Ai confini del delitto

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.