Benutzerrezensionen

1931's "The Bad Sister" is chiefly remembered as being the film debut of screen legend Bette Davis, who spent a few despondent months at Universal that year before finding greener pastures at Warner Bros. The title role, however, went to Sidney Fox, also making her movie debut, but in a quirk of fate, Universal's star push on her behalf instead of Davis resulted in Sidney's career ending in three years, while 'the good sister' was being hailed as a star. Not only did Universal miss the boat on these two actresses, they failed to see the potential in 4th billed Humphrey Bogart, who followed Davis to Warners playing essentially the same role he does here, a smooth-talking, big city con man who preys upon the citizens of Central City Ohio, with Miss Fox forging her father's signature to cinch the swindle. Top billing goes to doctor Conrad Nagel, naively in love with 'bad sister' Sidney, when it's 'good sister' Bette secretly in love with him. Bette herself despaired over this film, convinced she had no future in pictures; the virginal 23 year old is effectively deglamorized, dressed like a grape picker's daughter, hair tightly bound in a bun, yet those 'Bette Davis Eyes' remain intact, yearning desire behind them. I myself was curious to see more of the diminutive Sidney Fox, inexplicably top billed over Bela Lugosi in 1932's "Murders in the Rue Morgue" (reuniting her with Bert Roach), but remained entranced by Bette Davis instead; and to think Carl Laemmle Jr. famously said of her in this film, "she has about as much sex appeal as Slim Summerville!" (he too is in the picture).

How often do you see Conrad Nagel and Sidney Fox billed above Humphrey Bogart and Bette Davis? Probably just this one time, and at Universal of all places. You know someone is trouble (Sidney Fox as Marianne) when she sleeps in a bed surrounded by pictures of herself. Marianne is nasty to the servant Minnie, played to perfection by the marvelous ZaSu Pitts, manipulates her father, and uses men like they are a collective escalator. "Good sister" Laura (Bette Davis) is in love with one of Marianne's beaus (Conrad Nagel as Dr. Dick Lindley), although she keeps it to herself and her diary. Then there is the pesky baby brother who, as it turns out, does have a heart and a conscience in spite of his trouble-making ways, but frankly, I would have shipped him off to military school if I had the funds. Charles Winninger and Emma Dunn round out the cast as Mr. and Mrs. Madison, the parents of this unruly brood. This film has all the earmarks of being your standard family melodrama...and then HE pulls into town - Humphrey Bogart as Valentine Corliss. He has come to town to start a factory, pushes hard for Pa Madison to help him with his venture and get his friends to invest in the venture as well, and sweeps Marianne off her feet with his man-of-the world ways. I'll let you watch and see how this all pans out.

All I can say is wow, could Universal have made Bette Davis look any more unappealing? She spends the entire film dressed up like she was in the first half hour of "Now Voyager" minus the weight problem and minus ten years. Her hair is in an unattractive bun, she has on no make-up, she wears loose fitting matronly dresses, and the only way they could have made it worse is to put sunglasses on those beautiful trademark saucer eyes of hers.

I'd highly recommend this one, not so much for a plot that is different, but to see some great performances by two stars that didn't have long in the limelight (Nagel and Fox), and see two of Warner Brothers' biggest stars in the most unlikely of places and roles.

The Bad Sister (1931) features the debut of Bette Davis. While Ms. Davis is given the good sister role with little to do in the movie, Sidney Fox takes the title role. The movie is thoroughly entertaining and showcases some great performances (David Durand and Zasu Pitts). The worse part is the end of the movie. When the climax arises, everything is then resolved in 3 minutes with some sort of Deux Ex Machina. Nevertheless, it is worth watching if only for the early appearences of Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart.

Bette's first picture is a by the numbers affair. She seems a bit stiff at times as if she's still getting use to the camera, an unease that would vanish quickly. It's not hard to see why she was referred to as the little brown wren when she debuted. Her hairstyle and wardrobe are dowdy, even more so when you consider she's playing the younger "good" sister. Universal never did understand her appeal so it's fortunate that she didn't remain there long.

A word or two about the title, Sidney Fox the bad sister of the title, is more foolish and naive then really bad in the fashion that Bette would one day make the word mean. Fox was getting the big push from Universal but she makes little impact in the lead. Humphrey Bogart also just starting out is slender and attractive and even though his character has a bit more depth it's still a stock one. A good supporting cast, including Charles Winninger and ZaSu Pitts, helps but this is worth seeing only as a document of Davis's first film and early Bogie.

The Bad Sister (1931)

** (out of 4)

This melodrama from Universal focuses on the Madison family. Father (Charles Winninger) doesn't know how to say no to his oldest daughter Marianne (Sidney Fox) and this continues when she brings home Valentine (Humphrey Bogart), a man promising to bring a factory to their small town but we all know something isn't right. Well, everyone but the Madison family.

THE BAD SISTER has pretty much been forgotten to time, which is a little strange since it features a few legends in the cast. If anyone discusses the movie today it's because it features the screen debut of future legend Bette Davis. Being able to see Davis and Bogart together, a few years before THE PETRIFIED FOREST, will be enough of a reason for film buffs to check this out but sadly the overall film isn't all that memorable.

Obviously this here was meant to be a morality tale but my problem with it is that it's just 100% melodrama without any bite. The film never even attempts to do anything really dramatic as we're basically treated to some bad characters who have nothing taught to them and in the end the screenplay lets them off the hook. I'm really not sure what the point of the movie was but the story isn't all that compelling and it certainly struggles to hold your attention through the 64-minute running time.

Winninger is good in the role of the father and I'd argue that Zasu Pitts adds some entertainment even though her role as the maid isn't all that great. Sidney Fox turns in good performance as the title sister but the screenplay doesn't do her character any favors. Davis is good in her role as well even though you can tell that there's a fire in her that isn't able to come out in a role like this. It's a bit strange to see Bogart in a role like this but it's still fun to watch him.

THE BAD SISTER was photographed by Karl Freund who of course is best remembered for directing THE MUMMY for Universal the following year. The film itself isn't all that memorable but there were several legends in training here and that alone makes it worth seeing.

In a length of scarcely over one hour, the first third gives us exposition of rather unremarkable domestic drama, the sort that recalls the description by some of older movies as "simpler entertainment for a simpler time." Even after Humphrey Bogart's character is introduced at right about the one-third mark, the scene writing, dialogue, and narrative development remain so tame and homely that if one weren't careful they might initially miss the genuine plot that starts to show itself. There is, in fact, a compelling story here - but notably, the tone the picture maintains is mostly so "picture perfect," bringing to mind more than anything else the soft touch of family-friendly TV programs in the 1950s, that it continues to feel as if little or nothing is happening at all. That's especially noteworthy since this precedes the heavy-handed Hays Code. Depending on one's perspective this is either a deep failure of the feature, unable to build a meaningful sense of drama, or a marvelously shrewd highlight as the core is underhandedly disguised within family drama. I'm not sure if it's the writers who are most responsible for this tack, adapting Booth Tarkington's novel, or director Hobart Henley - but for my part, I'm pleased to say that I think the approach is a slyly smart one. Given the tenor the film adopts I can appreciate that it won't appeal to all, and I readily admit that I had my doubts at first. In fact, it takes its time, for this declines to really show its hand until we're heading into the last third. Even for all that 'Bad sister' isn't a major must-see, but I'm quite happy with how good it is, and more than first meets the eye.

The predominant surface appearance of homestead turmoil, dynamics and goings-on between members of the Madison household and their friends and neighbors, is suitable material in and of itself for engaging storytelling, if perhaps not the most heavily absorbing variety. That this general melodrama somewhat cloaks the underlying thread of Corliss' dealings, and the ramifications thereof, is a fabulously slick twist of narrative fiction that may not even be possible outside the cinematic medium. Of course the notions are there on paper, but maybe it's director Henley after all who was able to shape the title in such a way as to hide the key element and let it slowly rise to the surface. With this said, I do think there's imbalance in 'Bad sister' as it presents, for in these sixty-odd minutes we get much more exploration of events and reactions in the Madison household than the dalliances of Corliss, or even the strict progression of Marianne's own journey - the character arc after which the movie is named. Moreover, even through to the end there are inclusions that seek to sustain the lighter flavors we got from the outset, and not all the parts fit together equally well. Nonetheless, a complete and cohesive tale is imparted, if with less than full force, and it's arguably maybe even a smidgen darker than some contemporary fare to have come out in the early 30s. I would further posit that the brief ending is a tad too neat and clean, not even taking into account the affirmation of values that ninety years later come across as old-fashioned; still, the plot is strong overall, and more than not this is splendidly enjoyable.

Given how the plot is structured and the sheer number of characters to follow, I don't know that everyone on hand has the same opportunity to shine that they might in other features - not new faces Sidney Fox or Bette Davis, and not even Humphrey Bogart who at this point in his career was merely an up-and-comer. Still, for what material and time they are given, I think all give admirable performances to bring their roles to life. The contributions of those behind the scenes likewise might get lost a bit in the mix, but I'm especially fond of Karl Freund's cinematography, and the sets, costume design, and hair and makeup are all swell. Henley's direction is quite fine too, for that matter. Broadly speaking 'Bad sister' is rather well made, in fact, and the chief question comes down to the strength of the storytelling. On that basis, I'm of the mind that it succeeds much more than not. It's not a picture without its issues, but I believe the saga stands firm on its own merits, and even more to the point, the cleverness of the particular way it's put together helps the whole to stand a little taller. It may not sit well with those who have a harder time abiding older titles, and I begrudge no one who engages honestly and regards it more poorly. All the same, I had mixed expectations and no few reservations even after a fair bit of the runtime had elapsed, and still when all is said and done I walk away satisfied with the excellence of what I've watched. Even if you're a huge fan of someone involved I don't think there's any need to go out of your way for it, but if you do have the chance to check out 'Bad sister' I think this is a swell slice of cinema for a quiet day.

Pre-Coder about a rotten young woman (Sidney Fox), who's so spoiled and selfish she doesn't care who she steps on, including her own family. It's an unremarkable melodrama about an unlikable character that I wouldn't even have bothered watching were it not for the fact that this is the film debut of Bette Davis. Bette plays Fox's homely but kind sister who's in love with Fox's boyfriend. When Fox dumps him for another man, it opens a door for the beau to look at Bette in a different light.

It's an unimpressive debut for Bette, showing none of her later acting talent or personality. For her part, Sidney Fox does a fine job playing the worst kind of brat. Also featuring Humphrey Bogart in one of his earliest roles, playing -- you guessed it -- a bad guy. The scene stealer of the picture is child actor David Durand as Fox and Davis' younger brother. He freely speaks his mind and has all of the movie's decent lines. The rest of the cast includes ZaSu Pitts, Bert Roach, Slim Summerville, Conrad Nagel, and Charles Winninger. Worth a look for Bette and Bogie completists or anyone who digs these old timey morality plays.

I enjoyed this movie! It was intriguing to see Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart 3rd and 4th in the billing order. But what fun to see Bogie as a suave smiling dapper con man who whisks the airhead "bad sister" off her feet. And poor Bette Davis, whom I almost did not recognize in her first scenes in the film. So interesting to see how the costumes helped to create the two sisters characters. Bette Davis in drab prints that made her appear very frumpy. And that younger brother!!! Oh my what a pest!! It really is a complicated story with some sad , some glad, and a bit of silliness here and there. A soap opera in a way, but a also a time capsule of simpler times. I agree with others who said the end comes rather abruptly. I had more ideas of what might have happened if it was longer, so was left feeling a bit unfulfilled. I thought it was well made overall. You can see the remnants of the silent film era in its style with a caption inserted in the middle to help us figure out the plot. And lots of long stares with the eyes expressing so much.

Bette Davis is cast as the good girl , a romantic dreamer who writes a diary in which she expresses her love for her sister's fiancé.Sidney Fox is the title bad lot :she twists her daddy round her little finger and makes him buy her dresses ,even though she knows that he often finds it hard to make ends meet .Zasu Pitts as the servant is the only one in the household who's not going to let herself be pushed around .Marianne's selfishness knows no bounds ,particularly when she meets a chic gentleman ,Mister Corliss (Humphrey Bogart );this relationship will be disastrous .

Best moment :Dick discovers the diary.

Not bad at all ,but the main interest of the movie is to see Davis in her first ,and bogart in one of his firsts the story and the way it's developed is very old fashion and the characters are very simplified. the cinematic aspect is not new and the story demoded and to say the truth frankly boring

Bette Davis is locked into a cartoonish role in this film, as are most of the other actors. However, Bogey comes to the rescue in this film. He rescues it from total mediocrity. Bette does the best she can with average material; her best scene is with her amusing young brother as she sets fire to her dreams. It is Bogey, however, who steals every scene he is in. Worth viewing despite the ridiculous father. Grow a backbone.

Although this film contained the debut of one screen legend and early work of another, Bad Sister starred Conrad Nagel and in the title Sidney Fox. Knowing that Bad Sister was the debut film of Bette Davis, her legion of fans would most likely think she would be in the title role.

No, she's Fox's good and loyal sister, both are daughters of Charles Winninger. Winninger is the selected target of conman Humphrey Bogart that other screen legend. Bogart is looking for other suckers to invest in his non-existent factory. Winninger doesn't move so easily, Fox who's looking for excitement in her life goes all in. In fact she does something that puts Winninger in a real jackpot.

Conrad Nagel is the town doctor who kind of likes Fox, but one look at the Brillantine slicked Bogart and she can't see the dull old doc for beans. Quiet dependable Davis however really likes him.

It all works out in a kind of cop out ending which really spoils the whole film. Unusual for a film made before infamous Code.

Carl Laemmle the head of Universal Pictures who nearly bankrupted it by putting on a ton of relations missed a real money maker in Davis. I guess because she sat next to plumber Slim Summerville at a dinner sequence Laemmle famously remarked when cutting her loose that she had the sex appeal of Slim Summerville. It's part of Hollywood legend how Davis fought until she got roles that brought her 10 Oscar nominations and two of the statues. Bad Sister was the beginning of that struggle.

As for Bogart he made one trip west from Broadway and did about a dozen features for 1931-32 for various studios in supporting roles. Although he did some gangster parts and this one is certainly that of a crook on Broadway he did juvenile parts for the most part. When he came west a second time it was after he signed with Warner Brothers to repeat his stage role of Duke Mantee in The Petrified Forest. The unshaven Bogart in that is the one we know. Here he's a crook, but he looks like Rudolph Valentino

Conrad Nagel was a star of silent films and as you see spoke well enough for sound. But he gradually slipped out of the A list. As for Fox she was a truly tragic story who became a multiple substance abuser and died young. She also appeared with Humphrey Bogart in 1934 in a film called Midnight shot in New York while Bogey was on Broadway.

Bad Sister is a mediocre film with a real cop out ending especially with what it was building up to. But it's a chance to see two screen immortals although in roles that you would find them strangely cast in.

I just watched "Bad Sister" as a document, today. Nobody would leave its editing with such a slow pace nowadays. Most of the actors seem to play their parts as though they were not quite in the room yet, not talking together for real anyway. Where was the director ? And first of all, who "the hell" was he ? So, wrong title, here : it should announce "Bad Weed", not "Bad Sister". But ... Miss Davis, directly coming from stage to a movie set, was already at ease in just about any type of role, and she intended to stick to that for the rest of her career, playing good persons in a few other films (watch her in a second role as late as in "Phone Call From A Stranger", for instance). Why she was regarded as being impossible remains a mystery to me. She was said to be very nice ... if your deserved it ! Only, she was demanding, and very right to be that way, in my opinion. Here, she does something out of poor clothing, already well aware of the importance of her costume to create a character. It makes you remember why "Now Voyager" will be such a hit, years later. She sort of became the heroin, here, the minute she appeared in that scene with her little brother, and no longer a second role (I didn't care much for Fox, quite inconsistent). That's when she kneeled to burn her diary in the fireplace, being joined by wonderful child actor David Durand. Her future as a star made no doubt, then. I bet Jack Warner saw that scene too ! The film says a lot, socially, about those days, and how people would think twice before they spoke then. You can watch more and more of restless people as time goes by, especially in the post war productions. (By the way : Davis may well have had to change a diaper, in her scene with a new born baby, but she is not seen doing so ... like said in the Trivia above. That take does not exist, apparently ...). Why on hearth David Durand did not become a star (although he remained in show business for quite a few years after that, also appearing in westerns, until WW2) is another mystery to me. Here, it looks like nobody told him he didn't have to sugar-coat it, though, but the boy has a unique presence. I remember this film just because of him.

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

It's easy to call "The Bad Sister" badly dated, because it is. Instead of a timeless piece of Americana based on Booth Tarkington's novel, it's a mediocre, poorly scripted and always obvious romantic drama. Corny is too corny a term to apply, and what we're left with is very fine work by ZaZu Pitts as the comic relief family maid, and Charles Winninger almost holding the creaky plot together as the warm and fuzzy family patriarch.

Casting of Sidney Fox in the title role and Bette Davis as her shy, too good to be true sister is disastrous, as any current viewer via hindsight senses that the roles needed to be reversed, even if it meant halting production midway and reshooting. Bette could have run with the conceited, self-centered "bad girl" role and Sidney would have been just fine in the nothing role of the sister.

Humphrey Bogart is solid as the transparently conniving romantic bad guy and the other supporting male roles are way too wimpy to believe. Every plot twist is beyond predictable, and the ridiculous, rushed happy ending doesn't fit at all. Perhaps that ending was a reshoot -I like to think the original ending would be evil Sidney burnt at the stake.