Let Him Have It (1991) User Reviews

On death and belonging

[paul2001sw-1 · 8/10 · 4 May 2004]

This review contains what may be considered as SPOILERS by those who do not know the true story on which this film is based.

Derek Bentley was one of the most unfortunate men to suffer the death penalty in Britain. He was mentally sub-normal, he didn't kill anyone personally and even his fatal cry to his accomplice, Christopher Craig, echoed in this film's title, was disputed in court and is anyway ambiguous in meaning. And even after his conviction, both judge and jury recommended clemency. But a policeman had died, Craig (who shot him) was too young to hang and so Bentley was murdered by the state.

The strength of Peter Medak's reconstruction of these events is that neither man is presented as a devil or an angel; Craig (played by Paul Reynolds) is just a boy with fantasies of becoming a gangster (but no less dangerous for that); Bentley (Chris Ecclestone) a sad and lonely figure, motivated by the desperate need to belong. Both young actors are excellent. Their portrayals are set against a bleak but convincing backdrop of the forgotten rhythms of life in austerity Britain, a period (perhaps because it predated rock and roll) rarely celebrated by cheap nostalgia.

'Let Him Have It' is not the most entertaining film ever made, but its power grows as you watch it. Certainly a film with the power to make proponents of the death penalty uneasy.

Thoughtful Docudrama.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 6 October 2009]

Christopher Eccleston is Derek Bentley, a marginally retarded, epileptic, working-class British kid growing up in the 1940s. He's been in trouble with the authorities for much of his life. By the age of nineteen, he's more or less a member of a teen-age gang, though his father, Tom Courtenay in a solid role, and the rest of his family try to protect him from the adolescent impulses of the gang's world.

They're not benign impulses either. Britain was a nation of shopkeepers, as someone said, and there are lots of shops around to be burglarized and robbed. The gang members imitate in their dress and style the villains of the films noir they're seeing on the screen. (One imagines Tommy Udo as prima inter pares.) They dress in suits and ties, black overcoats, and black fedoras. They may carry knives and brass knuckles, and sometimes one or two of them may carry a pistol, giving them an advantage of sorts over the unarmed police.

Eccleston and his Jungian shadow, a young kid played by Paul Reynolds, are interrupted during a burglary. The police officer who intrudes manages to clap his hands on the pliant Eccleston and put him under arrest before Reynold whips out his pistol and wounds the officer in the shoulder. A horde of cops descend upon the rooftop scene because, London not being Newark, all those noisy gunshots are disturbing the public. Reynold manages, perhaps half accidentally, to shoot a constable through the forehead. Then he jumps off the roof and is captured.

That shoot out is interesting. Paul Reynolds does a fine job of projecting the exhilaration a feral kid can feel when his reptilian brain is unleashed, shooting wildly in the air, pinging bullets off his surroundings. The adrenalin rush doesn't last long but while it does, you're the monarch of all you survey. You -- how do the firing range cadre put it? -- you "command your environment." Through all this brouhaha Eccleston has been behaving like the dumb but essentially harmless kid he is. When the first officer on the scene tells Reynold to give up the gun, Eccleston shouts, "Let him have it," meaning give him the gun. When the officer is shot and helpless, Eccleston doesn't try to escape.

At the trial, that shout -- "Let him have it!" -- is interpreted by the jury as meaning, "Shoot him!" Reynolds, only sixteen years old, is given an indeterminate sentence. Eccleston, nineteen, is sentenced to hang despite the jury's verdict of "guilty but with a recommendation of mercy." It's a true story. The trial generated not just publicity but outrage at the sentence imposed on Eccleston. He was hanged apace, but the obvious miscarriage challenged the mortmain of the death penalty and led to Britain's joining the rest of the Western societies in banning capital punishment.

The film is "thoughtful" and made for adults. Eccleston is no hero. He's a disturbed and stupid kid who hangs out with people in his neighborhood, as all kids do, only these kids are kind of malignant.

I'll give an example of how this movie could have gone irretrievably wrong. It could have followed the model already established, and imitated many times, and given us an extremely detailed description of the preparation of the inmate for execution. See "Ted Bundy" for a beacon of meretriciousness. Instead, there are a few relevant scenes of Eccleston in the slams, mostly discussing his appeal with his family. The execution itself is over with in two minutes. No long parade to the gallows led by a pastor reading from the Bible. No lugubrious climbing of thirteen steps. No inquiry from the warden about any last words. No last words.

Some real facts (dont think these are in the films credits)

[Reedy1976 · 8/10 · 16 March 2005]

Eventually, in 1993 the then Home Secretary Michael Howard granted Bentley a partial pardon, saying it was clear he should never have been hanged but he remained guilty of taking part in the murder.

Iris Bentley (Dereks mother) died in 1997 before the case was referred back to the Appeal Court.

In 1998 the Appeal Court quashed Bentley's conviction on the grounds the original trial judge was biased against the defendants and misdirected the jury on points of law.

Scientific evidence also showed the three police officers who testified about Bentley shouting "Let him have it" had lied under oath.

Craig served 10 years before being released.

A shocking portrayal of the Death Penalty in 50's England

[venushunters · 10 November 2002]

A shocking portrayal of the use of the Death Penalty in the United Kingdom during the 1950's. A mentally unstable young man with epilepsy called Derek Bentley faces the gallows for a crime he did not commit, While the accomplice, Christopher Craig, who did fire the fatal shot, only serves time at Her Majesties Pleasure. In reality Christopher Craig only served 10 years while Derek Bentley had his life taken away. A gritty drama telling of Bentley and Craig's criminal exploits in South London shortly after the war.

Despite The Do-Gooder Agenda A Searing Example Of Injustice

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 29 April 2004]

!!!! SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO DON`T KNOW THE CASE !!!!

Forget the examples of " Innocent " Irishman from republican ghettoes who just happened to be visiting England during IRA bombing campaigns during the mid 1970s and being " falsely accussed of crimes they didn`t commit " . The most glaring example of injustice is the case of Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig . Bentley and Craig were caught breaking into a warehouse in the 1950s . 19 year old Bentley was arrested by the police on the scene . Minutes later 16 year old Craig shot a policeman dead . Guess who the state hung for the murder of the cop ? That`s right the 19 year old who was already in police custody and had nothing to do with the shooting

I repeat this is the greatest injustice ever carried out by an English court , a great wrong that can never be put right was carried out . However I do have a problem with LET HIM HAVE IT and that is in the portrayal of Christopher Craig . Poor Christopher , poor poor Christopher who shot a policeman was really a victim of the system . He grew up in poverty , he was surrounded by criminals , guns were easy to access , all those Hollywood movies put ideas into young Christopher`s head and tradgedy of tragedies Christopher`s big brother was arrested by the old bill and sentenced to a long prison term . Poor unfortunate Christopher , what chance did he have in life ? or at least that`s what the film seems to be trying to tell us . It also insinuates that he actually shot the policeman ( Whose name I`ve forgotten - You do get the impression only Bentley and Craig are the victims here ) by accident . And there`s an incident that goes against all the other accounts I`ve read on the case - The scene where Craig " falls " off the roof . I`ve read elsewhere from several sources that Craig shouted " Give my love to < His girlfriend > " and jumped . Instead we see a revenge filled Fairfax growling at Craig with the heavy hint that the criminal was thrown off the roof by the detective .

There`s one other thing that bothered me about the events in this account . There`s a lot of sympathy for both Bentley and Craig ( perhaps too much sympathy for the latter ) so why did the film show the most controversial aspect of that fateful night ? This is where Bentley screams " Let him have it Chris " , hence the title . Over the years Craig is on record as saying that Bentley had said no such thing and that the police had lied and despite what he`d done in the past there`s absolutely no motive whatsoever for Craig to keep up this pretence . It`s almost certain the police at the trial lied under oath by saying Bentley somehow encouraged Craig . Of course in those days lawyers , judges and most especially juries believed what the police would tell them and it`s strange that a film with cynical 1990s sensibilities seems to take what the police said on that night as gospel truth . In many ways it jars with the bleeding heart attitude that makes up the rest of the film .

Flaws aside I`ll give the film its due . The director has picked a very good cast with Brit vets Tom Courtenay and Tom Bell adding experience to the two newbie stars of the film : Paul Reynolds who unfortunately seems to have disappeared and Christopher Eccleston who`s great here and is great in everything else he`s done which gives hope to even the most disillusioned DOCTOR WHO fan

So watch the film and decide for yourself what you think about the death penalty . Bare in mind that there were two victims that night and neither of them were Christopher Craig

A chilling tale

[Mike-DD · 9/10 · 22 August 2000]

I did not know about this case before I watched this film, but the synopsis on the back of the video case was so compelling I had to rent it. I did not expect to be emotionally involved but it was hard to keep from shouting at the TV screen that it's unfair. The system portrayed seemed almost hellbent on sending Derek to the gallows, guilty or not. Even when evidence seem tainted or appeared to cast doubts on the veracity of some of the testimonies, the only cry ringing out was that a cop was killed and someone's blood must be spilled in revenge. It is chilling to know that sometimes justice can be blinded when emotions are involved, showing how important it must be to fully understand the implications before imposing any penalties which cannot be reversed even if desired.

The Story of an Unfair Trial

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 19 July 2023]

In the 50's, in the post-war London, Derek Bentley (Christopher Eccleston) is a mentally retarded teenager with mentality of a child. He lives with his family and spends most of his time inside his room, with his cats, dogs and a turtle. When he buys a compact vinyl in a store with his sister, he befriends the delinquent teenager Chris Craig (Paul Reynolds), whose older brother is a notorious thief, and dresses like American gangsters. This friendship leads Derek to one of the most famous cases of unfair trial of the England history.

"Let Him Have It" is a 1991 film based on a true story of a mentally deficient nineteen-year-old teenager that was sentenced to the gallows in 1953 for a crime that he did not commit. The film shows manipulation of the testimonies, a strange behavior of the judge that gives directions to the jury and disregards the request of merci from the jury. The performances are top-notch, highlighting Christopher Eccleston, but this film is very unpleasant. In Brazil, "Let Him Have It" was released o VHS only and it was worthy watched it again after so many years. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Segredo de Uma Sentença" ("The Secreto of One Sentence")

Gut-wrenching

[MikeK-7 · 10/10 · 3 June 2004]

This movie is one of the saddest pictures ever made. Made even more sad by the fact that this is based on a true story. I couldn't believe this was Christopher Eccleston's 2nd movie; I hadn't seen him in anything before JUDE. I'm utterly speechless to talk about this movie. I noticed someone commented saying this is like DEAD MAN WALKING; that movie does not compare to this. Bare in mind that LET HIM HAVE IT WAS MADE 4 years before DMW. I felt this one was much, much, much more rendering and mournful. God bless you Brits for making films on social content with such potency; American audiences could take a lesson from you: SCUM, LONELINESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUNNER, ALFIE, ...if, TRAINSPOTTING (best movie ever made)

A Tragic true story

[JBLOSS · 7/10 · 3 July 2001]

This was a nice surprise to watch. It's an intelligent telling of the Derek Bentley murder case. There are some excellent performances - in fact I can't think of any bad ones at all - and the story is told with compassion and respect. The ending is a bit of a tearjerker particularly as it happened in real life.

Amazing

[faycarolanderson · 9/10 · 12 November 2005]

I think this is one of the most upsetting films i have ever seen We watched this in my English class and every girl started to cry when Derek Bently in the end got hung i think that Iris was write for trying so hard to clear her brothers name and i heard from a girl at my school that in 1998 she finally managed to do so If you are thinking on watching this film i strongly advice to do so but be sure to stock up on loads of tissues I can not believe that something like this could ever happen to someone it was never proved what he actually meant by let him have it i hope who ever watches this film enjoys it and i hope i have been some help Love Fay p.s WATCH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Left-Wing Propaganda.

[screenman · 7/10 · 25 May 2008]

I would like to have given this movie a higher score, but right from the outset its creators made clear their political agenda.

As a well-acted drama there was much to admire. The script was good, the directing precise and the details of the period very well observed. All of the players gave a very plausible representation of prevailing nuances, which can't have been easy as non of them had even been born then.

Unfortunately, one couldn't help thinking of it as a piece of left-wing propaganda. And that's where I take off a point or two.

Back in the 1950's the almost ironically named 'criminal justice system' was anything but. It was about finding culprits and punishing them, rather than promoting justice. The courts very much represented the establishment, and the establishment perspective towards the working class. And it was never wrong. Issues like emotional delinquency, or educational and mental sub-normality were almost never taken into account. Basically; if you were equal to the crime, you were equal to the punishment.

However dim-witted this duo really were; they were not too dim to plan a burglary. neither were they too dim to obtain a firearm, knuckle-duster and a knife. To this extent, they at least knew what they were doing and why.

In the third millennium, we can take a more enlightened view of what would otherwise constitute 'mitigating circumstances'. And it may well be that these youths were not ultimately guilty of murder, insofar as there was no premeditation to kill. The shooting was a 'moment of madness' so to speak, by a couple of neglected, under-achieving, inadequately-parented boys in the guise of men. Heaven knows, there's no shortage of their kind today.

In the USA, such a spontaneous shooting might have been considered 2nd degree murder. Whereas in Britain, in 1952, no such latitude existed in law. As another commentator has observed, if you carried a gun (very rare at that time) and you engaged in crimes, and killed someone in the process - then, rightly or wrongly - you hanged. And this would certainly have been true when the victim was a copper.

Because of the bungling, clumsy juggernaut that was the legal system in the 1950's, abolishing the death penalty was perhaps a good thing back then. The system, quite simply, couldn't be trusted. It was imprecise and lacked subtlety.

But now things are different. The system is much more open and accountable. Pleas of mitigation are far more likely to receive a fair hearing. Whilst, on the other hand, murder - and I mean sadistic, indiscriminate murder - has never been so rife. Today, carrying a gun is almost a fashion-statement of criminality. For these two reasons alone, there is now a sound case for the death penalty's re-introduction.

Left-wing moralists who cry-up capital punishment as 'state murder' are actually the most sanctimonious hypocrites. They are perfectly willing to allow our police almost routinely to carry firearms, in the full knowledge that those officers are trained specifically to kill. Which they do - often. Mostly, such killing has been mitigated as self defence. But this is not always true. Sometimes the police fire first. How can we claim, then, not to have a death penalty under these circumstances?

Surely execution after a fair hearing and conviction is far more just and humane than summary assassination by the police on the basis of official suspicion. Those who deny a death penalty to the courts simply lack the moral courage to accept any personal responsibility themselves, and quickly turn the page when they read about police officers assassinating suspects, to all intents and purposes at the discretion of Parliament, and therefore implicitly on their own hypocritical behalf.

As Bob Dylan once observed 'the executioner's face is always well hidden'.

By the way; the dead policeman was called Sidney Miles. Not many people seem to remember that during all the soul-searching over these thugs.

An excellent film!

[golden-6 · 9/10 · 4 June 1999]

I rented this movie with not very high expectations, but I was extremely surprised. It was a truly great movie with good acting. I recommend this movie to anybody who liked "Dead Man Walking" or any other crime/drama movie. This movie was great!

Compelling...

[VikiLauda · 7/10 · 7 February 2020]

Set mostly in the post-War 1950's "Let Him Have It" tells the true & tragic story of Derek Bentley, a young man with mental health issues & epilepsy, who falls in with Chris Craig & the wrong gang. Craigs elder brother is a hoodlem & Craig is clearly just a boy who wants to play "gangster" who during a botched robery shoots dead a police officer. The title of the movie is based on what Bentley said to Craig during the heist, yet did Bentley say "Let him have it" meaning to give up his gun, or an order to shoot?

Chris Ecclestone is utterly spine tingling as Bentley & his character is very well developed in the sense that he is something of a gentle giant, who has unfortunatly been hardened by being sent to approved school. However he has the support of his loving sister & their closeness is very touching as they play records & go shopping together. The screenplay is steady & weaves the story at a good pace, with an excellent script that was based on court transcripts from the case. & during the time of this films original run, brought back to the public attention of the gross injustice Bentley suffered which eventually lead to the banning of execution in Britain, & his full pardon.

This movie is very well made & beautifully acted, making it both compelling, yet heartbreaking to watch. It is also testament to horrific injustice suffered by a young man who had the mind of a child who had been lead along the wrong path. Simply put, this is Derek Bentleys story... May God rest your soul, sir x

Events in 1952 viewed with the benefit of 40 -odd years hindsight

[ianlouisiana · 4/10 · 12 April 2006]

Not much in the way of subtlety here,the makers' stall is set out from early on,Derek Bentley was murdered by "The State" in revenge for his juvenile partner-in-crime's murder of a policeman.They couldn't hang a boy of 16 so they hanged Bentley instead. Let's have a closer look at the facts.Firstly,this happened in 1952.There was no "gun culture" amongst teenagers.Teddy Boys,the "Hoodies" of their day,carried razor blades or flick knives.There were no drive by shootings,no drug wars.For a young man to have access to a gun was a very rare event.Christopher Craig apparently had access to a gun obtained by his older brother,a professional criminal.Very few professional criminals took guns with them on the job because if you have a gun,you will use it. In 1952 the law of the land was very clear about what would happen to you if you killed someone in furtherance of theft.You would hang.If two of you were so engaged,you would both hang. Regardless of what we might think of this law today it was in force in 1952. You cannot judge the Bentley/Craig case by 21st century standards. And this is what "Let him have it Chris" demands that you do. One of the cornerstones of the controversy is the title of the film. The defence argued that when (or,later,if)Bentley shouted that across the rooftop he meant the Craig should surrender his gun to the police. Not surprisingly the prosecution argued that he was telling Craig to shoot the policeman.Craig denies it was ever said.This turns those five words into a "verbal",the defence say,a statement fabricated by the police.Now if you think seriously about this you may find that "Let him have it Chris" is far too ambivalent to be a verbal."Shoot the bastard" would be far more to the point and there could be no argument as to its meaning.You might think that police officers would be far more likely to fabricate a unequivocal verbal. The implication that Craig was pushed off the roof is ludicrous,there is no evidence to support it.It's merely a move to further discredit the police.If you spread enough muck around some of it is bound to stick. And the emotive power of the phrase "Bentley was already in police custody when Craig fired the shot" doesn't give a true reflection of what actually occurred.He wasn't in a cell somewhere,he was on the rooftop,in the dead of night,being restrained by a police officer. Scarcely "in police custody" then, in any meaningful sense of the term. Questions about his mental acuity are,once again,beyond the remit of our 21st century overview.The degree of his handicap has been in dispute for years,but to call him a virtual mental defective is simplistic in the extreme. Certainly in these more enlightened times it is unlikely given the strongly argued mental competence issue that he would be charged with murder - I would expect a plea of diminished responsibility to be acceptable to the prosecution.But this was 1952,and I cannot emphasise enough the folly of considering events of the past through the sensibi- -lities of the present. Derek Bentley may not have been very sharp,but he knew that warehousebreaking was a crime and he went out and did it anyway.He may well have been in thrall to Christopher Craig who was clearly the main instigator of the crime,but he wasn't dragged up on that rooftop kicking and screaming. The only innocent victim here is PC Miles,whose name no one seems to remember.He was just a middle-aged London copper trying to do his job and get home safely in the morning.Thanks to Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig he never made it.

Brilliantly Portrayed True Tale of a Cruel Injustice.

[LordGnu · 16 March 2003]

This film inflamed me with frustration and anger when i watched it, not at any failing in its telling, but at the injustice and state brutality which took place within it. This film is a lovingly crafted character driven drama set in 1950's England, covering the true story of Derek Bentley, a young epileptic man of limited intelligence who is innocently led astray by his younger troubled tearaway friend Chris Craig. Their initially minor law infringements escalate to murder one night, and both end up on trial. The films title is pivotal in this, but i do not wish to provide any spoilers for anyone who does not know the true story.

the plot isn't the primary focus of this film, however compelling and obviously important it is. The film centres on the relationships between Derek and those he knows, his family, Chris, and the gang that he and Chris join (Derek for acceptance, and Chris to emulate the American gangsters he sees at the cinema and impress his thuggish brother). The cast are totally convincing, Christopher Eccleston giving a very accomplished performance as a simple man thrust into complex circumstances, and Paul Reynolds is also perfect as the playful but insecure troublemaker who fires the fatal shot. the film is essentially an account of the interactions and emotions of a small group of people put in a terrible situation, of innocence robbed, and of state brutality (you'll clench your fists at the ignorance and insensitivity). it's not an explosive film, it doesn't throw up audiovisual storms of any kind, it just follows the lives of these characters, rooting the film in the reality on which it is based. i cried at the end you know, i thought i might and then i did, it's one of those sorts of films. but please do watch it, i promise it's more interesting than i've made it sound.

Let Us Have It

[joben-525-633946 · 7/10 · 12 September 2013]

Thrilling, emotional and so superbly performed by the members of the cast this is without doubt one of the best takes on a real life scenario of all time.

This true story is one I hadn't really thought about much until I came across this film. But it is so fabulously constructed and the director Peter Madak tells this tale in such a pure and harrowing way that I found myself immediately on Google to research more on Derek Bentley (the main character) and some background information on the piece.

Bentley is performed by Christopher Eccleston in one of the star's first films. The British actor is very, very impressive as the unfortunate teenager who mixed with the wrong people at the wrong time. Equally on top form was Paul Reynolds as the disturbed Chris Craig and in fairness its an impossibility to fault any cast member on their displays in this exceptional work.

In mu honest opinion, I would probably choose to watch a number of other films than this - some with no where near the same level of ability - because the genre isn't always my favourite. I probably will not watch this film again and again because it isn't that type of film. But its one of the biggest surprises in recent memory as far as I'm concerned on a movie front.

It's utterly brilliant!

Blind Justice or Justice Blinded

[deanofrpps · 9/10 · 18 June 2004]

"Let him have it" often shown on A & E here in the US as "Let him have it, Chris" is an excellent polemic that doesn't lose sight of balance in its preaching against the death penalty. For a film written by an American, there is a nearly English even hand in the account.

We start with a cute boy dazed in the blitz of 1940s London. A little dim witted, he takes the rap (American Jive: catches the case) for some local hooligans and ends up remanded to juvy where he comes of age.

There's a glimmer of Rocky Sullivan (James Cagney) from Angels with Dirty Faces in Derek Bentley (Christopher Eccleston) but unlike Rocky Sullivan who's a nihilist by choice, poor Derek is a bit too simple to understand.

The path might have led to rehabilitation but for the bad environment. In an ambiguous situation, miscalculation leads to the unforgivable and now Derek Bentley faces the gallows.

The story might have drifted into a self-indulgent, tear-jerking, liberal sensitivity philippic except that the film kept its objectivity on the central issue.

Oh there is the usual liberal hue and cry: the police lied to juice up their case (as they usually do), the lawyers poor people get are incompetent (a wide range of abilities might be more charitable), justice even Her Majesty can be a little cold to cop killers, the wrong people get off easy on loopholes etc.

However the authors, surprising for the American writer, kept an English sense of fairness on the critical question.

Did Derek Bentley rightly go to the gallows for what he done? See the film. Comparable Films: Hoodlum Priest

Very well made, but not a cheerful film.

[joeyhenshaw · 8/10 · 9 December 2007]

The case of Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig is perhaps one of the most famous miscarriages of justice in the UK. 'Let Him Have It', directed by Peter Medak tells the whole story in full, right up to the terrible death of Bentley. The film is predominantly set in the year 1952. Derek Bentley, aged nineteen, has had a difficult life from the beginning. The film begins by telling us a little about Derek's early life. We see that he suffers from learning difficulties and epilepsy, and often falls prey to temptation, getting into crime and gangs. He is caught, and spends most of his teenage years in an approved school. The film then jumps forward a further four years, and we finally meet the main Derek, aged nineteen, played by Christopher Eccleston. He soon meets Christopher Craig, and joins him as a friend. Throughout the first half of the film, we follow Bentley as he is drawn into a life of petty crime. This leads up to the grand climax of the film, the famous break-in which eventually turned into a murder scene. What follows, is a long and emotional journey through the weeks after Bentley is sentenced to death. As part of the English GCSE syllabus, we have been watching this film as part of our media review project. I can't say I enjoyed it - it has a very depressing and upsetting plot line - but it was a very well made and interesting portrayal of the story.

The best argument against the death penalty

[waynethg · 9/10 · 3 August 2008]

A better argument against the death penalty you will not see. A shameful episode in the recent history of Great Britain. Anyone who wants the return of the death penalty in this country should take the time to watch this film.

Some of the acting performances in this film are truly immense. The film-makers do a great job in recreating the dark gloomy streets of 1950's London. Having watched this film it is hard to see why the two young actors in the lead roles never went on to star in many more motion pictures. To summarise there are no real weaknesses in the telling of this tragic tale, I Would recommend this film to all who want to watch a powerful emotional story.

Is Bentley really one of the Gang?

[frankiehudson · 4 November 2003]

This is a very convincing film of the life of Derek Bentley and his eventual execution. 1950s Britain is just beginning to emerge from the years of post-War austerity with all of the milk bars, pop records and teddy boy youth culture showing a new, malign confidence. The undercurrent is definitely youth crime gone wild. But is Derek Bentley really one of the gang?

Christopher Eccleston is absolutely brilliant playing Bentley, and truly captures the inner torment and diffidence of a young man suffering from years of epilepsy and failure at school. Bentley is clearly not normal and probably more impressionable than most people of his age – this is the essence of this tragic story. He wants to be like everyone else but stupidly chooses the wrong people – or do they choose him?

You are never sure whether Bentley's friend Chris Craig (the brilliant Paul Reynolds) is a nasty piece of work or maybe someone else led astray, this time by his truly monstrous, menacing older brother Niven Craig (Mark McGann) who he sees receiving 10 years for armed resistance to police arrest. Who is Craig - is he Pinkie in Brighton Rock (Boulting 1947), Jimmy Hanley in the Blue Lamp (Dearden, 1950) or one of the famous five with a gun?

After his brother's trial, Chris lies down at night and then – rather poignantly and in a nice little flourish from director Peter Medak – lays down his handgun on his bedside table, finding a gap amongst his toy cars, trams and aeroplanes. Perhaps he's just a naïve little kid after all.

When the gang goes to the cinema what else would they watch but a Jimmy Cagney gangster movie? Maybe if they'd watched the Blue Lamp instead they would have been warned off.

Anyway, Bentley clearly did not murder the policeman on the rooftop - that was Craig (some say it was a policeman's bullet gone astray). Bentley was executed for a crime he did not commit, pure and simple.

Good, haunting musical score by Michael Kamen.

Very good, thought-provoking movie

[smileatalltimes · 9/10 · 10 January 2006]

I can't say with honesty that I 'enjoyed' this film exactly, because it's not a 'bundle of laughs', but it did blow me away and really set my mind wandering. It's a difficult subject matter and would be easy to over-play, but it's handled very well and is well worth watching. If anyone is in favour of the 'death-penalty for pointless or inexcusable acts of murder' , this films is for you.

Christopher Eccleston is wonderful and raw in it and gives a very vulnerable and yet gritty performance without camping it up at all. Also the lady who plays his Mum is wonderful (sorry, can't remember the actresses name).

Compelling true life drama

[cmccarthy-13 · 9/10 · 22 December 2007]

Convincing performances and a reasonably unbiased approach to the facts make this an intense and compelling true life film. Neither Derek Bentley or Christopher Craig are portrayed as being all good or all bad. Derek is vulnerable and just wants to fit in with the 'gang' but goes about it in all the wrong ways and Chris whilst being the more hardened of the two still cries over his brothers imprisonment.

Whatever your views on the death penalty this film will make you stop and think. Its supporters will be forced to see the issue in a new light and those who campaigned for its abolition will have their views reaffirmed.This is not an easy film to watch but it is well worth it and the conclusion will stay with you for a very long time.

Five Little Words

[richardchatten · 8/10 · 13 August 2023]

Every era think's it's living through a crime wave, a fact here attested to by the posters adverting 'White Heat' seen in one scene.

This is definitely one recreation of the fifties that isn't suffused with a warm nostalgic glow - although the familiar faces of Tom Courtney, Murray Melvin and Michael Gough create an old-fashioned ambience (the first two had actually been around long enough to have played juvenile delinquents themselves) - since along with the case of Timothy Evans, the Craig & Bentley affair (which came after Jack Warner had already got it in the gut from zoot-suited wideboy Dirk Bogarde in 'The Blue Lamp') presented the most decisive case against capital punished since you can never unhang someone whose taken the nine o'clock walk.

My mother was born the same year as Christopher Craig, vividly remembered this case and was herself of the belief that Derek Bentley's words (which actually comprises the title of this film, complete with punctuation marks) was telling Craig to pull the trigger but Bentley's hanging was still a plain case of judicial murder.

A brilliantly written and acted searing indictment of a legal system that failed

[GusF · 10/10 · 5 April 2015]

While I did not plan it, this film is an interesting companion piece to "Compulsion", which I watched only yesterday. Both films are based on real life murder cases in which teenagers received harsh sentences and which are extremely controversial, albeit for very different reasons. In "Compulsion", the characters Artie Strauss and Judd Steiner, renamed versions of Leopold and Loeb, actually committed the murder of which they were accused and convicted and rightly received life sentences, narrowly avoiding the hangman's noose. In this instance, Derek Bentley was completely innocent of the murder of PC Sidney Miles, which was committed by his accomplice Christopher Craig while Bentley was nominally in police custody, but was hanged for it. It is considered one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in British history. Furthermore, Leopold and Loeb were both of above average intelligence and wealthy while Bentley was of below average intelligence and his family were far from wealthy. A major problem was that the trial took place only a month after the murder and Bentley was executed only six weeks after that. Bentley's conviction and sentencing turns on his use of the phrase "Let him have it, Chris." The prosecution claimed that he meant "Shoot him, Chris" whereas he actually meant "Give him the gun, Chris," something which was reflected by the fact that he made no effort to attack the policemen or escape from their custody.

Christopher Eccleston is excellent in the lead role of Derek Bentley. He is depicted as a good and decent young man whose troubles with the law are due to his being often taken advantage of and manipulated by other people because of his mental development issues. At the time of his death, Bentley was 19 years old but had a mental age of only 11. Because of this, he lacked the common sense of other people his age and was too trusting. His mental age also meant that he should probably not have tried in the first place, let alone convicted. Bentley is an incredibly sympathetic character who becomes more so as the film progresses. This was certainly helped by the sterling efforts of Eccleston, who was perfect for the role. The film would not have worked nearly as well if a less talented actor or one less suited to the role had been cast as Bentley.

Besides Bentley himself, the most important character in the film is of course Christopher Craig, played very well by Paul Reynolds who excels as unscrupulous, shady characters in everything from serious dramas like this to a children's comedy-drama like "Press Gang". At only sixteen, Craig was already an accomplished criminal by the time of the murder. His age meant that he did not receive the death penalty, being instead detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. He was released after only ten years in 1963. He is still alive and has had no problems with the law since then.

The film has a very strong supporting cast, particularly Tom Courtenay and Eileen Atkins as Bentley's very loving and supportive parents William and Lilian, Clare Holman as his elder sister Iris (who served as a special consultant to the film), Michael Gough as the Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard (who sentenced Bentley to death and was famous for imposing harsh sentences) and James Villiers as his defence barrister Cassels. The last two characters have relatively little screen time but nevertheless play a pivotal role. It also features Mark McGann (whose brother Paul McGann was Eccleston's "Doctor Who" predecessor), Iain Cuthbertson, Clive Revill, Edward Hardwicke, Murray Melvin, Serena Scott Thomas and Reynolds' erstwhile "Press Gang" co-star Charlie Creed-Miles in nice, small roles.

The film benefits from a very strong script written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, best known for having written all of the Bond films since "The World is Not Enough" (in which Serena Scott Thomas also appeared). As far as I can tell, it deviates very, very little from established fact. The script nicely contrasts the decency of the Bentleys with the criminal lifestyle of the Craigs and their accomplices. It is a searing indictment of a legal system which completely failed in this instance. Both the writing and the direction of Peter Medak do a great job of portraying the more unpleasant aspects of British society in the 1950s. The locations used are quite grimy and are shot mostly in darkness, which is reminiscent of the gangster films that the Craigs' gang seek to emulate.

In 1998, after more than four decades of campaigning, Bentley received a posthumous pardon for the murder. Sadly, his sister Iris, who dedicated her life to having his name cleared, did not live to see it as she died of cancer the previous year. Their parents died in the 1970s. Derek Bentley would be 81 years old if he were still alive today, which he should be. The system let him, his family, the British people and justice itself down terribly.

WOW....a HUGE injustice.

[facetothemaxx · 5 October 2004]

This just wasn't right. A 16 year old is given a 10 year sentence for shooting and fatally wounding a police officer while his friend who was IN POLICE CUSTODY at the time of the shooting gets death by hanging. All because he was 19 at the time and shouted "let him have it." First, there is no malice aforethought to justify murder. He did not want the police officer to be killed; in fact after the officer was killed he told his friend to give up the gun and surrender. At MOST he could be faced with an involuntary manslaughter charge with up to 10 years in prison (maybe not in 1952 Europe). This film was shocking. I urge anyone who has any interest in the law to watch this film. It was amazing well done and kept to the point that the law is the law even when it is wrong.