Master Spy (1963) User Reviews

A nice Saturday morning watch

[oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx · 7/10 · 9 February 2008]

It's always a bit saddening to see a film such as Master Spy fall by the wayside. It is not the most brilliant movie that you will ever see, but it has its compensations, and is never offensive.

The shot over the opening credits is quite good if you have an inkling of how chess is played, black's position is squeezed as if by a boa constrictor. I thought it set the film up quite well, but if one is not being attentive it will pass you by quite easily.

I enjoyed seeing Victor Beaumont at the start, a German character actor, typecast as the snarling Nazi officer through most of his career trying here to put on a Russian accent.

The plot basically is about a Russian defector called Turganev who goes to work on his 'neutron ray' at a nuclear experimentation laboratory in England. It's quite clear from the start that his agenda is not so straight forward as is made out. In fact if you haven't worked out he is a spy, it's probably because you were too busy washing up the breakfast dishes whilst you watched this (the most likely time and place you will see this film is as a TV matinée).

But the spy plot is not really the whole point. The film does in fact have a nice late 50s early 60s atmosphere, very reminiscent in more than one way of Kingsley Amis' novel the Anti-Death League. A chap on Wikipedia said it better than I ever could, Amis, "championed the preservation of ordinary human happiness – in family, in friendships, in physical pleasure – against the demands of any cosmological scheme." Well through the character of Leila (June Thorburn) that's exactly what we have here.

In the movie she is assigned as Turganev's assistant and it is clear that she humanises the man, turns him from a calculating double-agent into someone who is loathe to use his research to further human agony. It's not laid out on a platter like that for us, and there is no foolish melodrama, but that's the general sentiment. It's clear that Leila is disturbed by her own colleagues' lack of interest in the uses that their research is put to, so you can't really put Master Spy down as just another Cold War propaganda movie.

Another commentator has said that there wasn't much effort put into this film, well I for one thought the sets were pretty well done, there were some nice sculptures and paintings on display. I was thinking Paolozzi, Epstein, Moore, lending a nice little post-war British intellectual atmosphere. I think it quite remiss to write this film off as easily as some viewers have. One might expect when watching a movie like this to see a lot of derring-do, suspense, and gun-fights, well fortunately the director steered clear of all that.

Have a nice time watching this movie, but don't expect the world.

Low budget cold war spy with a conscious

[bgajunkie · 6/10 · 3 December 2015]

Other reviewers have given their decisions on the worthiness of this film, its plot & the character portrayals within. I am not going to go over the same ground but go into the on-screen motivations of the characters I saw.

The interesting standout thing I noted was that, it is revealed in the last scene at the end of the film, that Boris Turganev was a British agent - who after now being convicted of espionage, was to be allowed to escape and return back behind the iron curtain to continue working for the British. Stephen Murray's portrayal of the spy Turganev was that he seemed genuinely to detest what he was doing and actively wanted to prevent the deaths of anyone involved, good or bad.

So Turganev was a pacifist scientist in reality even though he was a spy. Even though she was brilliant and close to a scientific breakthrough, Turganev tried to persuade Leila (June Thorburn), a female scientist he became fond of, to leave her work and marry the man that loved her. Knowing like him, Leila might later to have to compromise her scientific ideals in order to continue to develop her work.

Talking Pictures TV - Freeview 81

June Thorburn's final film

[milliefan · 5/10 · 26 April 2013]

As noted by the other reviewers, Master Spy is no classic, but it is a must-see for fans of British B movies of the era. The story is fairly routine, but is much enlivened by the cast - Alan Wheatley (excellent as always), John Carson (with his James Mason-sound-alike voice!), Peter Gimore playing his role to perfection, and most interestingly the tragic June Thorburn cast against type as a scientist who becomes dangerously involved in the espionage plot. With her shorter, blonder hair, Miss Thorburn here is a dead ringer for Angela Douglas, a likeness I had never noticed before, and she is totally credible and brings much to what could have been a nothing part. Very sadly she died in a plane crash a couple of years after completing this, her final film.

Made at the height of the cold war

[malcolmgsw-01863 · 6/10 · 14 April 2019]

This film was made when everyone had spies in the opposition.This film though made on a small budget encapsulates this era.Though having Alan Wheatley in a film was a dead giveaway.He always played villains so effectively,he made a great Sheriff of Nottingham.The film manages to pack a lot of plot into its relatively short running time.

The Defector

[richardchatten · 6/10 · 21 February 2023]

Despite the title and the credit sequence depicting a chessboard Professor Turgenev is just a pawn in a much bigger game. Unlike the glamorous foreign locations paraded behind 007 this film is set in a thoroughly everyday black & white Britain.

Stephen Murray in a rare big screen lead plays Cambridge-educated professor of physics Boris Turganev, a leading expert on the acceleration of neutron rays but just an amateur in the world of espionage.

His patronising disdain for women, demonstrated by his outspoken discomfort at being given June Thorburn as an assistant is one of several aspects of the film that now looks very dated; but the other men are just as bad and the casting of Ellen Pollock as a senior member of the team serves as compensation while the ending is pretty cool.

Low budget b-pic with a neat twist ending but, the trouble is, what precedes it makes it hardly worth the wait.

[jamesraeburn2003 · 4 January 2017]

Russian scientist Boris Turganev (Stephen Murray)defects to the British in order to steal nuclear secrets from a government research establishment. His contact man is local landowner and socialite Skelton (Alan Wheatley) who has cultivated the friendship of Turganev's superiors for the purpose. Both are experts at chess and stage regular matches as a cover for exchanging secrets. Coleman (John Carson), a fellow scientist, becomes jealous of Turganev because he believes he is muscling in on his girlfriend Leila (June Thorburn);herself a brilliant nuclear scientist who has been developing something of a friendship with him since being seconded as his assistant. One night, Turganev removes a top secret file from his laboratory which he passes on to Skelton, but Leila has left her glasses in the cabinet where the file was kept and when she goes to retrieve them she discovers it missing. She confides her suspicions in Coleman before heading off to Skelton's mansion to confront her boss and, in doing so puts her life in grave danger. Coleman, alarmed when she does not return hurries to the mansion but is Turganev really the traitor he seems to be?

Low budget b-pic spy yarn with a neat and unexpected twist in its tail. Unfortunately, the sixty-odd minutes that precede it seem like an eternity due to its lack of action and much chat in small rooms since the film never escapes its few small cramped sets. Directed and co- scripted by Montgomery Tully whose feature film career began well with the excellent thriller Murder In Reverse (1945), which starred future Dr Who star William Hartnell. Funnily enough, I attended a rare screening of that at the National Film Theatre back in 2010 to a full house! But, come the 1950's, Tully's career had declined into second features and he directed several installments of the popular featurette series Scotland Yard. Some of his work in b-pics produced excellent results - check out The Third Alibi (1960); but like Master Spy many were at the very moderate level and relied on odd piercing moments that briefly made poor films brilliant. If you've got the patience to sit through Master Spy, then the twist is well worth the wait but chances are you might either have fallen asleep or changed channels.

Master Spy has been issued on DVD video paired with an early Terence Fisher thriller Home To Danger which, compared with this, looks like an 'A' feature.

Low budget, poor quality spy yarn.

[rnmarchant · 3/10 · 4 August 2003]

This low budget British spy film is apparently based on the book 'They Also Serve', which I haven't read. The plot is thin and the screenplay bland - there seems to be little for the cast to do but read the words. The music is irritating and intrusive. The photography and lighting lacking in creativity. The result is just barely watchable.

It is impossible not to draw comparisons with Hitchcock's Torn Curtain which was made just two years later and deals with the same subject. Torn Curtain however has action and movement, characters you care about, suspense and humour. Master Spy unfortunately, has none of these.

Master Spy Was Master Fun

[daoldiges · 7/10 · 7 April 2023]

The IMDB reviews for Master Spy are all over the place but I have to say that I rather enjoyed it. Now, I also think that being a non-British but American citizen could perhaps have influenced my opinion for the better. I've been watching a lot of the British B dramas/thrillers/suspense films lately and one thing that I consistently enjoy that few others mention, is the pure Britishness of them all. It's true, I admit it. Now having admitted that there is more to that in Master Spy. I think all of the performers did a solid job, even the minor characters were well developed. The story itself was somewhat basic but there are some fun twists at the end that all made for an interesting and fun viewing experience.

It seems MI5 is a complicated department, not very well run.

[claudg1950 · 5/10 · 28 February 2023]

The film is moderately entertaining and very civilized. Typical British elegance and sobriety is displayed constantly, with fluid acceptable dialogue and multidimensional characters.

I could rate a six or seven to this movie, were not for the ending. The final surprise comes at a high cost: it makes the story somehow absurd. Quite early on in the film we are made aware that Prof Turganev is a Russian spy infiltrated into the UK to learn and transmit British scientific-military secrets. So far so good. Up to that point this movie prefigured the 1973 Henri Verneuil's spy yarn The Serpent, where Col. Vlasov (Yul Brinner) is infiltrated more or less the same way into the US.

But there similarity ends, because at the last moment, in a final dialogue between Turganev and the MI5 supervisor, we are let to know that Prof. Turganev was in fact an MI5 mole infiltrated in the network of Russian spies; that MI5 allowed the Russians to infiltrate Prof Turganev as a spy because he was all the time a double agent at the service of MI5.

Let's examine this farfetched and problematic idea: For what purpose did MI5 do all that? Usually the aim of the intelligence services is to uncover any net of enemy spies already infiltrated into the host country. But Turganev, ostensibly a Russian spy, was necessarily informed by Moscow who his contact in the UK was going to be (here it was the evil Sheriff of Nottingham), so if Turganev knew, MI5 knew that immediately afterwards. Knowing that neighbour Mr Skelton was the contact spy, now the reasonable aim of MI5 should be to learn who were Skelton's contacts up the chain of spies, to dismantle the whole net. Did MI5 discover anything of that? Not at all. Once MI5 knew Skelton was a Russian agent he should have been discretely followed until his own contacts were discovered. We see nothing of the sort in this film.

Instead, MI5 let the network operate without any interference until circumstances (Prof. Leila's life was at risk) forced them to act. Skelton and his house servants were captured, but nobody else.

There is another unexplicable turn in the plot: Turganev is allowed to "escape" to Russia instead of keeping him, a valuable scientist, working for the British. You may send your ordinary agents back again, but you should protect those scientists who could produce advances in your favour.

A second MI5 objective may have been accomplished: to transmit to the Russians wrong technical information on what the British were doing or achieving. But I wonder how long could Turganev send garbage to Moscow before becoming under suspicion himself.

1963 - but looks older

[lucyrfisher · 7/10 · 7 September 2021]

The female characters' outfits are pretty frumpy - apart from the older woman mathematician, who has retained some style from the 40s. In 1963 there were hints of something more exciting, fashion-wise. Those "harlequin" glasses were older, and quickly fell out of date in the late 60s. There's a hint of the loosening of sexual mores - represented by a blond character who usually plays hoodlums and teenage tearaways, constantly letching over any woman who passes.

The atmosphere of an isolated "institute" is well done - yes, recalling Amis and also Angus Wilson. The scientists live in some luxury with a canteen, a bar and flats full of modern paintings.

Alan Wheatley, as the local bigwig, is amusing and sinister. He says he is renting the house for a year - does he mean he's rich enough to rent such a pile, without working for a living?

Stay with it - there's a twist.

Nuclear Secrets

[boblipton · 5/10 · 26 November 2019]

Stephen Murray is a national of a foreign government who has been in Britain for decades, becoming a respected nuclear physicist. One day he's found in the hands of that foreign government, being transported back against his wishes. He asks for asylum and it's granted. He is sent to a research facility, where he continues his work for peaceful exploitation of science with the aid of brilliant assistant June Thornburn. He keeps busy; besides his research, he's stealing scientific work for his government.

It's a dull little spy drama, going through all the less dramatic ways in which espionage is carried out; technically interesting, but the occasionally blaring score by Ken Thorne lets you know that something VERY DRAMATIC has just occurred. Still, it's an interesting role for Murray, his last on the big screen, as it is for Miss Thornburn. She might have made more movies, but she died in a plane crash in 1967.

Compelling British low budget feature film

[df-haley17 · 9/10 · 10 February 2008]

I saw this film yesterday morning. I like British low budget, (usually) black and white films from the 1950s and 1960s so I made the effort to ensure that I was available to watch it. Not only was I not disappointed; it turned out to be one of the best of its type.

The plot was very full, with plenty of twists and turns. I will not say what these are, but suffice it to say that they make for a very satisfying concept when one reflects on the film.

The conceptual basis for the story is interesting. It shows how two elements of life in the 1960s had come to the fore. One is the concept of spying and the other is the prominence of science and scientific research. "The white heat of the technological revolution", in Harold Wilson's phrase from that year's General Election campaign. One may conclude that the film was up to date in that sense. (The film "Ring Of Spies", made in the previous year, dealt with these themes from a different aspect.)

A few points arise from the milieu and setting. One is that, in contrast to what was to become a common suggestion/complaint a few years later, there is no sense that it is unusual to have women in senior positions in the research team; indeed, quite the contrary. The other is that several of the characters are shown smoking, regularly. Should there ever be a film suggested that would deal with this subject and this period, the makers will need to bite this particular bullet in the interests of accuracy.

An incidental fact, but one which identifies the film as very much of its period, is the style of spectacles worn by both June Thorburn and the senior civil servant's secretary. This "fashion" style, with prominent rims, belongs almost exclusively to the early and mid-1960s.

Turning to the cast, there is a good collection of British "second rank" character actors. I particularly noted Peter Gilmore's portrayal and of course Stephen Murray, who was completely unrecognisable from the (voice of the) Commander in the long-running radio series "The Navy Lark".

There is also the, to my mind, most attractive player in the film, the charming (and ultimately tragic) figure of June Thorburn. I am always pleased to see her name in the cast list of films made during the decade which began in the first half of the 1950s. That this film was in fact her final one, despite her death not occurring for another three years, shows that her time as a leading actress was over. This, I am sure, will have to been due to a combination of personal reasons and the change in the British film industry, which saw the decline and largely the end of the lower budget films from the mid-1960s onwards.

Had things continued, I am sure that she would still have been cast, as she always makes her mark, playing leading roles in films that do not have an obvious appeal to female members of the audience and making her mark in them. "Fury At Smuggler's Bay" (1961) and her penultimate film, 1963's "The Scarlet Blade", are the films which I have most in mind here.

All told, then, this is a film which has much to recommend it. If you like this type of film, it will be worth making the effort to see it, should it be shown again.

Average Cold War spy drama

[geoffm60295 · 5/10 · 8 October 2020]

The film starts promisingly enough, with what we can only assume is a Russian scientist, Boris Turganov, played by Stephen Murray successfully seeking political asylum and for next 20 minutes the storyline unfolds as the scientist is introduced to his new British scientist colleagues and working conditions. Yet once the 'Russian' scientist settles into his new role, interest starts to falter as very early on it's clear as daylight that two of the main characters are obviously are up to their neck in spying and espionage. Most of the scenes are in either Dennis Wheatley's drawing room is his rather grand house, where everyone is well mannered and polite, and in the laboratory, where again there is very little action. Considering this is a Cold War spy film, it's very short on suspense or dramatic twists and turns. The film needed a Herbert Lom to give the film an 'edge' and menace, and although Stephen Murray, who takes the lead role does a reasonable job as the Russian scientist, his performance is too bland and too low key! Indeed, my problem with the whole film is the lack lustre script, which never allows the characters to be more than just one dimensional. Also, the characters never convince me as serious scientists working in a top secret government laboratory. For instance, Peter Gilmore, playing Tom Masters a cynical young scientist, seems more interested in 'skirt chasing' and chatting up young women, and as such comes across as an unnecessary distraction to the story. John Carson, cast as the handsome and suave Richard Colman, is wasted, as he has little to do apart from befriend his love interest, Leila played by June Thorburn. Yet it is Leila, the young female top scientist, who is the least convincing, by her timid and dull demeanour as well as her 'secretarial' manner, even when the director has her wearing glasses in the laboratory, to make her look 'studious' and something of a boffin, it doesn't really work. However, there are compensations. Alan Wheatley is always a joy to watch, as is Ernest Clark, both British stalwart character actors of the 50's & 60's. In a sense the film is a disappointment, as it promised so much at the beginning but quickly loses its way half way through. Nevertheless, it's still worth watching.

Hmmmm...

[mikeolliffe · 5/10 · 5 May 2019]

A number of reviewers have commented about a series of conversations in a single room...It should be obvious that if you are working with a miniscule budget, you cannot afford elaborate tracking shots. Or fancy gliding shots at ceiling level.

Besides, you can do a lot with dialogue or monologue in a single room - see Mr. S. Kubrick for examples.

The main problem with Master Spy is that the writer/producer/director did not have a lot of knowledge of the spying game. Even before 1963 (when the film was made), there were many publications - both fiction and non-fiction-available.

But basic common sense should tell you that you don't have your major talent - a world-renowned scientist, no less, ferrying secret files to a somewhat flamboyant contact.

Despite this, the film grew on me for a number of reasons.

I particularly liked the fact that one scene, set in a remote country area, late at night, featured on the soundtrack: a train, a motorcycle, and a barking dog! (None of which had any connection to the plot...)

Dull Cold War spy outing

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 22 May 2015]

Rather than being a James Bond rip-off, MASTER SPY is a slow and stately British Cold War drama that's so subtle it'll send you to sleep. The pace is glacial and the characters are equally cold; 99% of the running time involves a room full of scientists exchanging technical jargon as they work on a new project. Of course, there's a twist here and there in the plot, but nothing to justify the running time.

MASTER SPY has dated in the worst way and is only worth watching now as a curiosity piece; certainly the cheap, shot-in-a-single-room talky style of film-making will be offputting to all but the most patient of viewers. Still, there are some familiar faces worth seeing here, including a couple of Hammer stalwarts in support (John Carson and Marne Maitland) alongside tragic leading actress June Thorburn, who was to lose her life in a plane crash four years later.

Some master spy, this guy! Apprentice, more likely

[JohnHowardReid · 3/10 · 16 November 2012]

One of the characters in this British "B" sums up the film very nicely when he remarks that it is "rather dull." It could have offered better entertainment, but the script makes the fatal mistake of revealing the identity of the master spy almost from the outset. And his agent is so palpable a plant, it is a source of wonderment that the characters in the movie could be so gullible as to fraternize with him.

In other respects, acting and direction are competent enough, and even the movie's "B"-grade production values will get by. But the aforesaid script is so weak that it's actually a considerable chore to sit through. Even the climax is not worth waiting for.

Underrated spy drama

[alanrhobson · 8/10 · 12 February 2008]

I have just seen this film, and I thought it was rather sad that it got such a low vote score (3.9 as a "weighted average", at the time of writing) and a negative review as the only review it has on IMDb.

The film is obviously low budget and no classic. Having said that it has many plus points. It is well plotted and clever, with twists and turns (especially towards the end) and it sustains the interest well. It makes all the characters interesting, even the supporting ones, such as Peter Gilmore's flippant scientist. It makes a wise move in having June Thorburn - much underused by the British cinema - as its leading lady. There is also a surprisingly good supporting cast considering it is so low budget. And so on...

At an hour and ten minutes, the film is long enough to tell a proper story well, and short enough not to outstay its welcome. It provided me with an enjoyable time viewing it.

Actors do well with complicated dialogue.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 14 April 2022]

There's no Natasha here, but there is a Boris, an alleged communist spy played by Stephen Murray. He's hired as a scientist by a nuclear power company X odd from day one. He has no interest in working with anybody, especially a female scientist, June Thorburn, believing, he claims that she will distract him from his work with non-stop chatter because that's what women do. But her hard work and dedication eventually impress him, and he's doing more chattering than she would ever have done. When she makes a discovery, she is horrified when her research papers are stolen, and all fingers pointing to him as being a spy. But there's a twist, and a good one, with Thorburn in danger, drugged by Murray and colleague who doesn't work for the firm, leaving her in danger and her colleagues desperate to find her.

An enjoyable, quick moving British quota quickie, running in at 70 minutes and never slowing down for dialogue that doesn't have anything to do with the plot. During that short period of time, every character is nicely developed, with a romance insinuated between Thorburn and another scientist, Alan Wheatley, who begins to show jealousy as Murray and Thorburn become closer colleagues. Unlike the many other spy dramas of the 1960's, this is very direct and never adds any complications so the viewer can follow along easily. Nice to see Thorburn doing a different kind of role, showing that she can handle complex dialog and be believable in it.

That awful spying business always going wrong

[clanciai · 8/10 · 27 February 2023]

No fast action here, as spying business is a very slow and tedious affair, as already Somerset Maugham made clear in his early short stories, as that activity mainly tries your patience until it breaks, and that's when the mistakes are committed. Stephen Murray makes a very credible character as the defector from Yugoslavia seeking asylum in Britain and getting employed in an advanced nuclear research centre, where he can be at large doing whatever research he wants and using the results for his own ends, but unfortunately his collaborator is the wrong kind of man, and when he prompts the execution of Murray's secretary, for having found out about their business, Murray declines, and things are messed up. It's a rather ordinary spying story of double crossing and double purposes and the main issue getting busted, and the whole enterprise reaches a rather hasty end, without the original purpose getting fulfilled. But no one dies, and that at least is something in this rotten business where the end always justifies the means and usually get shipwrecked on the way.

Well directed, acted Brit espionage noir with clever twists

[adrianovasconcelos · 8/10 · 12 March 2023]

I had never heard of Montgomery Tully when I saw his name come up as director in the starting credits. He has impressed me with this outing, both by having a hand in the riveting screenplay and mainly by extracting high standard performances from his actor ensemble, in particular June Thorburn, Paul Skelton, and Jack Watson. Stephen Murray, the main lead, does well enough but something is lost in his continual attempt to present a Polish/Russian accent.

Cinematography by Geoffrey Faithfull is excellent, with a truly wonderful chess game introduction, serving as backup to the chess mastery relation that develops between master spies Murray and Skelton.

The scene where Thorburn recognizes the file that Murray has removed from the cupboard, and Skelton decides to poison her is sheer textbook stuff in terms of credibility, direction and acting.

At an economical 68', this is arresting viewing and a Cold War time capsule, months after US President JF Kennedy was assassinated, and about 18 months after Cuba's Bay of Pigs incident, with the world split between US and USSR influence.

Intelligent, exciting, literate dialogue. Recommended viewing.