1931's 'Bad Sister' is most notable for it featuring the wonderful Bette Davis' screen debut. It was also interesting seeing Humphrey Bogart in a very early role, before he went on to much better things and there is good talent in the supporting cast too. Have always loved/appreciated films of all decades and genres, and many favourites are from the 1930s-70s. Was intrigued by 'Bad Sister's' premise too, not a new one and it was done much better more than once afterwards but intriguing still.
'Bad Sister' is not a bad film. It is watchable, but it's more a curio sort of film than a must watch. See it if you are interested in seeing Davis and Bogart so early on in their careers and want to see everything they ever did, but neither of them are at their best and generally 'Bad Sister' falls well short of being a great film. Or even a good film. Instead it falls in the average category, most of the performances being what redeems it and stops it from being bad.
Sidney Fox does a more than serviceable job as the titular character and brings some tension and allure, she doesn't come over as too histrionic and doesn't underplay either. Conrad Nagel doesn't come over as bland, despite his character being quite stock, and Bogart gives a good taste of what he became so good at later. The supporting cast fare even better, with typically reliable turns from Charles Winninger and ZaSu Pitts and a standout one from David Durand.
The film looks quite good too, not lavish but also not cheap. There is some nice photography and well crafted photography. There is some good tension later on.
Unfortunately, one of 'Bad Sister's' biggest disappointments is the waste of Davis. Her part is severely underwritten and it is overall such an unflattering representation of her. And it is not just because of how she is made up, but the whole performance has very little of what made her best work so great and what made her such a great actress and she looks stiff.
It is a shame too that the flaws don't stop there. The script rambles and is as creaky as old floorboards, also doing nothing to develop any of the characters. The direction is too often pedestrian which badly affects the pace. Something that drags increasingly in the second half. The story generally was very stagy and does nowhere near enough with its premise, making for a dull and static with not enough tension despite being promising to begin with. All capped off by a studio interference-like ending, that felt so tacked on and unrealistically pat.
On the whole, watchable but sadly not for the person that most will see this for. To be seen for curiosity value. 5/10
'Bad Sister' is not a bad film. It is watchable, but it's more a curio sort of film than a must watch. See it if you are interested in seeing Davis and Bogart so early on in their careers and want to see everything they ever did, but neither of them are at their best and generally 'Bad Sister' falls well short of being a great film. Or even a good film. Instead it falls in the average category, most of the performances being what redeems it and stops it from being bad.
Sidney Fox does a more than serviceable job as the titular character and brings some tension and allure, she doesn't come over as too histrionic and doesn't underplay either. Conrad Nagel doesn't come over as bland, despite his character being quite stock, and Bogart gives a good taste of what he became so good at later. The supporting cast fare even better, with typically reliable turns from Charles Winninger and ZaSu Pitts and a standout one from David Durand.
The film looks quite good too, not lavish but also not cheap. There is some nice photography and well crafted photography. There is some good tension later on.
Unfortunately, one of 'Bad Sister's' biggest disappointments is the waste of Davis. Her part is severely underwritten and it is overall such an unflattering representation of her. And it is not just because of how she is made up, but the whole performance has very little of what made her best work so great and what made her such a great actress and she looks stiff.
It is a shame too that the flaws don't stop there. The script rambles and is as creaky as old floorboards, also doing nothing to develop any of the characters. The direction is too often pedestrian which badly affects the pace. Something that drags increasingly in the second half. The story generally was very stagy and does nowhere near enough with its premise, making for a dull and static with not enough tension despite being promising to begin with. All capped off by a studio interference-like ending, that felt so tacked on and unrealistically pat.
On the whole, watchable but sadly not for the person that most will see this for. To be seen for curiosity value. 5/10