A hapless husband searches for buried treasure at a dude ranch; meanwhile, his wife wants a divorce and bank robbers want him dead.



(screenplay), (screenplay) (as Arthur Ross) | 1 more credit »




Complete credited cast:
Eddie Roberts
Bunny Wells
Madeleine Dumont
Matt McHugh ...
William (Bill) Dumont
Sally Beaver
Sheriff Johnson (as Jason Robards)
Hank - Deputy Sheriff


Jack Carroll and his wife have a phony argument to teach their friends a lesson, but when he makes a crack that her mother is a "fat porpoise," they fight for real and she leaves him. To make matters worse, Jack runs into two men just before they don masks and rob a bank. Now he is the only one who can identify them. In spite of all this, he takes a vacation in Reno; he is convinced he can use a metal detector to find buried treasure and realize his dream of starting a rabbit farm. Coincidentally, the bank robbers make their getaway to Reno and check into the same dude ranch as Jack. In fact, they bury a suitcase full of the loot and who should find it but hapless Jack himself. This is the just beginning of Jack's troubles, as he finds himself at odds with a deputy sheriff, a roughneck sailor and a gun moll who tries (for complicated reasons) to convince the police she is Mrs. Carroll. Worst of all, Jack's wife arrives and wants a divorce. Before this mess is cleared up, Jack will ... Written by J. Spurlin

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis


IT'S A LAUGH-SPREE IN RENO! (original ad - all caps) See more »







Release Date:

10 December 1946 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

Falsa Felicidade  »

Company Credits

Production Co:

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs


Sound Mix:

(RCA Sound System)

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1
See  »

Did You Know?


When Eleanor Carroll checks in to the Bar Nothing Ranch, she is told that Mr. Carroll (her husband, Jack) is just down the hall in Room 222. However, when later we see Jack entering and exiting his room, the numbers on the door read 225. Actually, it appears that room 225 belongs to the female bank robber and her 2 partners in crime and she just pulled Jack into this room once and he later exited from it. See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

You're watching this on the TV, right?
2 June 2005 | by (New York) – See all my reviews

If you've ever wondered where the sit com comes from look no further. This little programmer, which clocks in at almost exactly an hour, is nothing more than a series of set gags (or situations) which the lead players have to play out. The main characters exist as the narrative thread to hold together the otherwise unrelated gags. This is virtually a pilot for early fifties sit coms lacking only a laugh track and commercial breaks. It reminds me of Sam Goldwyn's premonition about television: Why should people go out and pay to see bad movies when they can stay home and watch them for free.

Jack Haley is the lead here and Anne Jeffreys, before her fondly remembered sit com fame in TOPPER, is the wife who phones in her straight role. (Actually if you watch those Toppers today you discover that she has zero acting ability and is barely able to pull a face as the director clears the deck to line up one of her high school level reaction shots. Really public access grade comedy acting.) The script so convolutely turns in on itself that long time partners Alan Carney and Wally Brown never appear in a scene together. There is a doubling and even tripling of that old Checkov quote about the pistol seen on the mantelpiece in act one having to be fired in act three. Since the whole plot is: set up - gag, set up - gag, it should come as no surprise that the ending has somehow, in an almost astronomically surrealist sort of way, set up in the first scene. It's not done consciously or artistically, as when Laurel and Hardy carrying a piano meet an ape while crossing a tight rope across some mountains or just about anything done by Fields, but because of a certain smooth professional incompetency. It leads to pretty much the same place, however.

Once upon a time, one or another of the short subject manufacturers would turn out short comedies driven by one personality like Leon Errol (or Edgar Kennedy) and this film is just an afterthought wedged in between that era and television. (I have subsequently learned that the film's chief writer, one Charles E. Roberts, was the writer of the Leon Errol and Edgar Kennedy shorts and many others too. Apparently, this was "his thing".) I mean, Carney and Brown could have been paired up, but it is possible they were in an earlier version of the script, as a more comical threat, but a different direction called for a different script and their pairing would have produced less menace in their roles and so their roles were switched around for a straighter menace for the leads to play off of. As long as they were already under contract. Just switch. Maybe. But its all that arbitrary.

The rating of this film when I saw it was a five which is about right. It aims low and hits its mark and there is some nostalgia value and its no more a waste of time than most TV today anyway. And its free.

3 of 9 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Discuss Vacation in Reno (1946) on the IMDb message boards »

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for: