Sixties.

I came across this gem recently, having not seen it before. A great stellar cast of experience balances nicely with the youth on trial. Good story, and captivating. Recommended!

Four young men in 1962 London stand accused of murder. The story of the night in question unfolds through the evidence they give in court, in segments of flashback. The film is not a drama about lawyers. Instead, the drama happens Memento-style as we revisit each event on the night from a different perspective, and build up a solid picture of what they are like. This made it strangely, unexpectedly compelling, especially since we never know which side to believe. It was also interesting to see 1962 life, how these young men dress more formally and behave more politely than we do now, but are also more aggressive and rough.

4 young 'teddy' boys stand trial accused of murder. One by one the witnesses highlight their prejudices - but are they right?

Straight courtroom drama with flashbacks to the scenes described by each witness. This is enjoyable after albeit a bit long with a particularly likeable performance by Morley as the defence counsel. Does twist and turn a bit and the message about the poor and the young is ladled on quite thick. You are not sure though until the end whether they did it, which makes for an enjoyable but unremarkable couple of hours

Richard Todd and Robert Morley star in this super courtroom drama with a good solid story and some really deft performances. A nightwatchman is murdered and four troublemaking youths are apprehended by the police and put on trial for the crime. What appears, initially, to be a bit of a fait-accompli develops into an interesting evaluation of social norms and attitudes in early 60s Britain. Todd is incisive as the prosecuting barrister and Morley much less avuncular with his conducting of their defence than is usual for his performances. Dudley Sutton (probably most famous as "Tinker" in the BBC series "Lovejoy" that brought Ian McShane to the fore) is superb, as is Ronald Lacey and Felix Aylmer keeps things on an even keel as the High Court Judge. Definitely worth watching...

Having just directed Cliff Richard in 'The Young Ones' (in which Robert Morley had already lamented that youngsters those days routinely carried coshes and flick knives), director Sidney Furie continued to show the potential that would soon find full expression in 'The Ipcress File' adroitly juggling flashbacks and a wide screen crammed with familiar faces like Wilfred Brambell (already playing a seventy year-old) and youngsters like Tony Garnett (who later produced 'Cathy Come Home' with fellow cast member Carol White and died this year aged 83).

Made with the routine excellence of it's time taken for granted by critics of the day, but acclaimed in 2021 by Simon Heffer - of all people - as "not only a magnificent kitchen sink, but one of the finest films of the whole era". At the time the treatment seemed harshly contemporary but today seems charmingly old-fashioned; taking us back to an era when London was still pockmarked with bombsites, Surrey Quays was still called 'Surrey Docks', the local pictures was playing 'Hungry for Love', with Simone Signoret, girls wore beehives, lads shaved with safety razors and wore a jacket and tie for a night out. And the judge wore a black cap to pronounce that the miscreant in the dock was for the Eight O'Clock Walk.

It's all been said already in previous comments. The main attraction of this film was the parade of well-known British characters of 50 years ago, with nearly everyone being readily identifiable. The big disappointment was Richard Todd, whose career by then was past its peak; he was eclipsed by Robert Morley and Dudley Sutton. The latter deserves a special mention; in the first part of the film he does come over as a thuggish yob; then, as the facts are presented from the youths' angle, his on-screen persona changes to that of an almost sympathetic lad.

I had my doubts as to the authenticity of the court proceedings, and I didn't quite follow the attitude changes of Todd as the prosecutor.

With so much debate now going on in Britain about "feral youth" (to use a perhaps provocative term), the film posed various questions that are still being asked today, and it would seem that since they were posed in 1962 society has not found the answers.

I don't understand why this film isn't much better known, I have just watched it for the first time having never even heard of it before and was completely gripped until the end. The whole cast were superb and it was lovely to see a young Dudley Sutton who sadly passed away recently. Robert Morley, acting for the Defence, was nicely restrained, and not performing in his usual over-the-top style. Richard Todd, one of my all-time favourites, was, as always, completely believable in his role as Prosecuting Counsel. I thoroughly recommend this film to anyone especially those who, like me, enjoy courtroom dramas and films of the 1960s. If you miss it on TV it is available on Amazon Prime.