Money Madness

Constantly underrated Hugh Beaumont puts in a memorable performance as a chilling sociopathic murderer. Soon after he arrives in a small town carrying the proceeds of a recent bank robbery, he finds a vulnerable young woman (Frances Rafferty) and charms her into marriage. He quickly embarks on his nefarious schemes to better himself by arranging for the girl to inherit her Aunt's house and estate by killing the old lady. He continues to terrify and control the girl until she is entirely caught up in his web of murder and deceit and her own character becomes irredeemably compromised as an accessory to his crimes. Beaumont is outstanding and truly menacing as the killer, but he was equally adept at playing the playful and flirtatious, wisecracking hero as in his Mike Shayne films. There is a very natural delivery to his acting which always makes him believable...he seems to embody his roles so effortlessly that it hardly seems he is acting. This is a rare talent that few performers in films have had. For some reason, he never got to be A-list but his talent certainly deserved more recognition. Recommended.

While this film has a few minor issues, it's a generally well made film noir picture and provides a wonderful opportunity to see Hugh Beaumont (the father on "Leave it to Beaver") playing a cold-blooded monster!

When the film begins, Steve Clark (Beaumont) blows into a new town and gets a job as a cab driver. In one of his first fares, he has an annoying drunk sexual harasser who is out on a date with a nice girl who is refusing his advances. Julie (Frances Rafferty) is thrilled with the cab driver intervenes and he looks like a really nice guy. And, through much of the film Steve appears to be a real sweetheart. However, underneath this veneer is a real sociopath and by the time the film's over, he's terrorized sweet Julie as well as killed a couple folks...and is about to kill more!!

The best thing about the film is Beaumont's performance. He is creepy and very convincing. Unfortunately, Rafferty is not very good and much of it could be the writing...as her character is too weak and a bit stupid. Plus, she believes that because she's married Steve that she cannot legally testify against him...which is NOT the case. She could not be COMPELLED to testify against him if she didn't want to...and there is also question as to whether or not they are actually married. Still, a very enjoyable film...one that I would strongly recommend to noir fans.

Plot---Arch-criminal Steve Clark uses both charm and guile to trick working girl Julie into joining him in ruthless scheme to kill her aunt and launder his ill-gotten robbery money. So just how far will Julie go in trailing along with him.

All in all, the flick's a cheapo that over-stretches its spotty material. Too bad director Newfield's direction shows little imagination with a storyline that does offer some potential. In fact the staging of the implausible climax ends the flick on a particularly dreary note. Of course, the main attraction now is catching one of TV's favorite dads as soulless killer Steve, a difficult role Beaumont brings off in surprisingly effective fashion. In a better movie, his portrayal could have reached classic status. Trouble is his feminine foil, Julie (Rafferty), is poorly thought out and played in understandably bewildered fashion (where was the helping hand of the director). Julie goes from malt shop hooker (implied) to floor mat for Steve's many schemes, and crucially, without hint of depth the conflicted role requires. Had Julie some depth and had the script some irony, Julie could have turned the tables on her abuser in a way that shows he's underestimated her. Something surprising like that could have made the movie more memorable than the Beaumont showcase it finally is.

Hugh Beaumont -- suffering from MONEY MADNESS -- and a variety of other pathologies, runs to a small town and romances a small town girl to put in motion his unique (and ingenious) plot to launder his stolen 200 grand. How many people will he have to murder before law or fate catch up with him?

Though this is forgotten by everyone except the rare brave few who go and seek out the B-minus classics issued by PRC and, um, "Film Classics" - this film's distributor -- Hugh Beaumont, before he was father to the Beaver, acted in a fair number of minor film noirs, where he tended to play cops, detectives, and the occasional murderer. In this one, Beaumont brings his trademark likability, and family man charm to the role of a deceptive, conniving creep, on the run from the cops, and his co-conspirators in a successful bank job. And this movie turns on his unshowy but quite strong performance, as the plot depends on him being able to pretend to be "Ward" just long enough to get the heroine into his clutches, and then depends on him being the sort of Ward Cleaver that David Lynch might have used, had he got his hands on the Leave It To Beaver franchise.

It's cheap -- and the last plot twist is a bit much to take -- but it's always good to see an actor use his skills for something he's not usually known for, and succeed. There was more to Hugh Beaumont than his film/TV career really let him show, and this movie is a prime exhibit.

Hugh Beaumont marries Frances Rafferty, poisons her aunt and puts $200,000 from a bank robbery in the attic. Miss Rafferty is her aunt's sole heir, so everyone figures she was one of those batty ladies who doesn't trust banks. That's what Harlan Warde, the lawyer Miss Rafferty hires for probate thinks. He also thinks she is a dish, and unmarried. Then Beaumont's plans begin to come apart.

It's a pretty good, dark movie. Beaumont, for those of us who remember him as the father in LEAVE IT TO BEAVER, is excellent, and Miss Rafferty gives a fine performance. It will come to some as a surprise that this was produced by Sigmund Neufeld and directed by his brother, Sam Newfield (hiding under the name of 'Peter Stewart.' They had been associated so long with PRC, producing cheap movies for the bottom of triple features that it seems natural to believe that is all they were capable of. However, given a good script, good actors, and a halfway decent budget, they could turn out a good movie. Here's the proof.