User Reviews

Under-rated, unpretentious B-movie that keeps you guessing till the end. David Sumner's 'surly' and unlikeable lead grows on you once you realise that he never lets up; and the ending doesn't let you down. An uncompromising gem. Made on the cheap, for sure - they even stint on the fog - and Montgomery Tully was a hit-and-miss director at best, but this film is about ten years ahead of its time and still has a kind of individualism that weathers the fifty-or-so years that have elapsed since then rather well. From prison to a halfway house to eventual employment to a tentative relationship with a woman who ditches our 'hero' as soon as she finds out about his criminal past ...and then a trap is set, for he is under constant suspicion. This is one of those stories where much of the 'important' stuff -the killings, the planning of a heist- happens off-screen. And it's all the better for it.

This film was recently shown on Talking Pictures and it must be its first outing for many years.I don't recall seeing it on TV before if I had I would definitely have remembered.It builds up very nicely to a truly atmospheric and creepy finale.I can just imagine audiences jumping out of their seats when the stragglers hands suddenly clutch at the blonde policewoman throat.the director,Montgomery Tully is one of those unsung heroes of British cinema of the 1950s.films such as this are far more memorable than the film's they supported.catch it when it is shown again on particular the final ten minutes when you really aren't certain what is going to happen,a rare event for any film in that period.

A nice little B picture from prolific thriller director Montgomery Tully. The plot is unusual enough to make this stand out and there are some great little moments portrayed very well despite what is obviously a low budget. Heck, even the fog is in short supply here, but OUT OF THE FOG still packs a punch as a murder mystery and has something to say at the same time.

The plot sees the callow and unlikeable David Sumner being released from prison and going to live in a kind of halfway house populated by delightful old lags. Most of these ex-cons are made of great British character actors like Michael Ripper, George Woodbridge, and Richard Shaw. The jovial James Hayter is the nice chap who runs the place. However, this is just the background for the main plot, involving a serial killer with a penchant for strangling blondes.

Sumner is the main suspect and OUT OF THE FOG follows the police's tailing and eventual attempts to apprehend him. Susan Travers has a fine role as the undercover policewoman used as bait. There's a wonderfully evocative ending and lots of good character work en route; nothing much feels out of place, and overall the film is a nice and tidy piece of work.

Ex-con George Mallon (David Sumner) secures a room at a half-way house and a job at a furniture company, but the police won't leave him alone, suspecting him of the murders of several women. Is Mallon innocent or does he really have an uncontrollable urge to throttle pretty, young blondes under the light of a full moon?

Out of the Fog is an entertaining little thriller, although the incessant surliness of its central character does detract slightly from the fun: Mallon's antisocial attitude is necessary in order to cast doubt about his character, but Sumner over-eggs the pudding, his performance proving irritating in the extreme.

Fortunately, the mystery is engaging enough to make the movie worth persevering with, especially when sexy sergeant June Lock (Susan Travers) is ordered to go undercover and act as bait for the killer: posing as a saleswoman at the furniture company, she befriends Mallon, going on several dates with the young man, the police keeping them under surveillance. Mallon isn't fooled, however, and manages to get Ms. Lock alone on the foggy Eastgate 'flats' where the killer always strikes.

To his credit, director Montgomery Tully successfully keeps the audience guessing about Mallon to the very end, making the final reel effectively suspenseful. 6/10.

This is a solid, British mystery made on a shoestring budget, that is just as good as the Hollywood classic of the same name with John Garfield and Ida Lupino. The story is completely different; only the title tis the same. This story about an ex-con who is a prime suspect in a string of murders is neatly done. A must see.

The heavy overacting by the leading actor was a bit tiresome and got worse as time passed as he played " the angry young man" for all it was worth, this would have been a much better film if he had toned it down a bit. I like James Hayter's deep voice and his films are usually very enjoyable. The ex-cons in the house were a nice mixture of characters and it was unusual to see Michel Ripper in a film without vampires or similar creatures in it him being "Mr Hammer Horror Film Man". A nice period piece but the ending could have been a lot better done. It was probably very cheap to make but it's still worth watching.

An interesting companion piece to Ken Loach's new film 'Sorry You Were Out' in which ex-con David Sumner gets a job as a delivery driver in the fictional London suburb of Eastgate, where his surly demeanour and lack of interest in delivering on time would ensure he didn't last five minutes in today's gig economy.

Although his previous form doesn't include violent sex offences, his abrasive personality results in him immediately coming under suspicion for a series of murders being committed every full moon in a lonely local area known as 'The Flats'. On paper that plot sounds like Gothic Horror, but it's mainly played (and photographed) as a police procedural; with platinum blonde policewoman Susan Travers letting her hair down to go undercover. As a trained police sergeant she should have been better able to defend herself when it's eventually her turn to get attacked in the fog; but there's a final satisfying revelation literally in the last minute which answers at least one question that had been looming ever larger on my mind as the film had been progressing.

1962's "Out of the Fog," issued in the US under original source title "Fog for a Killer," showed up on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater only once, on October 13, 1979. Both titles lead one to believe it will be an atmospheric thriller about a madman who preys on helpless blonde women during the light of the full moon, cleverly hiding from detection in the foggy night. Unfortunately, the police investigation rarely strays from the office of the Superintendent (John Arnatt), focusing exclusively on a belligerent ex con (David Sumner) who can spot a 'copper' a mile away. All of the murders take place off screen, no other characters are regarded as genuine suspects, and most disappointing of all, there is no fog to be seen anywhere until the final reel of this 66 minute quickie. Although the police discover that the crimes are committed every four weeks, each time the moon is full, this too is a tantalizing detail that goes nowhere. Definitely not a horror film, and unsatisfying even as a mystery, benefiting from a fine supporting cast, including James Hayter, Jack Watson, and a blonde Susan Travers ("The Snake Woman," "The Abominable Dr. Phibes"), plus Hammer regulars Michael Ripper and George Woodbridge. Unseen on television for decades, this is now available on Region 2 DVD, on a double bill with another British melodrama centering on an ex con, 1954's "Radio Cab Murder."

this is a dark, gritty drama i was lucky enough to tape late one night about 15 years ago. the music is fantastic. the acting and direction superb and the writing impeccable. i have never seen it shown since...if you see it listed late one night and appreciate finding great unknown films-tape it!

The basis of this film is fairly simple: a series of murders begins just as a man arrives in the area having been released from prison. Whilst perhaps not the most innovative of ideas there is certainly no shortage of potential from which to craft an intriguing and entertaining thriller. Unfortunately the film becomes something of a frustrating watch as it consistently fails to make the most of its opportunities.

The murders - well, there are only two, as it happens - take place in the fog on a patch of undeveloped land within the city on nights when there is a full moon, and the victims are young blonde women who get strangled. You would imagine that this would be fertile ground for a film director, and that such visual imagery would be ideal for audiences, but the events are only ever mentioned rather than portrayed, as is also the case with an attack on a third victim who manages to escape.

In fact the majority of the film takes place indoors, probably the result of a lack of time and money, and so rather than being a creepy thriller, the film takes on the guise of a character piece centering around newly-released jailbird George Mallon. Mallon, with nowhere else to go, is given board by an altruistic old gentleman who is helping to rehabilitate ex-convicts and re-integrate them into society, consequently Mallon finds himself sharing digs with a host of other crooks. However, whereas they are a close-knit group, and not necessarily keen on the idea of reform, Mallon rebuffs all opportunities to join their coterie, keeping himself very much to himself. In the aftermath of the first murder, however, the police learn that he was at the scene around about the time of the offence, and so becomes a suspect, and as their enquiries - and more attacks on women - continue, nothing arises which comprehensively eliminates Mallon from the enquiry. Indeed, the circumstantial evidence grows, since a subsequent murder victim was seen arguing with him in a coffee bar shortly before she was killed.

In a desperate bid to snare their man the police use an undercover WPC as bait, getting their prettiest blonde to ingratiate herself with Mallon. Sure enough, events contrive to have Mallon and the policewoman alone together on a foggy night under the full moon and the audience will soon find out whether or not Mallon really is the serial killer...

The film's first mistake is that very few of the characters are likable. Mallon, presumably to convince the viewer that he is a credible suspect, is portrayed as harsh and abrasive throughout regardless of who he is interacting with, which hardly elicits any sympathy for his situation from the audience. He continually insists that people have no time for ex-cons, yet his attitude does him no favours. The other crooks sharing the house are more genial, but nevertheless all to a man they are taking advantage of their host's good nature whilst simultaneously plotting more crimes. As for the police, they are portrayed as bullies. Mallon is quite right in saying that the Sergeant shouldn't have gone through his room without a search warrant. Their skills in investigation and detection would appear to be decidedly limited. Not once is it questioned why a man with form for robbery should suddenly turn his hand to murder, nor why he should volunteer that he was at the scene of the crime when he had the option of an alibi. They give the victim who survives, useless though she is, the briefest of interrogations and don't even bother to get her to take them to the place of the attack so that they can look for clues, or to speak to her boyfriend who allegedly frightened the attacker off. Instead the Superintendent comes up with the ludicrous theory that the murders are taking place on nights where there is a full moon (he somehow knows there was a full moon on each date where an attack previously took place), as though a full moon can be seen in thick fog anyway. Why not just assume the attacker chose to work under the cover of fog?

Only when Susan Travers enters the fray about halfway through the film as the policewoman asked to go undercover do we get a character we can warm to and although there is a suggestion that Mallon has a softer side which might show through, we never quite get to see it. There are hints at there being much more to him, in his meeting with his mother and his propensity to sketch women, but nothing is ever really developed, and the other characters are all rather one-dimensional, especially the policemen who are essentially just men doing their jobs rather than personalities in their own right.

The film is rather dated in its style now, of course, with some hammy dialogue, exaggerated accents and some very intrusive incidental music. The saving grace is the cast, which contains a rich array of character actors, the majority of whom rise above the pervading flatness of the whole thing to deliver performances which are interesting to watch. The likes of George Woodbridge and James Hayter may only be confined to smallish parts, but they are somehow compelling all the same. A fairly short running time prevents the plot from ever dragging and so this title is entertaining even if it never hits the heights it should. But the 'ex-con released back into society' routine had already been done to much more exemplary effect in "Hell Drivers" a few years earlier, and sadly even the comedic "Carry On Screaming" had a better idea of how to draw suspense from women being stalked in foggy woodlands than this film does.

David Sumner has been paroled and is living at a halfway house, slowly getting his life back in order. However, when a maniac begins attacking girls at a deserted patch near council flats, suspicion falls on him, and everything he does seems suspicious.

The pressures on Summer and his resentful reaction is the main driving force of this story. It also makes its points about society's unwillingness to give him a chance; there's a scene with Olga Linda as his mother, in which she rejects him utterly that is quite telling, it's a good story, although the constant surliness of Sumner's acting, while understandable, becomes wearisome in its constancy.