Sede de Riquezas

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.

Wow, this one is certainly a candidate for restoration.. the sound and picture quality are just terrible. Hugh Beaumont is "Steve", a crook on the run from "something"... we're not sure just what. Beaumont was the Dad on Leave it to Beaver. Steve meets up with "Julie", (Frances Rafferty) who ALSO has a past of her own. They hit it off, and that's when the trouble begins! Dick Elliot is in here as a customer in the diner... Elliot was the town mayor in Andy Griffith. Gumming up the works is Julie's elderly aunt, who sometimes fakes being ill to get attention, but sometimes really is sick. Dealing with that brings out the worst in both Julie AND Steve, so it's going to hit the fan fast! Another fun face in here is "Mrs. Ferguson"... Ida Moore. She was ALWAYS a little old lady... she had a great, tiny little part in Desk Set! (Gotta see that if you haven't already) Money Madness flows right along, no plot-holes, or glaring problems. Not many big names, which is probably why its playing on Moonlight Movies channel. Beaumont had done a bunch of war films in the 1940s, and more in the 1950s, but he's probably the biggest name in here. Directed by Sam Newfield.. he and his brother Sigmund were bigshots in "the biz", and they turned out TONS of films, starting in the silent shorts. This one is actually pretty good.

With MONEY MADNESS, Director Sam Newfield (using fake name of Peter Stewart on this occasion) manages to add yet another dud to his extensive collection. A word to the wise: rewatch the start to the flick to get what happens to Frances Rafferty, the wife.

Cinematography is clearly below par, though the persistently dark surroundings help set up and thicken the atmosphere. I regret to admit that the copy I watched was poor, with cuts and what appeared to be a loss of some lines, which clearly did not help elevate my rating of MONEY MADNESS.

Certainly, the best aspect about this flick is Hugh Beaumont's performance. He is a quick-thinking and acting criminal, ruthless to the chase. He has no qualms about getting lovely Rafferty to marry him and then he poisons her aunt for good measure, so that he has a roof to hide in while waiting to collect the inheritance. The way he disposes of aunt Cora and keeps his wife silent and cooperative is quite remarkable (safe guess that it must have raised many an eyebrow back in 1948!).

Beaumont would as soon as kiss as kill anyone. When in the middle of apparently amenable conversation he suddenly orders Frances Rafferty, "beat it!", you know this guy has no thought for anyone except No.1, and he will take no prisoners.

Pity that the rest of the movie does not live up to Beaumont's level. 6/10.

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.

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.