Last I saw, Don put the poisoned milk back in the icebox, as he was taking Kate out to dinner. And she never got her dinner, because Don was knocked out and told her they'd take a rain check. She obviously didn't drink it since she showed up at the end. So what happened to the milk?
shareHmmm, that's good. I'd not thought about that! It was probably that glass and the whole carton. I guess I did not think the milk was poisoned! Kate was so pretty, she reminds me of my mother in her youth.
shareI thought of the glass of milk, too. I thought she would return and end up drinking the milk, which obviously she didn't. If I had been the director I would have one line for Katherine at the end of the movie: "I'll be glad to get home — I would like to have a glass of milk." Of course, the movie goer would never know whether she did or not.
share[deleted]
It seems more like it was a just a trick on the audience to make us think it was in the milk, and later we see what she really does with it. At any rate it sure was fast-acting stuff, wasn't it?
You're a sharp observer! From the moment Jane first tells Danny she needs poison to kill her sister in law, it was clear he was in fact her intended victim. Because Jane tells one lie after another, you can fairly predict that nothing resembling the truth comes out of her mouth. She was waiting for Danny's usefulness to expire before using the poison on him. More proof that she intended Kathryn no harm: when she demands the ticket from Don, she does not particularly worry or care that Kathryn runs off to call the police. Regarding your point that the poison seemed to act fast: when Danny gave her the poison, he does say there is enough in the bottle to "kill all the people you don't like" and I believe the bottle was empty when it was later found. I think the detective turned it upside down and gave it a slight shake. A whole bottle of poison would likely kill quickly!
shareI don't think it ever did get poisoned; I think that was a red herring, though a darn good one.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mortal-Creeps-ebook/dp/B006LO3TCA
@LightningLad.
Actually I don't understand why it's even being questioned. We see Kathy pour the milk herself. There was no poison. That being said, my copy of the movie had parts missing. My copy never mentioned the poison until Danny showed up with it.
So, I agree that it was just a red herring.
Right, I never even got the idea the milk was poisoned - I don't even see the connection.
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
I agree LIghtingLad. I think the makers of this film wanted the viewers to think that the milk was poisoned. When really from the first encounter with Dan D, LBS,wanted DAN D dead. Great Film Noir. Storyline very good. Ending ok.
shareThe carton of milk would have had to be poisoned since we see the sister pour her own glass. Like many her I was still concerned that it had been done off screen somehow and the director obviously wanted us all to at least consider the possibility.
It was an effective red herring and we were all relieved to see her alive and somehow married at the end of the movie.
[deleted]
***minor spoilers***
I agree with opinions expressed here that the business with the glass of milk was a red herring. However … I was confused when, in the final confrontation scene in Mexico City, the Don Defore character mentions something to the effect that Kathy Palmer was one of the Lizabeth Scott character’s murder victims, along with, as he says, ‘your friend Danny Fuller’. Thus my surprise when Kathy shows up a few seconds later in the hotel lobby. Did I hear it wrong or was there just something I missed?
Aside: I semi-agree with one comment that it would have been more suitable for DeFore and Arthur Kennedy to have reversed roles. On the other hand, I’m a fan of casting against type, and in this context I think the actors and their roles worked just fine. BTW I thought for a time DeFore was a private eye or cop.