A trio of con-men lead by a lonesome swindler must deal with their job and family pressures.
Bosley Crowther called it "a cheap crime thriller." He added, "For this film, which is often mentioned in estimations of the master's works, is notable as a false step in his movement toward the development of a type of story material ... But it contains some very strong Fellini phases and accumulations of moods that make it well worth seeing. And it is generally well played ... Broderick Crawford's performance as the swindler is heavy and sodden, with a particular flair for postured histrionics in the swindle scenes." I suspect that opinions have changed since Crowther's day and people are generally more positive. It may be a "cheap crime thriller", but I happened to really enjoy that aspect -- the three cons who are so depraved they will even pretend to be the Church to rob from the poor. And then we get the beautiful contrast of their home lives. These are not three evil bachelors, but men who have wives and children. Does that make their crime worse?
Bosley Crowther called it "a cheap crime thriller." He added, "For this film, which is often mentioned in estimations of the master's works, is notable as a false step in his movement toward the development of a type of story material ... But it contains some very strong Fellini phases and accumulations of moods that make it well worth seeing. And it is generally well played ... Broderick Crawford's performance as the swindler is heavy and sodden, with a particular flair for postured histrionics in the swindle scenes." I suspect that opinions have changed since Crowther's day and people are generally more positive. It may be a "cheap crime thriller", but I happened to really enjoy that aspect -- the three cons who are so depraved they will even pretend to be the Church to rob from the poor. And then we get the beautiful contrast of their home lives. These are not three evil bachelors, but men who have wives and children. Does that make their crime worse?