Two of a Kind (1951) User Reviews

Promising noir wastes its potential and its cast by pulling too many punches

[bmacv · 6/10 · 1 March 2003]

If you like your film noir declawed and defanged, then Henry Levin's Two of a Kind is the movie for you. The vexing part is that it starts off strong, keeping the viewer off balance. Lizabeth Scott is scouring the continent looking for a particular man. Her quest takes her from a Chicago orphanage to the carny circuit to the Department of the Navy in Washington; she finally finds him, working in a bingo parlor, in Los Angeles where she started.

He's Edmond O'Brien, and she's after him because he fits the bill for a con job that she and her lover Alexander Knox have been hatching for a long time. A wealthy old couple has nobody to leave their fortune to, because their son vanished when he was only three years old. Knox, their attorney, and Scott are grooming O'Brien as a ringer to show up and claim the inheritance, which they'll all split. There are a couple of catches. For one, the kid lost the tip of his finger in a childhood accident, but since he can cash in his own fingertip for millions, O'Brien falls in with the scheme. The other is that Scott, to Knox's chagrin, starts to go sweet on O'Brien.

Up to the scene when Scott smashes O'Brien's finger in a car door, so he'll have reason to have the first two joints amputated, Two of a Kind promises to be low-down and unsentimental. But the movie's tone suffers an incapacitating fracture with the arrival of Terry Moore, as a niece of the old couple and the patsy through which O'Brien will secure his entry into the family's affections. (She's a vapid dilettante whose hobby is collecting `causes;' falling for no-good men and trying to reform them seems to be one of them.)

O'Brien gains admittance to the family; his candor about his raffish past puts him in good stead. But when the pot of gold seems just within reach, the patriarch drops a bombshell: He won't leave a cent to his newfound son on the grounds that it would ruin him. This prompts Knox to rachet up the swindle to the next level - arranging an early send-off for his unwitting benefactors. Scott and O'Brien demur, but by this time they're in too deep....

The dark tone of the opening returns briefly, but it's too late and doesn't last. Despite that brutal finger-smashing, there's a squeamishness to the movie that doesn't let it pursue the expectations it raises. The insipid ending opens regretful speculation: Whatever happened to the Lizabeth Scott of Too Late For Tears, the Edmond O'Brien of 711 Ocean Drive, and the Henry Levin who directed Night Editor?

Double or Nothing

[robert-temple-1 · 6/10 · 7 August 2016]

This is an uneasy blend of mystery, suspense, and comedy. I am always dubious about mixed genre films, and I believe this could and should have been better as a straight film noir. However, it is still a good film and for all like myself who admire Lizabeth Scott and enjoy watching her films, it is a must. She was most famous for playing Dusty four years earlier, opposite Humphrey Bogart, in the stunning film noir DEAD RECKONING (1947). She was one of the best femme fatale actresses in film noir, though she could also show a warm, kindly, humorous and smiling layer underneath, as we see here. That entitled her to be 'redeemed' from her wicked ways from time to time in films. It is always nice when a femme fatale can be redeemed, but it does not happen very often, in life or on film. Scott is entrancing here as usual, and is the main reason we keep watching. The male lead is Edmond O'Brien. I wonder how Scott really felt when she repeatedly flung herself (with excessive force, I felt) into O'Brien's arms and began giving him passionate kisses. She does it often here. Doth the ladye embrace too muche? O'Brien was a very fine actor, and it was Ida Lupino who seems to have realized this most enthusiastically, for she daringly cast him in the lead for her provocative film THE BIGAMIST (1953, see my review), which was a triumphant casting coup. O'Brien also won an Oscar and an Oscar nomination in other films. But he was no handsome hunk, was podgy and a bit sweaty. It all goes to show how talent can overcome lack of looks. Terry Moore plays a dotty young niece in this film, with wide-eyed insistence and a very broad interpretation. She is meant to be the comedic character, and despite the ridiculous nature of her role and the absurdity it adds to the plot, she manages it nicely. In fact, one wants to give her an indulgent hug. So it all sort of works. Henry Levin directs this mixed pudding of a film and delivers a watchable product. Oh yes, I almost forgot the story. An elderly couple lost their child at the age of three on a street in Chicago and have never found him. Their unscrupulous lawyer and his girl friend Lizabeth Scott want to 'find' a man who will play along, pretend to be the long lost son (that's O'Brien), and inherit ten million dollars which they will then all split between them. But of course things turn out not to be that simple. After O'Brien is accepted as the son, things begin to unravel. As to what then happens, I ain't sayin'.

Smashed Fingers and Do-Gooders Add Up to a Strange But Fun Hybrid

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 6 April 2010]

The two of a kind of this film's title are Edmond O'Brien and Lizabeth Scott, two schemers who aren't above their fair share of dirty dealings but who draw the line at murder.

The implausible scheme in this one involves O'Brien posing as the lost son of a millionaire who will cash in on the millionaire's inheritance once he dies and split it with Scott and the millionaire's attorney (played by Alexander Knox), who engineers the whole thing. The plot of course unravels, as plots usually do in movies like this, until talk of murder comes up, as it invariably does. One murder is planned, another is attempted, but all ends well for our bad-but-not-so-bad-that-we-don't-kind-of-like-them lovers.

My favorite thing about this movie is that the plot these crooks hatch has a thousand holes in it from the beginning, but the movie acknowledges that and makes use of them. For once, the movie is as smart as we are.

Terry Moore has a large role as the millionaire's niece, a do-gooder who is determined to find the sugar at the middle of O'Brien's bitter pill. Her appearance in the film brings a strong comic element to it (she's turned on by being robbed at gunpoint) and keeps things refreshingly off kilter. There are hints at romantic comedy mixed in with brutal scenes, like the one where O'Brien allows his finger to be smashed in a car door so that doctors will have to amputate it. I suppose fans of true noirs may be disappointed that this film is far too light overall to truly earn the title, but there's a lot of fun to be had if you can look past that.

Grade: B

Two of a Kind (1951)

[MartinTeller · 6/10 · 12 January 2012]

Lightweight noir about a con where Edmond O'Brien pretends to be the long-lost son of a millionaire. The movie is fun but never goes to the dark places it seems to hint at. Lizabeth Scott is set up to be a great femme fatale (the scene where she ropes O'Brien into the scheme and gets him to make a brutal sacrifice is the highlight of the film) but her character fizzles out. Fans of con artist flicks will be disappointed as the plan doesn't have the intricate details that make them enjoyable. Although it's an enjoyable film (O'Brien especially), it all wraps up far too neatly and without much sizzle. I did enjoy the sleazy subtext of Terry Moore as the "good girl" who gets turned on by bad guys. When she meets O'Brien, you can read "rape fantasy" all over her face.

Production Code censors nap as noir grifters escape punishment

[Turfseer · 6/10 · 22 May 2021]

"Two of a Kind" stands out as a highly unconventional film noir, deviating from the genre's typical portrayal of criminals facing punishment for their actions. Lisabeth Scott delivers a captivating performance as Brandy Kirby, assuming the role of a femme fatale in one of her more intense and intriguing portrayals. The film revolves around a scheme orchestrated by Vincent Mailer (Alexander Knox), a successful attorney working for the wealthy McIntyre couple, William and Maida (Griff Barnett and Virginia Brissac).

Years ago, the McIntyres' three-year-old son disappeared, leaving Maida emotionally devastated. Despite the passage of time, they continue their search for the lost boy well into their middle age. Mailer sends Brandy on a cross-country quest to find the perfect candidate to deceive the McIntyres into believing that their long-lost son has been found. Enter Michael "Lefty" Farrell (Edmund O'Brien), a man with a troubled past, having spent time in a reform school, a traveling circus, and serving in the Navy during the war, remarkably exhibiting exemplary service.

Through interviews with individuals from Farrell's past, Brandy discovers that he lives in close proximity to her and Mailer in Los Angeles. Edmund O'Brien delivers a convincing performance as a schemer and ladies' man, particularly in the first half of the film. Brandy manipulates Farrell into breaking his finger in a car door, leading to its amputation-a necessary step since the McIntyre child had a missing finger.

The allure of inheriting the McIntyre fortune is not what ultimately convinces Farrell to participate in the scheme; it is his attraction to Brandy. She shows no remorse for involving herself with Farrell while ostensibly being involved with Mailer. While their intimacy is never explicitly shown on screen, the implications are apparent due to the film's 1951 release.

"Two of a Kind" takes an unexpected turn with the introduction of Kathy (Terry Moore), the McIntyres' eccentric niece, who serves as unwelcome comic relief. Kathy falls for Farrell, believing he has a criminal history, and convinces herself that she can reform him. Farrell plays along as he needs Kathy's introduction to Mr. McIntyre.

In a clever twist, Mailer's scheme falls apart when McIntyre initially believes Farrell is his son but decides not to include him in the will. The plot gains momentum again when Farrell threatens to expose the scheme, prompting Mailer to order his accomplice, Todd (Robert Anderson), to drown Farrell off the McIntyre dock.

In a dramatic turn of events, Farrell manages to overpower Todd during the struggle in the water, nearly killing him. Fortunately, no one sustains serious injuries. The climax of the film unfolds as Mailer and Farrell reveal their versions of the scheme to McIntyre, who shockingly chooses not to press charges against anyone involved. Mailer is promptly fired and required to surrender his law license.

McIntyre presents Farrell with an unusual request-to continue pretending to be their long-lost son to comfort Mrs. McIntyre, who firmly believes in Farrell's identity. Farrell agrees to occasionally visit and play along with the charade. The hardened con artist surprisingly develops a soft spot for his marks, suggesting that he may not have been as bad of a person as initially portrayed, given his honorable service in the Navy.

The film concludes with Brandy and Farrell sharing a kiss as they drive away together. It is exceedingly rare to witness criminals escaping the consequences of their previous misdeeds. In this case, it appears that the Hays Code censors may have overlooked certain aspects while evaluating the film.

Scott and O'Brien exhibit remarkable chemistry, particularly in the first half of the film, where their sexually charged interactions captivate the audience. However, in the second half, Scott's involvement in the plot diminishes significantly. "Two of a Kind" manages to hold the viewer's attention up to a certain point, but the initial premise lacks substantial credibility. With a little research, such as examining hospital records to confirm Farrell's recent finger amputation, it would have been relatively easy to expose the McIntyres' deception. Indeed, Mr. McIntyre ultimately uncovers this information himself by the film's conclusion.

Viewers should approach "Two of a Kind" as an oddity, appreciating its far-fetched yet entertaining portrayal of a happy ending for the "bad boy" duo of Scott and O'Brien.

What became of the toddler?

[nnvincent-35949 · 7/10 · 5 April 2020]

Watchable movie with the often used formula of the perfect plan gone awry. Edmond O'Brien and Lizabeth Scott are always good. I guess one could say this film had a happy ending: the millionaire's life was spared, the evil mastermind was banished (to do evil elsewhere, no doubt), Mike and Brandy (who knew that was a name in 1951!) paired up and Kathy found a new crook to reform. But was anyone else left wondering, what DID happen to the child? Would have been a neat plot twist if the lawyer really had discovered what became of the old couple's son while investigating all of those orphanages and it turned out the son was a hard-working family man with a couple of kids. Of course the lawyer would not have told the long-suffering parents but would have revealed it to Mike and Brandy (or would he?) I just imagined the parents finally being reunited with their son, a daughter-in-law and a couple of grandchildren. Ahh, but that would have been to saccharine an ending for a noir I guess.

Not bad....but I agree that it does pull its punches a bit.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 17 March 2010]

Another reviewer said that the film loses some of its impact because it pulls its punches. I would agree, as it could have been better if it hadn't done this...but it still is worth seeing.

Soon after the film begins, bad-girl Lizabeth Scott approaches Edmond O'Brien with a proposition. If he'd be willing to tear off the end of one of his fingers, she'd give him a chance to get rich. The hitch? Well, he was going to have to pose as the long-lost son of a rich man and his wife. These two, along with the trusted family lawyer all work to make this plot work, though by the end of the film, O'Brien is starting to have some second thoughts.

Any film noir movie with Edmond O'Brien is worth seeing--and many of them (such as "DOA") are classics. While this is far from a classic, it, too, is worth a look because of the actors. I just wish it had been like most noir films--been a bit darker in tone and WITHOUT characters who exhibit sings of a conscience.

An Unfortunate Lapse

[dougdoepke · 7 January 2012]

It's a nifty premise that fails to fulfill an early promise. Seductress Brandy (Scott) lures wiseguy Lefty (O'Brien) into a million-dollar fraud scheme. All it will cost him is time in a swanky beach house and half a finger. But that's okay because he'll still have nine and a-half left, plus a big inheritance from a wealthy old couple. Then too, if he gets cold feet, slinky Brandy is always there to warm him up. Mastermind Vincent (Knox) has hatched what looks like a sure thing.

However, I'm with reviewer bmacy. After that promising start, especially with the slamming car door, the movie takes an irretrievable tumble. And that's when Terry Moore's loopy overacting hits the scene. Catch that night time set-up where Lefty breaks into Kathy's (Moore) place and she squeals with delight over what appears a potential rapist or killer. Sorry, but that's about as poorly written and ill conceived a scene as I've witnessed in some time. And who was it who decided to insert Lefty's face-making as comedic accompaniment to Kathy's description of him. It's not only unnecessary, but unsubtly attacks the whole surrounding mood. As bmacy points out, by the time the movie recovers from such ruptures, it's already too late.

At the same time, director Levin appears to have little feel for the material, his career being mainly in light comedies. As a result, the story simply unfolds in pedestrian fashion without any distinguishing touches or development. As a result, and despite its two noir icons, the 80-minutes comes across as more disappointing than gritty crime drama.

They could never trust each other but match each other perfectly

[clanciai · 9/10 · 17 August 2023]

The dialog is splendid, so is the acting, Lizabeth Scott more sparkling with her beauty and intelligence than ever, Edmond O'Brien is always a reliable ace card, and Alexander Knox for once is the bad guy, but what is all this really about? Is it a criminal comedy, an aborted noir without any crime, a satire on all the films of racketeering business, a twisted romance with too many lovers and relationships involved with each other, and yet it is fascinating all the way, and in the last 15 minutes things start to happen for real, everything being turned upside down, when all the cards of the game suddenly are exposed and everyone finds himself a loser. It's a witty intrigue with a lot of twists to the tricky and intelligent set-up, which seems absolutely perfect, until someone changes his mind. It looks really bad from a moral point of view all through, but by an odd turn honesty upsets the racket and love conquers all. In all its criminal intrigue with a perfect perspective of a noir, it is actually a comedy of romance heavily spiced with all the elements of a very crooked noir design, but with a very satisfactory outcome.

Decidedly minor, but a lot of fun

[funkyfry · 7/10 · 18 June 2014]

I enjoyed this little "caper" film a lot, despite the fact that its story is extremely improbably and lightweight. It presents an excellent example of "fun noir" -- it does not delve into the soul of the post-war disillusionment, but it features many other tropes and styles that would make this genre popular in retrospect. The interplay between Liz Scott and Edmund O'Brien is the high point of the film. There are many scenes where it's impossible not to laugh out loud as each tries to come off as more hard and cynical than the other. However, the ending of the film is much too pat (who is really going to so easily forgive the con, as this millionaire?). Terry Moore is cute and hilarious as a nympho who gets turned on when O'Brien pretends to be a burglar (previously she had failed to notice him no matter what he did). This film is no champion, but it's a winner.

This film noir classic involves a con around impersonating a couple's long lost son.

[cgvsluis · 5/10 · 28 October 2021]

This con involved a lot of research and putting a lot of pieces in to place to go after a 10 million dollar inheritance of an elderly couple who lost their son at the age of three. It falls apart at the last minute and one of the gang can't give up on the plan...thinking murder is the answer. At least some of the rest of the con artists draw the line at murder.

Lizabeth Scott is beautiful in this light film noir and plays exceptionally well alongside Edmond O'Brien. Lizabeth Scott reminds me a lot of Lauren Bacall, they both really knew how to give a sultry...if not beautifully cold face.

Terry Moore plays a delightfully screwball niece that likes to reform bad boys. Great character that was fun to watch...but maybe a little outside of what I would normally expect in a true film noir film.

This came over as a film noir with a little screwball and a light ending. If that is your thing this might be for you!

"Don't forget to come over, Snow White."-Lefty.

a noir that tries to be light at the same time

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 14 February 2017]

Edmond O'Brien, Lizabeth Scott, Alexander Knox, and Terry Moore star in "Two of a Kind" from 1951.

Brandy Kirby (Scott) and an attorney, Vincent Mailer (Knox) for a wealthy man, William McIntyre find the perfect person in Lefty Farrell (O'Brien) to pretend to be the long-lost son of McIntyre's. He will then inherit $10 million, and since McIntyre and his wife are old, there won't be long to wait until he inherits.

Brandy seduces Lefty into taking the job. In order to do it, he has to lose part of his little finger, as the McIntyre's son did. A friend of Brandy's (MooreO who is the McIntyre's niece, introduces him to them when she sees his finger and asks questions. It's looking good that Lefty will be accepted as the son and inherit a fortune.

I had a few problems with this noir. The writer tried to lighten it up with the presence and perky acting of Terry Moore, which was way out of place and came off as overdone.

Lefty is supposed to be a real charmer and a chick magnet. I'm sorry, Edmond O'Brien? Good actor but hardly oozing with sex and good looks. Under contract at that time were William Holden and Glenn Ford. I doubt many women would have turned them down.

Lizabeth Scott, one of the noir queens, looked great in her gorgeous clothes and shorter hair and, with that smoky voice of hers, was very effective. Knox really didn't have much to do. O'Brien was good as usual but for me, wrong for the part.

Without the Moore character and better casting of Lefty, the film would have been stronger. Instead, it was just passable.

Look me up Snow White, don't forget to look me up.

[hitchcockthelegend · 5/10 · 13 February 2013]

Two of a Kind is directed by Henry Levin and written by James Edward Grant, James Gunn and Lawrence Kimble. It stars Edmond O'Brien, Lizabeth Scott, Terry Moore, Alexander Knox, Griff Barnett, Robert Anderson and Virginia Brissac. Music is by George Duning and cinematography by Burnett Guffey.

Plot has O'Brien, Scott and Knox try to con a rich old couple that their son, who disappeared when he was three, has resurfaced in the older body of O'Brien. Thus they hope to get the $10 million inheritance due to the heir upon the death of the parents…

It all starts so very well, Scott's sultry blonde hunts out O'Brien's shady player to do a major con and he falls for her feminine whiles hook line and sinker, even agreeing to have his little finger mangled in a car door for the con cause. Sadly this is where the picture falls apart and unfurls in a lightweight manner.

Interesting possibilities are ignored, such as Moore's sprightly niece character who likes to straighten out bad men (it ends up playing as something that should be in a Cary Grant screwball) and a murderous plot that threatens to make the ending more lively (by this time the O'Brien/Scott pairing has become sickly nice), to leave us with what turns out to be a quite repugnant ending.

Guffey's black and white photography is crisp but just like the film itself, it really isn't noir at all. Levin and the cast try hard, but saddled with an unadventurous screenplay it rounds out as a minor B movie of little substance. 5/10

Show Me the Money!

[bsmith5552 · 7/10 · 19 April 2021]

"Two of a Kind" is a 75 minute black and white little thriller bolstered by it's impressive but small cast.

The story has snake in the grass lawyer (aren't they all?) Vincent Mailer (Alexander Knox) and his "assistant" Brandy Kirby (Lizabeth Scott) searching for small time hustler Michael "Lefty" Farrell (Edmond O'Brien). They have hatched a scheme whereby they will have Farrell impersonate the long lost son of millionaire William McIntyre (Griff Barnett). It seems that McIntyre's wife (Virginia Brissoc) is in poor health and he is in his seventies and not expected to live much longer. The plan is for Farrell as the son to inhereit McIntyre's considerable estate upon his death.

Farrell at first is not warm to the idea bit Brandy, in true film noire fashion, seduces him into agreeing to the ruse. In order to fully replicate the lost son, Farrell must agree to lose a part of the pinky on his left hand, which he reluctantly agrees to do.

Farrell is then hidden away by Mailer and Brandy to be properly fitted into the role and allow time for his finger to heal. Burly assistant Todd (Robert Anderson is left behind to "keep an eye on" Farrell. Brandy introduces Farrell to the McIntyre's flighty niece Kathy (Terry Moore) who vows to reform him. The plan is to convince Kathy that Farrell is the lost son and thereby introduce him to the McIntyres.

Mailer through his so called research, has convinced McIntyre that Farrell is the real McCoy. THe frail Mrs. McIntyre is also convince. Then McIntyre announces that he will not change his will to include Farrell. Taken by surprise by this development, Mailer hatches a plan to murder the old man before he can change his will. Brandy and Farrell however are against the murder and plan to stop Mailer and Todd and tell all to McIntyre. But.... McIntyre has a surprise for all of them and..................................................................

Edmond O'Brien and Lizabeth Scott both veterans of Film Noire, stand out as the small time hustlers in for the big score. Alexander Knox makes a formidable villain as well.

I would have thought that there would have been a couple of murders at least in such a story. But the film is a keeper nontheless.

When a Film-Noir is Not a Film-Noir

[LeonLouisRicci · 6/10 · 1 August 2023]

It Seems that the Sharp, Dark, Rough World of Film-Noir was just too Much for the Newly Emerging Conservative 1950's.

The Forces that be were Out to Tame Film-Noir and Morph the Style into Police Procedurals, and Other Easily Digested Movies "Sweetening" the "Sour".

Case-in-Point, "Two of a Kind", this one had All the Signs of the Genre .

But were Proven a Slight-of-Hand, sort of, or a Mis-Direction.

Starring Noir Icon's Edmond O'Brien and Lizabeth Scott and a Poster that Shows Not a Hint that it will Take a "Detour" to Comedy, and a Light-Hearted Approach as the Con-Game is Played-Out.

When Terry Moore's "Screwy" Character Shows-Up, it No-Longer even Tries to Maintain its Bona-Fides as a Film-Noir.

It has One Extremely Disturbing Scene, "The Car-Door", but the Rest of the Story is so Breezy and Aloof as to be Distracting to Anyone who was Expecting a More Serious, Gritty Story.

Overall, it can be Enjoyed as a Light-Crime Con-Game with Good Actors and Good Cinematography.

The Genre of Film-Noir, to This Day, is Exploited and the Label is Slapped on Movies that Just Don't Cut-It. The True Essence and Meaning of the Descriptive has been Lost Almost Completely.

This Whole Thing Started Around 1950-51 and is Still Around Today.

For Film-Noir Purist, be Prepared for a Let-Down.

A CON NOT QUITE DONE...!

[masonfisk · 6/10 · 24 October 2021]

A 1951 film noir involving a lengthy grift being pulled on a rich couple. Lizabeth Scott starts the film off looking for a particular military man who's fallen off the grid who was aces as a soldier but his demeanor left something to be desired. Tracking the man down, played by Edmund O'Brien, at a bingo hall, Scott entices him w/the long con; an elderly married couple (who's wife is in a bad way) had lost their son & although presumed dead they hold out hope he may turn up whereby he'll leave him 10 million dollars in his will which Scott & her partner, played by Alexander Knox, will then split. The first hurdle, which O'Brien agrees to, is to chop off a part of one of his fingers (which he does when Scott slams a car door on it!) since the boy had this happen to him when he was younger & then settle into the machinations of the game, meeting the parents & laying out the possibly excruciatingly long stretch to see if the caper will come through w/O'Brien sticking around since he & Scott have connected romantically while Knox (revealed to be the couple's lawyer) bides his time waiting in the wings. I never bought the hook for this film & frankly O'Brien isn't quite convinced as well as his determination to complete the deal starts to waffle towards the film's end leaving the viewer w/a perplexed 'huh' on their face as we see if this long bet will pay out.

Diverting

[rmax304823 · 4/10 · 25 April 2010]

A feckless guy (O'Brian) is swept up in a scheme to have him pose as the long-lost son of a millionaire. This could easily have been a deep, dark exploration of human nature but it's not. Any doubts about its quality or nature are dispelled when O'Brian must have the tip of his little finger crushed and removed so as to resemble the hand of the absent millionaire's son.

How is the scene handled? O'Brian puts his finger in the crook of the car door before Lizabeth Scott reduces it to pulp. He lights up a cigarette, puts it in his mouth, positions the finger, the door crushes it, and he squints a little bit.

The whole movie is that way. Nothing is dealt with seriously. O'Brian is a madcap wisecracker. Everyone smiles happily as they discuss bilking the rich guy. The only true evildoer is Alexander Knox. Wily, you know, but no sense of humor. And the couple run off happily together.

It's a divertimento. An hour and a half of amusement and slight interest.

Bad Excuse for Noir - Two of a Kind

[arthur_tafero · 4/10 · 20 October 2023]

I had to take a shower after seeing this film. How anyone could root for a couple that try to steal the life savings of an elderly man and his wife is beyond me. Yet, somehow, we are supposed to be in the corner of the scammers. Alexander Knox stoops to conquer in this film and does an adequate job, but anyone who thinks Lizabeth Scott would be hot for a cold fish like Knox's character doesn't know much about women. O'Brien was already getting chubby and losing his leading man persona by this time in Hollywood, while Scott tries to hold up the film by herself. Whatever happened to the movie code for this film? It has ruined dozens of films in the past by demanding retribution for criminals by the end of the film, but they missed the boat on this one.