malcolmgsw Given that Edgar Wallace wrote over 200 books it would be difficult to write a film utilising a gang without borrowing heavily from Wallace.So we start with a gang who are committing robberies in the Midlands and the police seem incapable of catching the criminals.So obviously it is a case for Paul Temple and a woman crime reporter.Some of the gang get caught by the police or get cold feet.Just when they are about to spill the beans they are killed by one means or another.As is usual the head of the gang is someone that we should have thought of in the first place.There is an action packed climax when we finally find out the identity of the gang leader.Must have been impressive on the radio.

Leofwine_draca The first of four film adaptations concerning the mild-mannered gentleman detective, Paul Temple. Not to be confused with Simon Templar, of course; Temple is a far lesser creation, who doesn't seem to do a great deal apart from plod his way around crime scenes and drink a lot. He started out on the radio before appearing in this four-film series.The plot of this one charts a gang of jewel thieves who ruthlessly murder anybody with a chance to expose them. There are a couple of neat set-pieces here, like an apparent suicide in a pub which turns out to be a murder, but as a whole it's oddly unexciting. When the main characters fail to get worked up about sudden death and murder right under their very noses (a character is even bumped off in the courthouse!) the viewer is unable to either.SEND FOR PAUL TEMPLE just about gets by with some mild atmosphere and some not-bad performances, although the entire cast was unknown to me. But it really pales in comparison to contemporary cinema, in particularly the film noir genre which was raging across the pond, which is no surprise given the low budget and rather limited nature of the film.

robert-temple-1 This is the first of the four feature films made between 1946 and 1952 featuring the lead character of Paul Temple, detective, based upon the stories and radio scripts of Frances Durbridge. In this film, Anthony Hulme plays Temple, but in the other three, Temple was played by John Bentley. This is a very good one. Of the four films, only three have been issued on video or DVD. The first and the last are both better than CALLING PAUL TEMPLE (1948, see my review), which is not as good, although it is notable for Dinah Sheridan playing 'Steve', one of her most renowned roles later on being the mother in THE RAILWAY CHILDREN (1970, see my review). (Dinah Sheridan's real name was Dinah Ginsburg, and her father was a Russian.) The story of this film deals with a ruthless gang of jewel thieves who frequently murder people when they carry out their robberies in England. It is realized that they follow a similar pattern to that of an earlier jewel thief gang in South Africa some years before, and that they must be led by the same man, whose true identity is not known, but who goes by the name of the Knave of Diamonds. One night watchman just before dying manages to say something about 'the green finger', which makes no sense to anyone, though its meaning later becomes very clear. There is a mysterious little woman called Miss Marchmont, played with verve by the character actress Beatrice Varley, whose true identity also turns out to be a surprise in the story. There is another mysterious name, 'the first penguin', which is important, but what or who is meant by it? The film is entertaining for those who find a 1940s detective film interesting.

dbborroughs First of an on again off again series from England based upon a long running radio mystery series. Temple is a mystery writer who sometimes get roped into helping Scotland Yard. In this film a series of deadly snatch and grab robberies are occurring across the nation. When a Scotland yard detective and friend of Paul's comes to see him, he is found a short time later apparently having committed suicide. This puts Temple on the case and also hooks him up with the woman who will eventually become his wife, the dead man's sister. Long rambling story feels more like a dense mystery novel rather than a typical mystery film. I'm not sure if all of the convulsions and twists and turns are really necessary since bits of the plot are clear to anyone looking in from the outset (I knew who the ultimate bad guy was the minute he was introduced). While the film feels meaty it also feel much longer than its 87 minutes I liked it but at the same time I kind of wished it would have moved along a little faster. reservations aside its worth taking a look at if you're a fan of the series or of 1940's mysteries.