CrawlerChunky
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
Freeman
This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.
Kayden
This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama
gavin6942
An American Treasury agent (Dennis O'Keefe) teams up with a Scotland Yard inspector (Philip Friend) to track down a group of thieves that are creating artificial diamonds out of sugar.This film seems to be a bit of a mystery. The BFI considers it lost, despite prints being readily available -- even on YouTube and Netflix. And then the director is a bit of a debate. Whether the print is the American or English one, the director name is switched. The film itself does not seem to be different in different prints.The plot is pretty good, and the idea of synthetic diamonds is interesting. One has to wonder... could synthetic diamonds be made so well that there would be no real chemical difference?
blanche-2
Likable actor Dennis O'Keefe made a couple of films in England in the '50s. "The Diamond Wizard" from 1954 is his baby all the way - he wrote the original story using a pseudonym (Jonathan Rix), he directed it, and he starred in it.O'Keefe plays Joe Dennison, a Treasury Dept. investigator in England trying to find a gang who stole a million dollars from a treasury vault and also killed his partner. One of the criminals apparently is in England to buy fake diamonds, though they realize he must be coming by ship because he as of yet isn't in England.The Scotland Yard inspector, McClaren, is working with Dennison on the case while also searching for Dr. Eric Miller, an atomic scientist who has disappeared. His daughter, who came to England to join her father, has a broach with phony diamonds, made by her father. So is he somehow involved with the thieves? This isn't a very interesting film until the end, where the location is an incredible castle. The whole end moves at a great pace, is suspenseful and atmospheric. I wish the whole movie had been that way. It's odd in the way it starts out as somewhat light, with both men competing for the missing man daughter's affections, and then has this big ending. Both lead actors, O'Keefe and Philip Friend (the inspector) are very charming.The story is derivative, but I love the idea of the phony diamonds -- there are so many of these today, and they even mention Moissan, whose product, Moissanite is available (and expensive) today.
MartinHafer
IMDb Trivia: One of the "75 Most Wanted" films listed by the British Film Institute as "Missing, believed lost".I saw this film on Netflix, so apparently it is NOT lost--at least not any more.Dennis O'Keefe plays a Treasury Department agent who has been sent to Britain. This is because there may be an organization that has learned to produce perfect diamonds--ones that are so perfect it could destroy the market. The trail leads to a scientist--a scientist who has disappeared. Although the chances are ridiculous, the wanted man's daughter just happens to be a lady that the Treasury man was dating! He's afraid to tell her about everyone's suspicions about her father and he and Scotland Yard are baffled.This is a decent British version of film noir. While it's not quite as dark as many films in the genre, it is tough and violent and enjoyable. However, it does start off very slowly--so keep watching and don't give up on this one--it's worth it.If you do watch a couple things you should note. First, at one point in the film they talk about a remarkable fake diamond being produced in 1924. While it was believed in 1954 that this was true, apparently this was a hoax and that part isn't mentioned in the film. Second, when O'Keefe is chased by a truck he's knocked onto the cobblestones. Watch closely--these cobblestones bounce--revealing they are clearly props.
lemon_magic
I liked this movie just fine, but there's no real reason to seek it out - it echoes and rehashes the plot points of dozens of earlier films (and even films about using artificial diamonds to control the economy).The most unusual thing about it is the filmmakers decision to incorporate 3D into the film...which seems absolutely pointless given the prosaic nature of the material and the sturdy, workmanlike lighting, set design and photography on display here. I saw the "2D" version on a TV (of course), and it was pretty obvious where the 3D shots were supposed to go...and they wouldn't have added a thing to the viewing experience except maybe for sheer novelty value.Still, for all its limitations, there's a lot of talent and craftsmanship to be found - the interplay between the hero and his British counterpart is fun to watch; the actors keep up the pace in dialog and exposition heavy scenes that might have otherwise been a drag; the two women in the case are respectively snazzy and adorable; and there are a couple of setups and shots (especially the final chase and shoot out on a wooden escalator) that Hitchcock himself might have approved.The movie's almost total obscurity is perhaps undeserved...a decent time waster, in any case.
