THE BOYS is a fine little film, very much of its era, that follows the court trial of a quartet of 'Teddy Boys' who are accused of knifing to death an old man. Via witness testimonials and the careful exploration of the case by both the defence and prosecution the story of one fateful night is told out through a mix of flashbacks and chronicled accounts.All of this feels fresh and original in the hands of Sidney J. Furie (THE ENTITY), a superior director who's tried his hand at many genres during many decades. THE BOYS suffers from being overlong with a running time that eclipses two hours but is quietly gripping for the most part and also very well acted. I particularly liked the way the accused are portrayed as mindless thugs at the outset, and yet when you get to hear their own story they change and become sympathetic; it's a little like RASHOMON. The ending completely wrongfoots the viewer, leaving this an unpredictable film throughout.The casting is exemplary. Richard Todd and Robert Morley are the big name stars here but it's the youths who really shine: in particular Dudley Sutton (aka LOVEJOY's Tinker!) is outstanding as the knife-wielding Teddy Boy. Ronald Lacey delivers a desperate turn some two decades before RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, and only Jess Conrad feels wooden. The supporting cast is an endless parade of familiar faces: Patrick Magee, Roy Kinnear, Wilfrid Brambell, Felix Aylmer, Allan Cuthbertson, David Lodge, and music by The Shadows to boot. It's really magnificent.

I first saw this when it came out in 1962 when I was almost the same age as the characters on trial. As the film opens we are presented with four resentful and aggressive looking young men on trial for robbery and murder. They are all wearing Italian style suits reflecting the fashion of the time and immediately give the impression of being thugs. We then hear the prosecution's case as delivered by Richard Todd and see flashbacks of the young men (well played by Dudley Sutton, Jess Conrad, Ronald Lacey and Tony Garnett) cutting what appears to be a menacing swathe through London. Next we see the all the same events but from the defendants' point of view but they are now placed in different context by the showing of what happens before and after the events described by the prosecution witnesses. It is a device that has been used before but it still grips here as we are encouraged to challenge our own prejudices. It demonstrates that whenever you see a situation you should not make judgements without knowing the entire history of events.

I came across this film channel-hopping late one night and got instantly hooked, partly by wondering how the writer might twist the courtroom action but mainly for the fabulous B/W images of working class London in the era between the dreary 50s and the swinging 60s.Well worth watching, too, for a sterling cast of British troupers, as well as a genuinely unexpected ending.And good, too, to see some political awareness slipped into the action with its portrayal of working-class Londoners, as well as an acknowledgement of boredom - not many many films are brave enough to show their characters genuinely trying to deal with boredom!

When I saw this film a couple of nights ago on late night TV I was struck by how much it captured the spirit of a time when I was a boy a little younger than 'The Boys' in the filmThe Boys in question are four teenagers charged with murder of an elderly night watchman during a robbery.Several social issues are 'on trial' Firstly, the generation gap. This was a time when 'teenagers' were a new concept in Britain (the four are described disparagingly by their elders as 'teddy boys'), and this perception his used by the defence to show that teenagers are harshly judged by their elders.The four in question are rowdy and ill mannered enough but rather too well spoken for real working class teenagers (particularly teen idol of the day Jess Conrad). However their plight is gripping enough to hold the interest of the viewer.In England in 1962 a) an 18 year old could hang for murder but not a younger accomplice (one of the most notorious incidents of the time was the hanging of 18 year old Derek Bentley - 1956 - while his younger accomplice who fired the fatal shot, could not be hanged) b) some types of murder - killing during a the commission of a crime - were capital, others not.The film points up these anomalies and was making a serious social criticism at the time.The film is a believable portrayal of poor lads on a night out that went disastrously wrong and has a nice little twist in the tailWorth hanging about to see this one - 8 out of 10