Armored Car Robbery (1950)

Directed by Richard Fleischer; produced by Herman Schlom

A cold but intelligent criminal (William Talman) plans the heist of half a million dollars from an armoured car but, during the robbery, the coincidental proximity of a police detective (Charles McGraw) upsets all his precautions. Though the thieves make their get-away, the little things that always go wrong to well-laid schemes bring the cops ever closer to their quarry.

A straightforward heist film, Armored Car Robbery’s title says it all. And, like the title, the plot is quite unadorned. There are a few double crosses, and it’s interesting that the police investigation is driven more by the criminals’ bad luck than by anything else. But the movie is pretty standard fare.

The acting is competent. William Talman seemed to make a career of playing villains (eg. in the enjoyable City That Never Sleeps, reviewed a few weeks ago, and the excellent The Hitch-Hiker) before taking on the role of the hapless but well-intentioned prosecutor in the television series Perry Mason. His villains are usually cold-hearted killers who nonetheless have attractive girlfriends tucked away somewhere. He plays the part well. McGraw also was often on the wrong side of the law in his movies (witness The Killers) but now and then would be chasing the bad guys (as in The Narrow Margin, also directed by Fleischer). His low, growly voice and the roles he played reminds me of a later generation’s Robert Loggia. Unfortunately, in this film, there is little for McGraw to do but act gruff, though he has a good scene following a fellow policeman’s murder.

The direction is good, but Fleischer would do better. The script has some moments: as mentioned above, in a scene between McGraw and a cop’s widow, the latter seems to have to comfort the former more than the other way around. This, though, may be indicative of the era more than the characters.

The trouble with Armored Car Robbery may be its leanness. This sometimes serves a movie well. A simple story, shorn of unnecessary embellishments, a short running time, curt direction, all may be ingredients in a nearly perfect movie. Here, though, they give the impression of inconsequence, of something over and done with, without much left behind to prove it was there. Certainly, at 67 minutes, the film won’t take up much of your time. Even so, there are many better films – or parts of better films – a viewer can see with that hour and a bit.