Hostile Witness (1968) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
20 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
I enjoyed this film hugely
brian-barfoot21 May 2004
I found this courtroom drama extremely enjoyable for a large number of reasons. I thought that there were excellent performances from the cast but especially the two leading actors Ray Milland and Sylvia Syms. The drama unfolded at an easy to follow pace with a leading barrister (Ray Milland) being accused of killing his neighbour (a high court judge) following the tragic accident which killed his daughter. We follow his trial through many twists and turns with at first his junior (Sylvia Syms) defending him but ending up with him defending himself. As you may expect from such a film, there is an unexpected twist at the end. I have tried for years to find this released on video or DVD but with no success. I consider that this film is good enough for release.
22 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Somewhat entertaining, but too high pitched
adverts6 October 2013
I don't think I've ever seen a film where almost all of the characters are literally shouting 50% of their dialogue. Ray Milland is probably the worst offender...and since he directed the film himself, that makes it twice as bad! It's not that the acting is "over the top" - that would have been preferable to actors constantly yelling at each other. Sometimes it's warranted - but that's an issue in itself - there are too many scenes that lend themselves to over-emoting. Other ties, the yelling is just plain ridiculous.

Another issue is the facial expressions made by the actors (again, mainly Milland). I believe they are intended to deliberately confuse the viewer, to make the viewer think that the actor is thinking in certain way, when they are not. I'm not sure if it's the actors' fault, the director's fault or a product of the times (late 60s filmmaking ?? - I'm not sure what that really means, but I'm putting it out there anyway).

Watching Ray Milland in a 1940s or 1950s film seemed "Hostile Witness", I feel like I'm watching him in one of his late career horror films. Not good.

This being said, the film was paced well (a credit to Milland!) and had some neat twists. It kept me watching in spite of its issues.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Perry Mason lite
Lucky_Eddie22 September 2008
If you like Perry Mason you'll like this film. But not as much. It follows a similar path, where we see some events around the crime but not who the guilty party is. Of course the truth comes out in the end. As the setting is in England, there is much more courtroom decorum, with few objections by the lawyers. Yet we see some classic Perry Mason tactics. My main disappointment though, came when the film had no epilogue. After Perry Mason won his case, he would always have a chat with Della and Paul and explain how he figured it out. You would then slap your brow and wonder how you missed that. But in the film, this doesn't happen, so it's not at all clear how the crime was solved. At least not to me.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Thundering Hostility!
GordJackson1 April 2015
"Hostile Witness" is one of those grand, old fashioned British courtroom dramas that can be lots of fun. Fun, but dangerous when it comes to the telling because the 'buy in' as to who did what and why needs at least a little bit of believability, something sadly missing in action here.

Briefly, barrister Ray Milland is accused of murdering an old judge he had accused of running down and killing his daughter. Hitting him extremely hard, he has a mental breakdown followed by a three month convalescence after which he is 'cured.' But returning to work does not necessarily mean putting the past behind him and getting on with life because Milland is arrested and committed to trial. The barrister is now in the dock, and he isn't handling it very well. Let the games begin!

When I first saw "Hostile Witness" on the stage of the Music Box Theatre in New York in 1966, I quite liked it even though I quibbled that some of the actors in general 'and Ray Milland in particular tended to speak too quickly, making themselves a little difficult at times to understand.' Unfortunately things have gone from bad to worse with the screen version, a film that first showed up on United Artist's release schedule in 1968 but was never seen. Little wonder as "Hostile Witness" comes across as a poorly constructed artifact from a bygone era. Thundering and screaming and yelling and bulldozing its way to its laughable conclusion, it is just so out of touch with 1968, which is probably why it never got a North American release. Now its 'old-fashionedness' would probably be okay if the film had been a 'period piece.' But it wasn't. It was ostensibly set in 'modern London.' So why aren't there any references to London's many mod' characters, swinging Carnaby Street, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

I wish I could like "Hostile Witness" because I love British courtroom dramas. But courtroom dramas that make a modicum of sense, contain some colourful characters and have punctuated shading in pace and performances. Again, missing in action all!

Ray Milland, when tightly reigned in by A-list directors like Fritz Lang, John Farrow, Billy Wilder and Alfred Hitchcock can be amazingly effective. But left to his own excesses and he is not only insufferable, but as the film's director he also ensures that so also are many of those around him. Only Sylvia Miles, Norman Barrs, Felix Aylmer and Julian Holloway manage to rise above their material, and even here the results are decidedly mixed.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Logan's Run - OK Not Quite
BaronBl00d26 October 2008
Enjoyable, entertaining, somewhat stagy film version of play Hostile Witness stars Ray Milland(who also directs) as a barrister who having lost his daughter to a hit-and-run driver vows vengeance on the man responsible. This leads to his eventual arrest under a series of intriguing red herrings and some interesting if not wholly plausible logic. Milland gives a , how shall I put it , a strong - STRONG - performance. He barks out nearly everything he says and looks like he'll pop a vein any minute. He is enjoyable nonetheless. The rest of the cast of British stalwarts make for good viewing as well. Sylvia Syms as a junior barrister is particularly strong as is Geoffrey Lumsden as a provincial older military relic - totally out of step with reality in many ways and very engaging to watch. Hostile Witness is nothing great or profound by any means but makes for a good, old-fashioned courtroom drama/mystery.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Solid, but just too stiff and photographically dull to give it anything worthwhile
secondtake8 June 2011
Hostile Witness (1968)

When Hollywood was shifting to a new mode of movie-making, Britain was apparently still able to make what you might call a routine, early 1960s styled film. And no wonder, with old school Ray Milland as both leading actor and director. It's a modern England, including some terrific Mod fashion on the women (and nice suits on the men, to be fair). But this is a relatively stiff affair, and for a 1968 film, rather old fashioned, pleasurable and unexceptional.

It's worth adding, quickly, that this is a dull film cinematically, too. It's widescreen of course (not a made for television movie) but it's lighted as if for t.v. (low contrast ratio) and the camera is functional, rarely or never an active presence, or even a creative one. This I blame on Milland as much as the cinematographer. It frankly kills even the best scenes, which are blasted with light in an unrealistic and dulling way. Sad. But if you know Milland, who can sometimes be interesting (if never exciting), it makes sense--he's a stiff, snotty type, at least on screen.

But he's not a bad actor, and if there is one consistent strength, in acting, it's actually the director. Which is fair enough. And there is the plot, which I think is supposed to sustain us, even if it's doled out painfully slowly. The curiosity is the sudden death of what might have seemed a potential main character, the beautiful (and well dressed) daughter of the leading man, high powered lawyer Simon Crawford (Milland). You get the sense in this film (more than his few others he directed) that he is aware of Hitchcock's later films (post-Psycho era). As a fellow Brit (Milland was Welsh), there was a commiseration, no doubt (same era, same sense of drama within a relatively false presentation). And as a crime film replete with ordinary folk overwhelmed by terrible facts.

But as a director, Milland is no Hitchcock, which they probably both realized in the rather terrific "Dial M for Murder" which was directed by one master and acted by the other (in one of his best performances). The plot, the strength of the movie, is laid out mostly through drawing room (or law office) conversations. It's slow going, if somewhat rigorous in logic. Milland's stiffness is better suited to the second half of the movie, where he is in the formality of the courtroom. In the end, this is a courtroom drama, with all its argument-based back and forth. The logic is stretched by the end however, with a showdown of shouting convictions and then a last minute surprise (the last ten seconds of the movie) and it's almost laughable.

There are so many better movies, I'd skip this one. To say it's solid on some old-fashioned level isn't really a defense. There's little here to lift it up, very little.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
good, but please stop shouting
blanche-222 February 2015
"Hostile Witness" is a British film starring Ray Milland, who also directs.

Milland plays an excellent barrister, Simon Crawford, whose daughter is killed in a hit and run accident. Crawford vows that if he finds the person who did it, he will kill him.

Later on, his neighbor is found dead, and Crawford is blamed. He decides to defend himself when his counsel, a young woman (Sylvia Syms) whom he's mentoring, quits in anger.

This is a neat mystery that will really have you guessing up to the denouement, what people are calling here "a Perry Mason moment." Ray Milland shouts his way through this, and I was very aware of his hairpiece. His hair fell out after it was curled for Reap the Wild Wind in 1942. The rest of the acting is fine, particularly from Syms, but Milland has the largest role.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Really bad movie -
OpenID22 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie makes no sense at all to me. It is incredibly badly written with a really bad plot.

The guilty party turns out to be a guy who worked quietly and faithfully for the barrister for 15 YEARS before he attempts his revenge - and it all happens 25 years after he makes his initial threat? Yeah, right. And the crime actually only comes about because the barrister's daughter just 'happened' to be hit by a hit and run driver - a person who is never in fact revealed.

As a lover of crime/mystery stories I rank this to be one of the worst I have ever seen.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stop Calling Me Logan!
sol-kay22 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILER ALERT*** Sizzling courtroom thriller involving British barrister Simon Crawford, Ray Milland, on trial for the cold blooded murder of his next door neighbor Justice Gregory, Percy Marmont.

Simon had suffered a total mental breakdown when his 28 year old daughter Joanna,Sandra Fehr, was killed in a hit and run accident just outside his home. Out of the hospital, or sanitarium, and continuing his job as a barrister in the London courts Simon is hit from behind one evening as he's coming home from work. Found lying in the street unconscious by his friend Maj.Hugh Maitland, Geoffrey Lumsden, Simon recovers, with the help of a stiff drink, only to find out that Justice Gregory had been found murdered, stabbed to death, while he was out cold!

Having held Gregory, who's in his 70's and an awful driver, responsible for Joanna's death just before he ended up in the hospital with a mental breakdown Simon was the prime suspect in the old mans murder. The fact that Simon couldn't come up with an alibi since he was out like a light the moment that Gregory was murdered had even him thinking that he may very well have murdered him!

Pleading innocent and opting to stand trial Simon has his top legal aid Sheila Lakin, Sylvia Syms, defend him. As Simon finds himself behind the eight ball in not being able to come up with an alibi in Gregory's murder both Sheila and his top legal consultant Hamish Gillespie, Ewan Roberts, decide to use the defense of diminished capacity to get him off with a thee years sentence in a mental institution instead of serving life in a British prison. Knowing in his heart that he didn't murder Justice Gregory Simon with the help of his young aid Percy, Julian Holloway, uncovers a case back in 1943 that he prosecuted involving a brutal armed robbery that almost cost a man his life! The person convicted of the crime John Logan after his sentencing vowed that he'd murder both Simon and the judge who sentenced him if it's the last thing that he'll ever do! The judge happened to be the very person who Simon is now on trial for murdering: Justice Gregory!

****SPOILERS**** The films spectacular and heart-thumping final ten minutes will leave you out of breath as Simon slowly, after he was just about to throw in the towel, comes to the conclusion who Justice Gregory's killer really is! This has Simon put him on the stand, whom he had earlier dismissed, as a hostile witness for the defense; himself. Exposing a number of inconsistencies in his previous testimony, which was in favor of Simon, it becomes apparent that the man on the stand isn't the man who he says he is. Knowing that the sham that he's been pulling for almost 20 years is quickly coming apart the killer in a last act of desperation not only exposes himself and his murder of Justice Gregory but his fanatical attempt to also do in the very hard hitting, in his cross-examination, Simon Crawford!

Truly great courtroom drama, that's every bit as good as "12 Angry Men", that has never seen the light of day in not being released in the US or, as far as I know, shown on TV until recently. The films star Ray Milland not only directed, very brilliantly, this amazing and totally forgotten movie but was also the star in "Hostile Witness" when it was on Broadway some two years before it's release on film in 1968.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Forgetting this film is a great miscarriage of justice!
MartinHafer28 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is a film that very rarely comes on TV, isn't out on DVD or video and isn't included in the Maltin Guide. This seems really sad, as this is not some run of the mill film but one of the better courtroom films I have seen--about as good as WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION but without the large Hollywood cast.

Ray Milland plays an exceptionally talented barrister (English for "lawyer for who prosecutes or defends clients"). However, his daughter is tragically killed by a hit-and-run driver and he's naturally devastated. His grief is compounded by the fact that they have no leads as to who did it and eventually his mind snaps--forcing several months of hospitalization. Shortly after he's released, he is accused of killing a neighbor because supposedly the neighbor was the hit-and-run driver. The problem is that Milland seems unlikely to have done it, as he'd been bashed over the head that night and his keys had been stolen at about the same time the neighbor was being killed. However, it's not conclusive that he didn't commit the crime and evidence just magically appeared in his home that sure made him look guilty.

What I liked about this is that the script was well done and had some excellent twists. Additionally, while at the end there was a bit of a "Perry Mason moment" where the truth is revealed, the way all this comes about seems possible and well constructed. See this missing gem--you'll be happy you did, as it's a real thinking-person's film that doesn't sell the intelligence of the audience short!

UPDATE: This film is finally out on DVD and can be rented from Netflix.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Barrister in a jackpot
bkoganbing11 May 2015
Ray Milland stars in both the screen and Broadway stage version of Hostile Witness. In 1966 it had a 156 performance run on Broadway and besides Milland, Lumsden Hare and Norman Barrs repeat their roles from the original cast.

Milland is cast as a prominent London barrister who suffers the loss of his daughter in a hit and run accident. After that he suffers a mental breakdown and upon his discharge a judge who was a neighbor whom he was informed was the driver is killed and Milland arrested for the crime.

Milland may have a brilliant legal mind, but he's a bully and a male chauvinist. He asks that Sylvia Sims from his office defend and then proceeds to sabotage her work by questioning her judgment. Proof of the adage about a lawyer defending himself has a fool for a client.

Of course he's innocent but the explanation is one that was way too contrived to be believable. Author Jack Roffey who adapted his own play for the screen must have consulted Erle Stanley Gardner.

I think if it were written today it would have been Sims who pulled Milland out of the jackpot. I might have liked it better because Milland's character isn't very likable. No great rooting interest to see him triumph.

Still fans of courtroom dramas will find this entertaining.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good but not Hitchcock Great
BlindMan-113 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Ray Milland does a fine job of acting but his directorship on the movie shows why some need to stay in front of the camera and some need to say behind the camera.

That said, there are too many loopholes to make this a great film.

1. We are to suspend our reasoning that a man who was tried and conficted by Milland and the dead judge would work for 15 years for Milland waiting? Question, he is so violent, how did he not attack long before the opportunity of the hit and run? 2. Given that the murderer was colour blind, and he worked for Milland for 15 years, it is also a streach to imagine that this fault was not noticed as some point during his tenur.

3. What was the point of the cross examination of the Major to make it look like he was the murderer. Further to this, why make such a poor dirctoral suggestion that when the Major and the Chief Clerk walk by each other in the court - they stop to look at each other's eyes? The Major knew nothing about the 'eyes never change, nor had he seen the photograths. He had no reason to suspect the Chief Clerk.

4. Why would the Chief Clerk arrive at court with a gun? This does not make any sense. Further to all of this, because Milland had already had the letter redone in black print and not red, he knew that the Chief Clerk was the murderer and Logan, so why did he attack the Major? This was there only for the 'twist' Hitch does a far better job of it.

Finally, as noted in someones posting here re: Perry Mason. I fully agree that it was the after the trial that Mason would reveal what tipped him off, and we would think, wow I missed that or wow I saw that so I would make a good lawyer. This is not done here.

Lastly, we never know who ran down the daughter. A real lose end that again Mason or Hitch would never have left if they were on the scene.

Good movie and nice English acting but misses the marks too many times.

Do watch it though just to see Milland at his best acting.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A very well made courtroom drama, that you can enjoy again and again.
skimari2 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I was lucky enough to see this film when it was recently released, in a DVD with crystal clear image and perfect sound, practically as good as a Blu-ray disc. Since then, this film has become one of my favorites among Ray Milland films, and I have almost every film he ever made. This is not a crime film or a thriller, so there is no ground to compare it with Hitchcock movies. It is a court room drama, and is perfect as such in every way. The script is very well written (adapted from a play that ran both in London and in Broadway). It is full of twists and until the end one has doubts as to whether the crime was actually committed by the barrister, just out of a clinic for a nervous breakdown, and his subconscious has buried this memory, or that he was framed. All the characters are so wonderfully British, and all very well drawn. Special mention to the major that makes a complete mess of his testimony, a delight to watch. Also the prosecutor is pompous enough and shrewd enough to stand out -- I remember him in an equally odious role in "So Evil my Love".. The judge is not just a figure, his character is drawn in vivid colors -- I also remember him as the Archbishop in "Becket". Sylvis Syms' Miss Larkin, secretly in love with her boss, is equally dynamic and clever as she is vulnerable and emotional, and a real beauty at that time. And finally Ray Milland gives us another super interpretation as Simon Crawford, the authoritative and strict barrister, that keeps everyone in awe. I can't take my eyes off him, watching every nuance of his expressive face, that gives away all his sentiments as the trial progresses, without ever going over the top. I particularly like he way he orders around his staff, he is used to being respected and obeyed, but he is not bossy just for the sake of it, he simply hates to waste time, wants everyone to meet his own quick pace. The final scene at the court when , in lack of any evidence, Simon bluffs all the way to get the real culprit to reveal himself, is very intense and leaves the viewer with the satisfaction that justice was served. The direction by Ray Milland was very able, the film advances at a correct speed, every detail is attended to, and we follow the plot with interest, feeling that this film respects our intelligence, from beginning to end.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"Lunch at club. Sole overcooked. Complained to steward"
hwg1957-102-26570429 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Released in 1968 this is an old fashioned court room drama that could have been made in the previous thirty years apart from its occasional bit of cussing. Simon Crawford Q.C. is accused of murdering a man who may or may not have killed his daughter in a hit and run accident. The plot doesn't bear much examination and it drags a little sometimes but the last half hour is the most exciting and the films works itself to a tense conclusion. Jack Roffey who wrote the original play also wrote the screenplay.

Ray Milland the director should have got Ray Milland the actor to tone down his performance. It was one note and a harsh one at that. Apart from that it does have the benefit of familiar and very able British actors like Felix Aylmer, Raymond Huntley, Ronald Leigh-Hunt Richard Hurndall and Geoffrey Lumsden. Most impressive was Sylvia Syms as junior barrister Sheila Larkin. Her character develops the most in the film and is acted by Syms to perfection.

Good acting then but not that plausible plot-wise. And who did kill the daughter?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
So-so courtroom drama
Wizard-812 August 2017
What the movie "Hostile Witness" is is basically an episode of the television show "Perry Mason", though filmed in color and having a feature length running time. Actually, it's based on a stage play by Jack Roffey, who also wrote this movie's screenplay. The stage origins of this movie are pretty clear; most of the movie takes place in a courtroom. But that wasn't a real concern to me, since I enjoy plays as well as movies. Though while this play turned movie can't be considered awful or bad, it all the same feels like familiar stuff. While there is the novelty of it taking place in England, otherwise you will have seen this kind of story done many times before. If you can't get enough of "Perry Mason" or similar courthouse movies and TV shows, you will probably enjoy this. Otherwise, most likely you'll find this particular telling unexceptional.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Generally Entertaining
Hitchcoc7 August 2017
Ray Milland is the consummate stuffed shirt, arrogant presence. Here he plays a barrister who seems to get guilty people off by digging up technicalities. He mistreats his colleagues, but mostly through indifference toward their hard work. One day, his pretty young daughter is run over be a hit-and-run driver. It drops him into depression, unleashing intense anger. At one point, he accuses a judge of being the culprit (which he is not). Milland comes home and is struck on the head. While being cared for, the aforementioned judge is stabbed. Because of his previous threats, a case against Milland is made and he is arrested. Choosing to defend himself, he has little evidence, and it doesn't look good. He finally realizes that the people he had so little regard for are his possible salvation. The story is flat and contrived and really lacks suspense.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disappointed in Ray Milland...and the whole film
vincentlynch-moonoi6 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
While never one of my favorites, I always thought Ray Milland to be a good, perhaps even very good actor. And, in the last couple of years as I've watched some of his films again, I rate him higher than I did previously. It's almost unfortunate that I ran into this stinker. Frankly, I don't see how some of our reviewers can even consider giving it a high mark.

The biggest problem is Milland himself. Perhaps Milland should not have directed, as well as starred in. I know one thing -- Milland seemed to have forgotten how to act more subtly...too much of him yelling dialog here. If you're a Milland fan, my advice would be not to watch this film.

And then there's Sylvia Syms. Personally I find her acting here very poor and more suitable for a television soap opera.

I was most entertained by the humorous performance of Geoffrey Lumsden as Major Hugh Beresford Maitland, a permanently befuddled aristocrat. And, Richard Hurndall comported himself nicely as the police inspector.

And then there's the plot itself. Sometimes in mysteries I feel as if the author (or screen writer) starts off without knowing where they are going, and then, when they need a new direction they throw in a not-so-clever plot twist...and we just accept it. I felt that way here.

Ah well, there seems to be a sharp divide among out reviewers on this film. Put me down as one of the nay-sayers.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
okay who-dunnit plays out in court.
ksf-24 August 2017
Clearly, the co-stars here are Sylvia Syms, as "Miss Larkin", and Ray Milland, as "Simon Crawford". Crawford is accused of knocking off the supposed murderer of his daughter, and Miss Larkin is determined to defend him. Has he been framed? A majority of the film shows us the workings of the British courts, based on a play Milland had performed himself. Apparently, and sadly, he probably should have left the directing to someone else, as it did not go over as well as the play had. This seems to be the only film project that Milland and Syms had done together, and like most film actors, they both ended their careers with TV appearances on shows like Columbo and Love Boat. This one kind of plods along. No real twists or surprises. The repeated performances by Milland must have taken their toll... in several instances, he gives a rote performance, and doesn't seem to be experiencing what he is going through, and is reciting the lines without the emotion. Story by Jack Roffey. It's not so bad... it's pretty good. For a much better version of this, watch "Witness for the Prosecution", with Laughton and Dietrich. That one has a clever script, and the performances are better all around.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Brilliant Movie That Deserves Wider Recognition!!
kidboots29 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
What an absolutely fantastic movie. Ray Milland created the role of Simon Crawford, the bullying barrister on Broadway and enjoyed his experience so much that he was determined to bring Jack Roffey's insightful play to the screen with himself directing. Unfortunately it was a huge failure, made in 1968 but not released until 1970 when it was scathingly reviewed. It didn't deserve to be - Milland was brilliant as Crawford, an arrogant person who only shows his human side to his daughter. When she is killed in a hit and run, he has a breakdown but is still able to utter the time worn phrase "If I ever find out who murdered my daughter I'll kill them"!! and you know it's going to come back to haunt him. When his friend and mews neighbour is found blugeoned to death, things just seem a bit too convenient for him. Some unknown assailant has knocked him on the head and taken his keys - and he just happens to have a key to Justice Matthew Gregory's (Percy Marmont) flat. It also appears that Crawford had hired a private investigator who had uncovered the fact that Gregory was indeed the hit and run driver, also that he had been a dangerous driver whom most people feared to get into the car with!!

The plot line starts to unravel but then Sylvia Syms comes admirably to the fore, she plays young Sheila Larkin, an fledgling barrister eager to prove herself but in Crawford's pomposity is never given a chance to be anything but a Girl Friday!! That's exactly what Simon's counting on when he selects her to be his brief, a person who will just go with the flow and do as she's told but an earlier incident involving a poorer client proves she has a strong moral compass. She appears to show mastery and brilliance of the case but when Simon insists on calling a "hostile witness", a silly old duffer whose old school retoric makes him a laughing stock in court, she steps down from the case!!

The plot then seems to spring a leak, the unknown killer is never found and while the case against Gregory as being the driver and that Simon could well be the killer due to diminished responsibility, they don't go that route. Milland has some brilliant moments in the witness box, John Naylor, the only person who can understand Simon, has already established the fact that his revenge lust could have created a blind spot in his brain and Milland has some scenes where he is trying to conduct himself but is struggling with inner demons!! But they go down that hackneyed "was there anyone in your past that you've sent up that could bear you a grudge"?? path!!

Sylvia Syms had started off as a delinquent daughter in "My Teenage Daughter" but it seemed that whatever role she was given she tackled it beautifully whether an unsuspecting wife in "Victim" (1961) or the eager soliciter with a surprising back bone of steel in "Hostile Witness".

Very Recommended
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hostile Witness is Hostile to Viewers **
edwagreen2 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Ray Milland not only starred but directed this poor 1968 film. As a British barrister, Milland is devastated by the tragic hit-run death of his 28 year daughter. This is followed by the murder of the judge while Milland is knocked out.

Irony comes about when Milland is accused of the murder and placed on trial. He invariably defends himself. Sylvia Syms is effective as the young woman lawyer who can't stand her superior boss Milland, but of course defends him to the hilt.

Naturally, there has to be a connection to an earlier crime of some 20 years previously so that we know why the murder occurred as well as who is the culprit.

Not one of Milland's best.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed