SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

robert-temple-1 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'.

dougdoepke 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.

Robert J. Maxwell 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.

MartinHafer 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.