SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

blanche-2 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.

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'.

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.

bmacv If you like your film noir declawed and defanged, then Henry Levin's Two of a Kind is the movie for you. The vexing part is that it starts off strong, keeping the viewer off balance. Lizabeth Scott is scouring the continent looking for a particular man. Her quest takes her from a Chicago orphanage to the carny circuit to the Department of the Navy in Washington; she finally finds him, working in a bingo parlor, in Los Angeles where she started.He's Edmond O'Brien, and she's after him because he fits the bill for a con job that she and her lover Alexander Knox have been hatching for a long time. A wealthy old couple has nobody to leave their fortune to, because their son vanished when he was only three years old. Knox, their attorney, and Scott are grooming O'Brien as a ringer to show up and claim the inheritance, which they'll all split. There are a couple of catches. For one, the kid lost the tip of his finger in a childhood accident, but since he can cash in his own fingertip for millions, O'Brien falls in with the scheme. The other is that Scott, to Knox's chagrin, starts to go sweet on O'Brien.Up to the scene when Scott smashes O'Brien's finger in a car door, so he'll have reason to have the first two joints amputated, Two of a Kind promises to be low-down and unsentimental. But the movie's tone suffers an incapacitating fracture with the arrival of Terry Moore, as a niece of the old couple and the patsy through which O'Brien will secure his entry into the family's affections. (She's a vapid dilettante whose hobby is collecting `causes;' falling for no-good men and trying to reform them seems to be one of them.)O'Brien gains admittance to the family; his candor about his raffish past puts him in good stead. But when the pot of gold seems just within reach, the patriarch drops a bombshell: He won't leave a cent to his newfound son on the grounds that it would ruin him. This prompts Knox to rachet up the swindle to the next level - arranging an early send-off for his unwitting benefactors. Scott and O'Brien demur, but by this time they're in too deep....The dark tone of the opening returns briefly, but it's too late and doesn't last. Despite that brutal finger-smashing, there's a squeamishness to the movie that doesn't let it pursue the expectations it raises. The insipid ending opens regretful speculation: Whatever happened to the Lizabeth Scott of Too Late For Tears, the Edmond O'Brien of 711 Ocean Drive, and the Henry Levin who directed Night Editor?