Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Wyatt 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.

dougdoepke 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.

Robert J. Maxwell A feckless guy (O'Brian) is swept up in a scheme to have him pose as the long-lost son of a millionaire. This could easily have been a deep, dark exploration of human nature but it's not. Any doubts about its quality or nature are dispelled when O'Brian must have the tip of his little finger crushed and removed so as to resemble the hand of the absent millionaire's son.How is the scene handled? O'Brian puts his finger in the crook of the car door before Lizabeth Scott reduces it to pulp. He lights up a cigarette, puts it in his mouth, positions the finger, the door crushes it, and he squints a little bit.The whole movie is that way. Nothing is dealt with seriously. O'Brian is a madcap wisecracker. Everyone smiles happily as they discuss bilking the rich guy. The only true evildoer is Alexander Knox. Wily, you know, but no sense of humor. And the couple run off happily together.It's a divertimento. An hour and a half of amusement and slight interest.

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?