Martha Wilcox This film is terribly uninteresting. The characters are one dimensional and the script lacks depth. It doesn't look as though the writer has made any effort to engage the audience with a believable storyline or interesting characters. The only reason why I watched it is because George Sanders is in it. When he is presented with a good script under a good director his performance really soars. This film has neither a good script nor a good director. The performances at best are mediocre, and even Sanders without a good script and director shows the holes in his acting. The film is utter crap, and the only thing it is good for is to be relegated to the dustbin.

kidboots From the compelling opening scene (the best in the movie), Fleg (George Sanders) an expert forger of rare books is after a valuable edition of "Hamlet". When the library curator jokes "over my dead body", after Fleg has asked if he may take it home, Fleg is happy to oblige. If only the rest of the movie had lived up to the opening but, unfortunately, it doesn't. His partner in crime is Myra (Gail Patrick) a rare book appraiser and she has been busy trying to convince Martin Cleaver (Sidney Blackmer) that "Hamlet" is the genuine article and a steal at $20,000. But Cleaver is dangerous, he, in turn, is intending to sell the book to Nazi Generals (Goerhing, Himmler etc).Most of the movie is set in the public library, where Fleg takes control by masquerading as a police officer (and a very commanding one) and ordering the rare books to be put under "police protection". This was the directorial debut of John Larkin, who also wrote the story. To his credit he achieved more excitement from a library setting than most directors got from a whole war and it is a pity he only directed two more films (one was a short subject).Sanders and Patrick had screen chemistry together - with their Freudian comments about their need for danger and "You enjoy being hurt", but once Richard Denning entered as a Detective, the dark originality took a back seat to conventionality. Even my eyebrows were raised as Denning, in an effort to find the priceless lost books started flinging valuable books off the shelves. Then Lynne Roberts appeared as a patriotic librarian waiting for her Johnny, who is serving overseas. A different ending may have been viable, but in production code films of the 40s all offenders had to be punished so Patrick would never have been able to walk away. The fact that there was no romance between Denning and Roberts provided a patriotic subplot - so at the end he could upbraid Patrick's duplicity with a speech about how "there are plenty of girls like Kay in America today" etc, pointing out that she is loyal and true to her country and her man. Maybe the film meant to highlight that, in those fearful times, Patrick may have been the real villain, someone who has no loyalty and is not to be trusted.Gail Patrick began her career as a colourless ingenue, but, after "My Man Godfrey", broke the mold and from then on always seemed to find work as a haughty femme fatale. Lon McCallister had a very brief part as Freddie the library stacker. Theodore Von Eltz who, in my opinion, was a dead ringer for Edmund Lowe, had a brief scene in Denning's office.Recommended.

dbborroughs George Saunders is a forger who steals a rare copy of Hamlet, killing a guard in the process. Months later an associate of his is selling forgeries of the book for great sums of money. One of the forgeries is sold to a man working for the Nazi's. Not happy at being taken the Nazi front man insists on getting his money back, at the same time an investigator working for one of the other swindled clients shows up. The middle woman in an effort to keep herself safe begins to play all sides against each other and sets up a meeting at the New York public library between various parties, however as people begin to die, the library is locked down and more murders (and perhaps some rare book larceny) seem to be close to happening. Complex murder mystery is a good little thriller with a great cast (Saunders is joined by Richard Denning and a cast of solid supporting players) If there is a flaw the film is almost too complicated with plots with in plots and everyone pretty much out for themselves. The layers of theft, forgery, murder and war time intrigue (this was 1942) are almost too many for the brief 70 minute running time. Still its an enjoyable little film with a darkness and sense of inescapable doom for some of the characters that clearly marks this as one of the first film noirs. Until Denning shows up we're down among some charming thieves, whom we like, perhaps even more than the hero, but its clear from word and deed this is not going to have a completely happy ending, and they know it, even if they fight it. A good little film that's worth searching out.

tedg Toward the end of the great period of experimentation, we have some experiments in excess.The story here is about four great minds colliding, each intending to outsmart and probably kill the others.One is a master forger who steals great books in order to sell copies. At the opening of the film, he steals a unique "Hamlet."A second is a master detective, whose mere name throws everyone into a guarded position and further intrigue.Then you have a (presumably) beautiful and intelligent woman, initially the forger's mistress and assistant. She plays all sides against the others for her benefit.And because the US was at war with evil Germany, we have an evil German and his German henchmen. He was an unhappy customer of a fraudulent copy of the purloined Hamlet. (Interestingly, the so called Burbage Hamlet was itself stolen.) His purchase was with Nazi money that itself was stolen.Witnessing the whole thing is the sweet, sweet fiancé of a GI.These four arrange to be in a grand public library (London?) just at closing time. What we see is a game of wits. People die. Books are stolen and restolen. Its a great idea, and perhaps in better hands it would have worked. But this is bizarrely confusing and uncinematic. Its interesting only in its ambitions, which as high as the best con movie.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.