trimmerb1234 It's TV's Diana Coupland (1928-2006) '70s sitcom star and TV regular, appearing in her first film as a night club band singer. What is noticeable is how well she sings. So she should - that was her first career IMDb notes.Ronald Adam was an excellent actor, frequently cast, and at his best, as an authority figure (Prime Minister in "Seven Days to Noon"). Once at least as baddie mastermind. Here though he is a detective, old enough to be his boss's father. The sight of him apologising to his younger boss "Sorry, Sir, I don't know what came over me" is strange one. I am guessing that this was the only in his career.Graham Stark plays a convincing professional nark.The film tries too hard to model itself on its American noir predecessors. Comedy band Bonzo Dog once lampooned slavish imitation of the genre: "Have you got a light, Mack?" "No but I've got a dark brown overcoat" The print shown unfortunately is very soft - if the print had been sharp and sparkling and photography seen to better advantage, I think viewers would have a better opinion of it. As it is, it is the cinematic equivalent of a long rainy afternoon, the sound track even sounds like one.

Leofwine_draca FLANNELFOOT is yet another detective thriller from director Maclean Rogers, who also handled the similarly-themed Paul Temple films and MARK OF THE PHOENIX. This one's about a notorious jewel thief (the oddly-monikered 'Flannelfoot') who turns to murder to cover up his crimes. The police are in hot pursuit in a chase that takes them across Europe.There's really nothing about FLANNELFOOT that makes it stand out from the crowd; everything about it is distinctly ordinary, not least the lead performance from Ronald Howard (son of the more famous Leslie). Ronald Adam is better even if he's once again typecast as a detective, and there are supporting roles for Ronald Leigh-Hunt and Graham Stark, but it's all so, well, ordinary, that you won't really care.The plotting is chock full of the usual twists and turns and red herrings and it only really starts getting lively for the climax (and Rogers once again can't resist utilising a rooftop setting for the ending). But FLANNELFOOT has a cheap, workmanlike quality to it which saps the viewer's enjoyment.

malcolmgsw This is the sort of mystery film where there are more red herrings floating about than in the north sea.It is a complicated,not to say over plotted film.Probably more suited to the cinema than the TV.That is because if your attention is distracted for more than a few seconds then you loose the thread of the plot and it then takes you minutes to catch the thread again.This what happened to me whilst watching this film.I did not manage to guess who the guilty suspect was,so credit to the screenwriters on that point.unusual to see Graham Stark playing a crook,albeit a rather comical one.The film is really not better nor no worse than many similar thrillers that were being made at the same time.

robert-temple-1 There are lots of interesting location shots in this film showing early fifties London, with the scars of bombing still apparent. 'Flannelfoot' is the name given to a jewel thief because he makes no sound with his feet as he slips in and out stealing priceless gems. No one knows who he is, except that he is 'one of us', i.e. of the smart set. There are lots of red herrings, some darker red than others, swimming around in this story, where we are kept guessing until the last. My goodness, the manners and mores of yesteryear! There is one hilarious shot where four men in white dress scarves and black overcoats, clearly men of fashion out on the town for an evening, say 'We had better not call attention to ourselves,' as they seek to investigate the mystery incognito and mix with ordinary folk. Calling Michael Arlen! But this film is amusing and worth watching for those interested in old British movies and what things were like back then.