Other commenters here have covered just about all other issues, but one not covered concerns basic plot implausibilities which I will summarize here, concerning the ending sequences of the film.
First, just as the aunt is about to tell the heroine who the mastermind is, the aunt is shot dead. OK, this is standard film fare: kill the witness who is about to expose the real bad guy. We wonder: "who did the shooting?" Well, it turns out, it is the very man the aunt was about to expose. Who, of course, has just exposed himself as a villain, by stepping forth and revealing himself as the shooter. But that contradicts the whole motivation for the shooting, and, indeed, he immediately confesses to the heroine anyway, and then kidnaps her. The squire already knows, before he shoots, that the lawman has escaped, so he knows that his own identity as the mastermind is going to be known to the authorities, so there is no need to silence the aunt. Instead, the squire should leave the aunt alive and tell the heroine that unless the heroine cooperates, the squire will order his henchmen to kill the aunt. That threat would serve to keep the heroine submissive to him as he kidnaps her.
Second, the squire and the kidnapped heroine escape the inn in his carriage, the cut-throat crew arriving just as they slip off, and then a few minutes later a troop of soldiers led by the lawman arrive at the inn to capture the cut-throats. Given the barren coast, the few and desolate roads, and the short time between the departure of the squire from the inn and the arrival of the soldiers at the inn, the soldiers would almost certainly have encountered the squire, or at least seen his carriage, before they got to the inn.
Third, earlier, when the squire was leaving his own house, he would not have told his staff honestly where he was going (to the south coast port to take ship for France), since that would merely provide the means for the law to track him down. He would have lied to his staff and said he was going north, or inland, or something else.
Fourth, when the squire arrives at port to take the ship to go to France, he could not have had an advance reservation, since he had only just decided to leave an hour or so before, and there was no way to get word to the ship in advance. Thus his arrival and request for a room would be quite unexpected to the ship captain, yet there is no great surprise shown.
Fifth, the ship is, of course, a sailing ship, and its departure from the pier would be a very slow matter, and would almost certainly await daylight. And even if it got underway before the good guys arrived, they could have sent a fast smaller ship to catch it and order it to return. The attempt to manufacture tension at the end thus fails; it is like saying: will they catch that turtle that is crawling off?
The tension at the end should have been entirely different: (a) the squire, after having left his own house to make his escape, should have shot his own coachman on a desolate stretch of road, before arriving at the Inn (to remove the coachman as a witness to where the squire really would be going), (b) the squire, with the kidnapped heroine, should have arrived quietly in the port, left his carriage, slipped quietly aboard the ship, bribed the captain to keep silent, and been in hiding; (c) the good guys, ignorant of where the squire went, should have been searching fruitlessly to find him until at last someone reported seeing the squire's abandoned carriage in the port; (d) this report should have been the news that brought the good guys to the port, where by some accident or an action by the kidnapped heroine, they find the squire, who could then ascend the mast and dramatically jump to his death as in the existing film. That kind of suspenseful ending would have been more plausible and more like a real Hitchcock film; the film as shot is not.
First, just as the aunt is about to tell the heroine who the mastermind is, the aunt is shot dead. OK, this is standard film fare: kill the witness who is about to expose the real bad guy. We wonder: "who did the shooting?" Well, it turns out, it is the very man the aunt was about to expose. Who, of course, has just exposed himself as a villain, by stepping forth and revealing himself as the shooter. But that contradicts the whole motivation for the shooting, and, indeed, he immediately confesses to the heroine anyway, and then kidnaps her. The squire already knows, before he shoots, that the lawman has escaped, so he knows that his own identity as the mastermind is going to be known to the authorities, so there is no need to silence the aunt. Instead, the squire should leave the aunt alive and tell the heroine that unless the heroine cooperates, the squire will order his henchmen to kill the aunt. That threat would serve to keep the heroine submissive to him as he kidnaps her.
Second, the squire and the kidnapped heroine escape the inn in his carriage, the cut-throat crew arriving just as they slip off, and then a few minutes later a troop of soldiers led by the lawman arrive at the inn to capture the cut-throats. Given the barren coast, the few and desolate roads, and the short time between the departure of the squire from the inn and the arrival of the soldiers at the inn, the soldiers would almost certainly have encountered the squire, or at least seen his carriage, before they got to the inn.
Third, earlier, when the squire was leaving his own house, he would not have told his staff honestly where he was going (to the south coast port to take ship for France), since that would merely provide the means for the law to track him down. He would have lied to his staff and said he was going north, or inland, or something else.
Fourth, when the squire arrives at port to take the ship to go to France, he could not have had an advance reservation, since he had only just decided to leave an hour or so before, and there was no way to get word to the ship in advance. Thus his arrival and request for a room would be quite unexpected to the ship captain, yet there is no great surprise shown.
Fifth, the ship is, of course, a sailing ship, and its departure from the pier would be a very slow matter, and would almost certainly await daylight. And even if it got underway before the good guys arrived, they could have sent a fast smaller ship to catch it and order it to return. The attempt to manufacture tension at the end thus fails; it is like saying: will they catch that turtle that is crawling off?
The tension at the end should have been entirely different: (a) the squire, after having left his own house to make his escape, should have shot his own coachman on a desolate stretch of road, before arriving at the Inn (to remove the coachman as a witness to where the squire really would be going), (b) the squire, with the kidnapped heroine, should have arrived quietly in the port, left his carriage, slipped quietly aboard the ship, bribed the captain to keep silent, and been in hiding; (c) the good guys, ignorant of where the squire went, should have been searching fruitlessly to find him until at last someone reported seeing the squire's abandoned carriage in the port; (d) this report should have been the news that brought the good guys to the port, where by some accident or an action by the kidnapped heroine, they find the squire, who could then ascend the mast and dramatically jump to his death as in the existing film. That kind of suspenseful ending would have been more plausible and more like a real Hitchcock film; the film as shot is not.