Reckless Decision (1933) User Reviews

Small movie inside a ponderous frame

[CatherineYronwode · 4/10 · 10 April 2007]

The movie inside this movie -- "Marriage on Approval" -- is a fairly straightforward moral tale of too-strict parents (in this case a preacher-father) forcing their children to rebel against them in order to have any kind of pleasure at all, and, not too unexpectedly, the children rebelling to near-lethal levels (in this case with Prohibition-era alcohol and secret-marriage sex). However, minorly predictable and pleasing as "Marriage on Approval" might have been, someone saw fit to encase it in a straight jacket made of the densest theatrical lard ever seen -- an unbelievable, set-bound, and hammily acted framing sequence that ultimately makes no sense, because since "Marriage on Approval" turns out happily, there is no reason for all the pissing and moaning of the actress who impersonates the star of "Marriage on Approval" during the frame bits. (This quibble will only make sense if you see the film, but to explain it any other way would be to venture into spoiler-land.) Also, for the record, the sound effects of the rainstorm in the framing sequence have got to be the worst rain storm sound effects i have ever heard, on radio, television, or in the movies. I CAN DO BETTER RAIN STORM SOUND EFFECTS WITH MY OWN MOUTH! Listen: Vrrrrroooooooiiiiinnng Vrrrrroooooiiiinnnnng Vrrrrroooooiiiiinnng. See? I told you so!

No writer or director credited. It's no wonder.

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 4/10 · 8 August 2013]

After learning that a lost short film (similarly titled Tell Your Children, in which Alfred Hitchcock had worked in the art department) had scenes edited into this film, the only remnants of that film, I searched for it, found it, watched it, and ... was I ever disappointed. The footage from that film apparently amounts to a handful of seconds'worth of footage, and it consists of someone opening a Bible and leafing through it, and a scene of some girls riding bikes along a residential street. It is obvious those shots were taken from a different film, as they are of a different, more high contrast film stock, and have a choppy look to them.

The rest of the film tells the tale, in laborious detail, of strictly conservative religious parents attempting to keep their daughter away from the likes of marijuana and staying out late.

Stage-bound melodrama, might be worthy of watching just for a couple of unintended laughs at the expense of the ultra straight-laced screenplay, featuring putrid dialogue delivered with acting which can be best described as stiff-as-a-board; puzzling use of flashbacks; and the creepy and preachy dad with seemingly painted-on eyebrows and moustache (who says to his wife, who is growing impatient: "Keep your pants, your shoes, keep them on!") ..... and its abrupt, awkward ending.

AN UPDATED COMMENT

[rsoonsa · 2/10 · 6 December 2003]

AN UPDATED COMMENT This is an exploitation film produced by John Noble for High-Art Pictures, and has also been released with two other titles: PROTECT YOUR DAUGHTERS and SUSPICIOUS MOTHERS, highly cut while incorporating a large portion from an earlier feature from the same year: MARRIAGE ON APPROVAL, also a pre-Code work, mild as it may be in delineating the differences between improper and socially correct behaviour. The premier historian of American sound film during the period 1929/60, Les Adams, who possesses the work's original pressbook, supplies this data, and adds that the production of MARRIAGE was most likely sold for television reproduction c. 1949 and that the alternated titles subsequently appeared. The long first scene is obviously a latter-day appendage and is marked by such poorly structured action and patently didactic dialogue that one is apt to view with cheer the subsequent evidence of a fall from grace on the part of teenaged Beth (Barbara Kent), daughter of a preacher (William Farnum), at the hands of her lover and friends. The acting is variable in quality, as Kent, Doris Eaton, Edward Woods, and Don Dillaway contribute their best considering the material, while Adele Riggs is excruciatingly bad with her delivery, but it all matters little, as the lesson to be delivered to the audience is lost as this morality play wobbles to a weakly happy ending.

A rather strange message about sex and teens...

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 22 September 2012]

I love how this exploitation film was made by an outfit called 'High Arts Pictures'--that's a laugh! It's included as a bonus feature on the equally awful "A Virgin in Hollywood"--from Alpha Video.

The film is trying to send a message to allow your teens freedom. But it also does so in a rather muddled fashion and with excessively poor production values. It begins with a mother arguing with her wild daughter about her wicked ways. However, the father intervenes and tells his prudish wife a story about a family member who was brought up in an overly strict home--and how it led to disaster. It seems the girl was so repressed by her father that she was pushed into rebellion--and a HUGE mistake she'd forever regret. Then begins a long story about a nice girl gone bad--all due to her evil father. It's all a bit confusing--after all, some watching the film might get the message that kids should be left to do what they like--that way they'll make the best choices (I can't see any potential problem with that!!!).

Compared to many exploitation films of the age (such as "Sex Madness" and "Reefer Madness"), "Reckless Decision" is actually amazingly restrained and watchable. While its message is strange, it avoids the usual tactic of saying any minor slip leads to a life of depravity! Now I am NOT saying it's a good film...just good compared to other films of the genre--most of which were just plain awful and unintentionally funny. This one isn't awful nor funny--just cheap and dull.

An hour of finger wagging and pearl clutching.

[mark.waltz · 2/10 · 21 May 2021]

While the soap opera elements of this exploitation drama are campy (a leading female character by the name of Doris Devereaux, can you get any more soapy than that?), the writing of this film which has a strange history leaves a lot to be desired. It's a preachy movie about the wages of sin, pointing the finger at teenagers of the early 30's (particularly Thoroughly Modern Doris and her rebellious sister Helen), on the vices of drinking and partying and pre-marital relations. Perhaps a retort to some of the free living pre-code films of the era, this has a minister as the moral compass of the community, his character seemingly not even listed in the credits, also the father of a teen girl who is very troubled, creating the stereotype of the Minister's daughter gone bad.

The acting is absolutely dreadful, monotone and dull, and the sound effects utilized over a sudden storm sounds more like police and ambulance sirens than rain and wind. Somebody was obviously winding the wind machine a bit too fast. The storyline isn't really even all that interesting, the excessive number of characters confusing to try to keep track of, and a bunch of sanctimonious minor characters wagging their fingers and clutching their pearls tighter than a Long Island society matron. If it wasn't for the unintentional laughs, I would have given this fiasco a complete bomb.

MADE FOR INSTRUCTIVE PURPOSES.

[rsoonsa · 2/10 · 24 July 2002]

This is an exploitation film produced by John Noble for High-Art Pictures, and has also been released with two other titles: PROTECT YOUR DAUGHTERS and SUSPICIOUS MOTHERS, highly cut while incorporating a large portion from an earlier feature, unfortunately not identified but also a pre-Code work, mild as it may be in delineating the differences between improper and socially correct behaviour. The long first scene is obviously a latter-day appendage and is marked by such poorly structured action and patently didactic dialogue that one is apt to view with cheer the subsequent evidence of a fall from grace on the part of teenaged Beth (Barbara Kent), daughter of a preacher (William Farnum), at the hands of her lover and friends. The acting is variable in quality, as Kent, Doris Eaton, Edward Woods, and Don Dillaway contribute their best considering the material, while Adele Riggs is excruciatingly bad with her delivery, but it all matters little, as the lesson to be delivered to the audience is lost as this morality play wobbles to a weakly happy ending.

clunky yet fascinating early 30's exploitation patchwork

[django-1 · 7/10 · 10 January 2004]

This feature, known as both PROTECT YOUR DAUGHTERS and RECKLESS DECISION (the latter is the title on my copy), features a frame story--shot on one small set-up with a static camera and actors talking in the manner of the padded footage in a Jerry Warren film such as ATTACK OF THE MAYAN MUMMY--and a core story from another film that takes up about 75% of the film. Interestingly, the credits contain the names of some of the actors in the frame story as well as actors CUT from the frame story! And the actors in the main story, including well-known William Farnum, are NOT listed in the credits. There's not much sleaze here if that's what you are looking for--this is even tamer than the sound version of ROAD TO RUIN. The credit for photographer Frank Zukor (aka Zucker) leads me to believe that the frame story may have been a NYC-based Bud Pollard production (Pollard is best-known today for his 1940's Black-cast films and for being president of the Screen Directors' Guild). Zukor shot Pollard's VICTIM OF PERSECUTION and some Yiddish-language features. Perhaps some Yiddish film scholar can enlighten us about the origin of this film. There's undoubtedly an interesting story behind this strange patchwork feature( While we're discussing exploitation films, I believe SEX MADNESS was also made by people who otherwise made Yiddish films). However, this film will be of interest ONLY to the serious student of exploitation films or odd patchwork features such as, say, GUN CARGO or CALL OF THE ROCKIES.

Dull

[Michael_Elliott · 29 February 2008]

Protect Your Daughter (1933)

** (out of 4)

Listen up all you mothers. Did you know that if your daughter was a virgin yet you suspected her of being a whore and told her about it, the virgin daughter would "put the game in the name" and become a whore. This is a tragic, hard hitting and emotionally devastating drama that packs a punch like no other film from this era. Nah, I'm just bullshitting but this is a decent exploitation film that actually has a decent story. There aren't any over the top laughs but it's still watchable.

THE 'GOOD' OLD DAYS

[tonycrnk · 7/10 · 2 October 2023]

As vintage exploitation films go, this one is pretty good at giving us a look at 1930's mores and attitudes. This is something these cheaply made melodramas expressed more frankly than the A product from the major studios, which is what makes them fascinating despite their lack of slick production values. If anything, it only adds a crude sense of realism befitting the sleazy subject matter.

It's also interesting to see actors like silent screen veteran William Farnum and Eddie Woods, who appeared in many reputable films during this era, notably as James Cagney's pal in THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931).