When grifters and con artists collide!

Are Crooks Dishonest? (1918)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Harry Pollard, Bebe Daniels, and William Blaisdell
Director: Gil Pratt
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Two grifters (Lloyd and Pollard) engage a pair of fake spiritualists (Blaisedell and Daniels) in a battle of wits. Unfortunately, the grifters came to the fight unarmed.

"Are Crooks Dishonest?" is a fast-paced and uncomplicated film with the characters breezing through the antics and action with barely a wasted moment. A small part of me is annoyed by the way the second (and best) half of the film is set up by a couple extreme conincidences, but the entire cast is so charming and the film so much fun that I can overlook it. 

The best parts of this 14-minute film take place in the secret-passage laden, gadget-festooned "mystic temple" of Professor Goulash where William Blaisedell and Bebe Daniels bilk the gullible with their fake spiritualism, and where Lloyd and Pollard try co-opt their scam. From Lloyd using the trick doors to evade the police and an angry Professor Goulash; to Daniels setting out to turn the tables on Lloyd and Pollard when they try to con her out of money she stole from them earlier in the film; to Lloyd and Pollard just generally clowning around, it's all expertely executed and extremely funny.

Pollard and Daniels in particular get to shine in this film, as they share one of the funniest moments in it. Daniels is an absolute joy to watch in this film, and it's great the way her character is also the most fun of the four leads in the story. (Her reactions to the clumsy cons of Lloyd and Pollard are priceless.)

This entire film is embedded via YouTube below, and I strongly recommend you check it out. The time you spend with the rogues "Are Crooks Dishonest?" may be the best quarter-of-an-hour of you day! Even better, either the film has been carefully restored, or this was digitized from an amazingly well preserved copy, because few films over 100 years old are as clear and crisp as this one. (The look of the intertitles make me think it's the latter.)

Psychic or Psychotic? That's a question for a'Seance on a Wet Afternoon'

Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964)
Starring: Richard Attenborough, Kim Stanley, Judith Donner, Nanette Newman, Gerald Sim, and Patrick Magee
Director: Bryan Forbes
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A spineless husband (Attenborough) is bullied by his would-be-celebrity medium wife (Stanley) into kidnapping the daughter of a wealthy industrialist and demand a ransom, so she can use her "psychic powers to save the child. As he executes the hoax, he starts to fear that his increasingly delusional wife will cause the girl's death.

This is a slow-moving, deliberate, and decidedly talky psychological thriller where the fate of a naive child rests entirely in the hands of a man too weak to either stand up to his unhinged wife, or to get her the help she needs. In the end, his weakness brings a predictable doom down upon him, but the way its executed is brilliantly done.

With the only remotely action-oriented scenes being the ones surrounding a ransom drop and the nominal hero of this tragic story's efforts to avoid the police, this is a film that succeeds due to the superior acting abilities of the cast and the well-crafted script they had to work with. If a lesser performer than Kim Stanley--as a psychotic woman who has been encouraged in her delusions of a psychic gift since childhood and who now is driven to desperate measures to gain the recognition she believes she deserves--had been portraying the part, this is a character who would come across as ridiculous instead of sinister and obnoxious instead of pity-worthy, despite the depth of her madness and evil.

Similarly, if a lesser actor than Richard Attenborough had been playing the wimpy, conflicted Billy--with brilliant subtlety in contrast to Stanley's over-the-top, in-your-face performance--he would have come across as sniveling instead of distraught and disgustingly pathetic instead of deeply sympathetic.

Although this is film with virtually no likable characters--with the exception of the kidnap-victim played ably by cute child actress Judith Donner--Attenborough and Stanley nonetheless make us care about the people they are portraying. (The cops come across as basically unlikable, because as the film unfolds, we become emotionally invested with Billy and his wife, so we them from their point of view.) We want Billy to grow a spine and to do what he knows is right before it's too late for him and the innocent child.

And we are kept guessing up to the very last moment of the film whether Billy's weakness has turned him from kidnapper to killer, with one final tense scene and seance on the titular wet afternoon.

This is an excellent film that anyone who appreciates psychological thrillers should seek out.