Former department store clerk Susan(Gene Tierney)is in a dilemma. She helped swindle John Wheeler(Henry Fonda) out of $15,000. in a phony yacht sale. Now discovering that he is no millionaire, and had put his life savings into that boat, she feels sorry for him, and is developing a crush on him. She wants to give back his money without him learning that she was in on the swindle. How to do that? She conceives a plan to induce a casino manager(played by Henry Stephenson)to arrange things so that Fonda always wins at various games, while she pays the manager with her $15,000. Fonda figures he's so lucky or brilliant at gambling that he can quit his job as an accountant. But, then fellow swindler Laird Cregar pressures Stephenson to make Fonda lose it all so that he can get his $15,000. back. Tierney arrives again and after arguing at length with Cregar, once more pressures Stephenson to make Fonda win again. He again wins his $15,000. Meanwhile, Fonda has a detective working on catching Cregar, whom he believes is the only swindler. However, the detective eventually concludes there were 3 involved, and he knows which 3. The climax , near the end, is the most exciting part, with Tierney playing hide and seek with the detective at the airport, where she's trying to get a flight to CA before he catches her. She's also hiding from Tod: a friend of Fonda's, who is arriving on another plane and who thinks she will marry him soon. Tod and Fonda briefly meet and mention they will be getting married soon, unknowingly to the same girl.
On the surface, it's not a bad romantic farce, dare we say, a screwball comedy? However, there are too many glaring instances of required suspended disbelief for my liking, which downgrades it in my eyes. For example, why would Fonda hand over the $15,000. without a certificate of ownership shown or given? And, why would Cregar hand over the entire $15,000. swindled to Tierney: a newcomer, for 'safe' keeping? And just how did Stephenson manage to 'fix' the various gaming methods so that Fonda either won or lost all the time? And, how did that detective manage to conclude that there were 3 swindlers involved, instead of one, without talking to one of them?
Heavy heavy Cregar did an excellent job as a suave intelligent swindler. Too bad he would die 2 years later from complications of surgery necessitated by his crash dieting, trying to change his image from a heavy heavy....Perennial mother Spring Byington, hardly came across as a legitimate 3rd member of the swindlers....Senior Henry Stephenson was included in many a film as a grandfatherly figure.
On the surface, it's not a bad romantic farce, dare we say, a screwball comedy? However, there are too many glaring instances of required suspended disbelief for my liking, which downgrades it in my eyes. For example, why would Fonda hand over the $15,000. without a certificate of ownership shown or given? And, why would Cregar hand over the entire $15,000. swindled to Tierney: a newcomer, for 'safe' keeping? And just how did Stephenson manage to 'fix' the various gaming methods so that Fonda either won or lost all the time? And, how did that detective manage to conclude that there were 3 swindlers involved, instead of one, without talking to one of them?
Heavy heavy Cregar did an excellent job as a suave intelligent swindler. Too bad he would die 2 years later from complications of surgery necessitated by his crash dieting, trying to change his image from a heavy heavy....Perennial mother Spring Byington, hardly came across as a legitimate 3rd member of the swindlers....Senior Henry Stephenson was included in many a film as a grandfatherly figure.