Fri 27 Jan 2012
A Movie Review by Walter Albert: TWO OF A KIND (1951).
Posted by Steve under Films: Comedy/Musicals , Reviews[13] Comments
TWO OF A KIND. Columbia, 1951. Edmond O’Brien, Lizabeth Scott, Terry Moore, Alexander Knox, Virginia Brissac, J. M. Kerrigan, Louis Jean Heydt. Director: Henry Levin. Shown at Cinecon 39, Hollywood CA, Aug-Sept 2003.
This was scheduled to showcase Terry Moore, who was interviewed after the film. She’s a garrulous senior citizen now, very up-beat, but in her prime (and the film seems to have caught her in it) she was a busty, perky, sexy but wholesome-looking actress.
This was, indeed, a nifty crime film and may even have had a bit of crackle, much of it due to the cast and the crisp direction of Levin.
Alexander Knox is a shady lawyer, who manages the affairs of a wealthy couple whose only son disappeared many years ago. O’Brien is prepared to be that son and lay claim to their inheritance, while Scott is their partner-in-crime and Moore a ward of the wealthy couple.
O’Brien is first-rate as the good/bad con-man, Knox is appropriately smooth and dissembling as the lawyer and Moore and Scott make an interesting contrast in sexpots.
Editorial Comments: My own review of this film appeared earlier on this blog. Check it out here. A two-minute clip from the movie can be found here on YouTube. It’s the scene in which the three conspirators get together to plan strategies. It’s short, but while Terry Moore is everything that Walter says she is (see the photo above), the clip helps to show why, in my words, “this is Lizabeth Scott’s film all the way.”
January 28th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
In the previous review of this film someone commented that O’Brien was underrated. How could that be. He made a lot of money, and won an Academy Award. He picked up all the marbles. And this is a business. Being well paid trumps idle opinion.
January 28th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
There’s a good question there in your comment, Barry. Personally, if I were asked which I’d rather have, money or fame, I’d go for the money. I think you’re right. I’m not sure, but I think most people would.
Be that as it may, when David Vineyard left that comment about Edmond O’Brien being underrated, I’m sure he meant by the general public, not by his peers. I say this because his next sentence is “Richard Burton called him the finest Shakespearian actor he had ever seen after catching his MacBeth on stage.” He also won an Oscar, as you say, but how many people remember that today? People went to see his movies, but was it because they thought he was a good actor? Or was it because he was in movies people enjoyed seeing, and the fact he was a good actor was incidental?
Just thinking out loud, that’s all!
And in any case, he’s very good in this one.
January 28th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Steve:
It’s all one. O’Brien had fame, he just wasn’t Clark Gable. That’s a different level of talent. As for Burton’s comment, nice but beyond that of no consequence. In our time, everyone isn’t Derek Jeter. Doesn’t mean anything more than that. Some individuals, in whatever work they do, sports, entertainment, politics, excite the crowd. Can’t be learned, just is. And if your name comes first, or in the top tier of film credits for an extended time, there must be somebody going to the show. Nobody goes if the films aren’t liked, so except for a few arty enterprises in which the critics praise failure, the box office matters. When O’Brien was a leading man, he did crime films, westerns, genre work that was clearly marketable. Same with all of them. As for people remembering…
January 28th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Barry
More food for thought, and I’m still chewing it over. There’s talent, and there’s financial reward, which aren’t the same thing. Both may occur, but one may come along without the other.
And there’s recognition by ones’ peers, and there’s fame with the general public, and once again both may occur, or only one (leaving out of course, the fourth option of “neither”.)
The way I see it, anyway.
But where or how do talent and/or financial reward overlap or co-exist with fame and recognition…? I’m going to have pull out the old mathematician’s tool, the Venn diagram, to help put everything into perspective.
So far, though, I’m inclined to agree with David (or with what I think David meant) when he said Edmond O’Brien was underrated (in the sense by the general public).
And for those people who ask me every once in a while, I still have not heard from David since he stopped posting here in mid-April of last year.
January 28th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Having never seen THE BAREFOOT CONTESSA, I have just ordered a copy. It would be wonderful if Edmond O’Brien’s estate gets a piece of the purchase price, but somehow I don’t think they will.
January 28th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Steve:
There is no overlapping. Talented hard-working people succeed. Some are more talented than others. Edmond O’Brien was what he was. This has nothing to do with personal opinion. Actors who dominate become big stars. Those who do so a little less, become a little less. Those who are weak, and/or successful only on the road don’t make it in Hollywood or New York. The Barefoot Contessa is an unusual bore, but O’Brien made the transition from overweight leading man to character player. It all worked out. The big money goes to the big talent. Without exception, but without the hard work, big talent isn’t so big… That’s for the amateur hour.
January 28th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Further to the above:
I didn’t say that everyone gets somewhere at the same time or level. But without a sticktoit attitude, nothing happens. That goes to character. Same as in everything else. There is of course an element of luck. O’Brien had that.
January 28th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Lizabeth Scott is often mentioned as a primary example of someone whose career was destroyed by revelations in Confidential Magazine…
January 28th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Rick
I’ve heard that as well, and I’ve always assumed it to be true.
January 28th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
I think O’Brien is rated exactly as he should be. A decent actor with limited range. He was perfect for the fifties noir and mysteries, but I have seen little else that impressed me one way or the other. He played the client in THE OUTSIDER TV movie I reviewed recently. He was believable but hardly note worthy. He played the part like he had played so many other roles before.
January 28th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Lizabeth Scott is alive and might at this stage care to discuss her career. There is a lady named Laura Wagner who seems to have good take on most of the people in films of the past. Probably the go to person.
January 28th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
I’d love it if Laura Wagner were to write about Lizabeth Scott. I’d read it and believe every word of it. She’s an absolute wonder in the world of film writing, especially when so many hatchet jobs and poorly researched books get published.
January 28th, 2012 at 11:55 pm
I subscribe to the magazine, CLASSIC IMAGES, and the best thing each month is Laura Wagner’s column, “Book Points”. Many of her book reviews have been reprinted in her book, LET ME TELL YOU HOW I REALLY FEEL…