Dangerous (1935)
7/10
A decent film, but Bette Davis was right--it was far from her best performance and the film was only a bit better than average
4 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I had a hard time deciding whether to score this film 6 or 7. Regardless, it's a slightly better than average film that inexplicably earned its star, Bette Davis, an Oscar for Best Actress. While I am a HUGE fan of Ms. Davis' work, she made many films that were better than this and her performance, while generally good, is a bit too melodramatic to have earned this award. As she later said, she felt this award was a way to make it up to her for not even being nominated the year before for OF HUMAN BONDAGE. A few of her better performances were in THE LETTER, LITTLE FOXES, JEZEBEL (for which she DID win another Oscar), DARK VICTORY, NOW VOYAGER and many others. This award was, in the case of DANGEROUS, a gift.

Franchot Tone plays a big-time architect who spots a faded stage star (Davis) who is down and out and nurses her back to health at his country home. Amazingly, her alcoholism seems to vanish in a matter of a day or two and Tone becomes smitten for this rather surly lady--even though RICH and NICE Margaret Lindsay is already engaged to him. Choosing Davis seemed like choosing a McDonald's Happy Meal over A T-Bone steak from the nicest restaurant in town! The film is diverting and interesting but seldom does it seem credible. You just can't imagine a supposedly smart and talented man like Franchot Tone's character throwing his life away so foolishly nor can you imagine Davis' character feeling selfless and driving into the tree towards the end. Both seemed like soap opera, not a serious drama. While these soapy elements are rather exciting, never do they seem remotely like behaviors of supposedly sane individuals. Because of that, the film can never be seen as great or even near great--just entertaining fluff.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed