Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

MartinHafer Erotomania is the psychological term used to describe someone who is delusional and has convinced themselves that another person loves them...a person who they possibly never even met. It often happens with crazed fans in love with a famous person but the fixation could occur on a normal, everyday person as well. Erotomaniacs are not obviously insane, but this delusion is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to rid the person of despite therapy. I mention this because through much of "Finger of Guilt" you aren't sure whether this has occurred to Reggie Wilson (Richard Basehart) or whether he's a total cad and simply is lying to hide an affair.When the film begins, Reggie has moved to the UK following some sort of scandal he was involved in with some married woman. Now he's married to the boss of a British studio and has a very important job producing movies. However, he begins receiving letters from a lady in Newcastle asking him why he is ignoring her and demanding he contact her. But he insists he has no idea who the woman is and even tells his father-in-law about this situation. And then, the women begins calling the studio...demanding to talk with him. By this point, Reggie's wife has heard about all this and it's obvious that she's beginning to suspect her hubby is a lying troll. So, Reg takes the wife up to Newcastle to confront the lady...and the lady INSISTS she and Reggie have been lovers, though she can provide no concrete proof. Who are you to believe? So is this any good? And is it really a case of erotomania? See the film and learn for yourself.The fact that Richard Basehart is in a British film isn't too surprising. Basehart was a very minor star in the States and made movies in Europe (including a film for Fellini) for several years. This is because European studios thought that by putting an American or two in the leads, it would increase the marketability of the films internationally.All in all, a pretty good film. I didn't love the ending...and part of it is because it wasn't 100% convincing. Still, an interesting and unusual story.By the way, this film does make you wonder how many people and marriages have been destroyed by erotomaniacs. While this is relatively common with celebrities and accepted as a normal part of fame, what about common folk who suddenly have women or men insisting they love them? For an amazingly good film about this, try to see the French film "He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not"....it's among the very best French movies of the last several decades!

vincentlynch-moonoi I don't know why, but somehow Richard Basehart always reminded me just a little of Richard Burton...although I liked Basehart a bit more. Unfortunately, Basehart never made it to the A list, even though I thought he was a good and fairly interesting actor. Maybe the problem was scripts that left a bit to be desired...like this one.Here, his character as a film director seems...well, a tad bit stereotypical, at least on the surface. Really, constantly carrying around a cane for no reason just seems a little goofy.But, once you get back the superficial aspects of this film, it gets pretty good. What has to happen to get to that point is getting past the mysterious letters that seem to be hinting at blackmail, to actually meeting the mysterious girl...which finally does happen. Then things get quite good, quite interesting as the mystery deepens.If you look carefully, you'll see this film was on a pretty cheap budget (for example, painted books on a bookshelf). The other problem I have with this film is that it has that sort of tawdry look to it that was not uncommon in lower budget 1950s film...that lacked the class of film noir.The ending is pretty good, although hardly unique.Let's put it this way -- you could do worse. It's worth a watch, but I doubt you'll buy it for your DVD shelf.

kapelusznik18 ****SPOILERS****British film executive Reggie Wilson, Richard Basehart, is about to commit himself into the "Funny Farm" because of all these letters he's been getting postage marked New Castle from this woman Evelyn Stewart, Mary Murphy, claiming that he had a hot and heavy affair with her back in New York some five years ago. Not remembering a thing about this supposed affair Reggie feeling he's being blackmailed goes to New Castle to confront Evelyn and finally get to the bottom of all this mental anguish he's being put through. Going to New Castle with his wife-a really bad idea-Lesley,Faith Brooke, it become apparent to everyone his wife the police as well as himself that there's some truth to Evelyn's accusations about his affair with her even though Reggie can't remember a thing about it!With the head of the studio as well as his father-in-law Ben Case, not Ben Casey of the 1960's TV series,played by Roger Livesey giving Reggie a forced leave of absence he take a trip to the studio to both chill out and get his act together! It's then that everything comes together for him when he spots Evelyn showing up there for a job as if it's some kind of pay off by Case in her driving him nutty! What turns out is that Evelyn got her wires crossed in thinking that Case was behind all this manipulating poor Reggie's head! And that's when Reggie finally found who's been pulling the strings to get him kicked out of his job and end up in the loony bin!****SPOILERS**** Wild final with Reggie finding out and exposing, with a hidden microphone, the person behind his troubles with his father-in-law and boss Ben Case listening in. Evelyn soon realizing that she somehow has been set up to be the pasty in all this takes a powder only to be caught as she tries to make a quick getaway form the studio grounds. As for the person who set Reggie up he tries to gun him down only to find out that the sub-machine, which he should have known, that he tried to blast him with was only a harmless movie prop!

writers_reign This has to be one of the most unrealistic movies that ever came down the pike. It may have been unintentional but the irony of setting something largely in a film studio, i.e. a place where they manufacture unreality, and then portraying that studio as a neglected corner of a run-down industrial estate is priceless. Richard Basehart as head of the studio has an office about as prepossessing as that of a minor official in Eastern Europe in the late sixties and that of his father-in-law and movie mogul Roger Livesey is superior only in the sense that it boasts superior oilcloth on the floor. The story, by Howard Koch, who - unbelievably on this showing - co-scripted Casablanca, is so clearly a metaphor for the Blacklist (both Koch and director Losey, were victims and worked here under John Does) that it becomes risible which it shouldn't do because there were many innocent victims 'accused' of things they hadn't done during the HUAC years and the denouement involving Mervyn Johns is pathetic. Losey completists will want to see it but of you're not one stay home and watch Big Brother.