User Reviews (35)

Add a Review

  • lugonian28 June 2014
    THE BAD SISTER (Universal, 1931), directed by Hobart Henley, is a simple story about simple people, a wholesome well-to-do family known as The Madisons. The center of attention is not so much on the parents, but on their two daughters, Marianne and Laura, as performed by two newcomers to the screen, the dark-haired Sidney Fox and ash-blonde Bette Davis. Adapted from Booth Tarkington's story, "The Flirt" which had been filmed twice before in the silent era (1916, directed by Lois Weber) and (1923, also directed by Henley), this third retelling, with sound, is notable mainly for the early screen appearances of two future screen legends for Warner Brothers, Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart. Though Conrad Nagel, a then popular leading man for MGM, shares star billing beneath the title opposite Sidney Fox, his role is basically a back-seat performance for Universal's testing ground for its two new stars.

    Set in a small factory town of Council City, Ohio, where the early morning hours captures Freddie, the paper boy, delivering newspapers to individual residential homes down the block on bicycle and postman Mr, Riley, delivering the mail to the home of businessman John Madison (Charles Winninger), whose family consists of his wife (Emma Dunn), their children, Marianne (Sidney Fox), Laura (Bette Davis) and youngest son, Hedrick (David Durand). Also taking up residence is their flabbergasted housekeeper named Minnie (ZaSu Pitts). While Laura is quiet and refined, keeping her personal thoughts written inside her diary, Marianne is spoiled and bored with her daily routine and small town existence. Even more troublesome is Hedrick's mischievous ways of upsetting the household, as ordinary little boys do to acquire attention. Laura loves Doctor Dick Lindley (Conrad Nagel), but finds herself in competition with Marianne, even though she's been seeing Wade Trumball (Bert Roach, reprising his 1922 movie role), a local insurance agent. While outside a theater with Dick, Marianne soon encounters Valentine Corliss (Humphrey Bogart) in his expensive car. She soon leaves the kind doctor behind to quickly accept this stranger's ride home. The following evening, Corliss, in town on business, becomes Marianne's dinner guest sharing the table with her visiting older sister, Amy (Helene Chadwick) and her husband, Sam (Slim Summerville), an unemployed plumber. After getting acquainted with the entire family and coping with Hedrick, Corliss, vice president of the Electro Household Corporation, offers Mr. Madison a position in his firm as secretary of the treasury. With Marianne finding Corliss her opportunity to leaving home for the big city, with intentions of becoming his wife, she's to soon expect the unexpected, as does the rest of the Madison family.

    When Bette Davis became the surprised guest of honor on television's color episodes of "This is Your Life" (1971), hosted by Ralph Edwards, she was asked about her debut film appearance. Her reply was THE BAD SISTER was horrible and didn't want to be in the film at all. Regardless of how she felt forty years later, THE BAD SISTER is actually not that bad. Basically of the "soap opera" school that didn't become Academy Award material, Davis (the first sister presented) did show potential, even in one crucial scene where she sadly burns her diary in the fireplace after finding the man she loves has unwittingly read the one page he wasn't to see. David Durand's performance as the troublesome kid brother may lack sympathy for his annoying pranks, but does eventually honor sympathy when he realizes the wrong he has done.

    As much as studio executives at Universal must have seen some great promise and potential in Sidney Fox, retaining her services for the studio while dismissing Davis shortly after-wards, it's a wonder how the movie might have turned out had Fox and Davis switched parts. Fox's role isn't really as bad as the title implies. She's just simply bored and downright frustrated with her daily routine. Even though she physically doesn't look the type, her Marianne uses men for her own personal gain, especially her father when forging his signature on a letter of endorsement, and during an outburst, tells him she's "the daughter of a failure." Davis, who would specialize in playing bad sisters in later years ("Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" (1962) comes to mind), might have handled such scenes with better conviction. Instead, Davis is portrayed as a sad looking good sister, right down to acting as surrogate mother to her late sister Amy's baby. As for Fox, she and Bogart do carry their extremely parts well. They would re-team again in MIDNIGHT (1934), Fox's final film for Universal and one of her last theatrical releases of her short-lived career.

    To date, never distributed to television or home video, there were times back in the 1970s or 1980s when TV Guide listed BAD SISTER in its program section, only to disappoint Davis fans and film historians alike to have the 1947 British movie of that same title starring Margaret Lockwood instead. Regardless of its shortcomings, it good to know THE BAD SISTER still exists, even though availability over the years happens to be from a pirate copy downloaded to DVD. (**1/2)
  • 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).
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Let's see, Wade loves Marianne, Dick loves Marianne, Laura loves Dick, Marianne loves Val, Val loves himself. By film's end, Dick loves Laura, Marianne loves Wade and everyone lives happily ever after.

    Despite the opening comments, "The Bad Sister" is not that hard to follow, even with it's soap opera feel. Bette Davis in her first film role displays some of her future star quality as Laura Madison, but here she's quite timid and demure, much unlike her many portrayals to come and definitely not the bad sister. That role is left for Sidney Fox, who as Marianne Madison displays all the manipulative, spiteful and bitchy behavior you just love to hate in a character. Marianne plays everyone for a fool, but sinks to an all time low when she forges her father's signature to a letter supporting a questionable business venture by the slick Val Corliss (Humphrey Bogart in his fourth film). Corliss skips town, leaving John Madison's partners as well as Marianne literally holding the bag.

    Up to that point, the film offers a fairly respectable and tense drama, but literally implodes when the ailing father offers to take the rap and cover for Marianne. In a total reversal of character, Marianne admirably confesses, and the businessmen seem satisfied that her father will make good on their bad decision. But in an entirely too simple and unrealistic ending, the "reformed" Marianne is shown smooching with the bumbling Wade, while inviting all the rest of the happy family into the Madison home. It's a feel good ending that doesn't work for all that went before.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Watching Bogart play an actual heel (not an anti-hero or straight hero) is a bit rough for me. But... It's a solid little story with a great cast playing engaging characters. Well worth your time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    . . . and it creates a Doozy in THE BAD SISTER. Actress Sidney Fox plays the title character, a.k.a. Marianne Madison. Even though her family of eight is on the verge of losing their house to The Great Depression, Marianne throws "fainting fits" to extort designer dress and shoe combos from her flat-broke Dad at $75 a crack (that is, $937.18, adjusted for inflation). Then when Pops won't sign off on paperwork vouching for the legitimacy of Marianne's new-in-town gangster lover Humphrey Bogart, despite her tirade disavowing her "failure" father forever, she forges the signature (ruining her family), and "elopes" with Bogart, who abandons her at a hotel in the next town after she's impregnated. Universal anticipates the ALIEN horror formula with SISTER. Even if you're having a "benign" family spaghetti dinner, you're at risk of something far scarier than a giant saber-toothed worm popping out of a bad daughter with little or no warning. As the Bible's Golden Rule says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." Even today, the Rich People's Party has seduced about one-third of America to this way of thinking, despite the Holy Book's warning.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    She's a Twelve O'Clock girl in a Nine O'Clock neighborhood! And she's not Bette Davis!

    Yes, Bette Davis is in this early talkie, ironically her first film, and she's a secondary character, a be-speckled shy girl, the plain Jane of the family, and in the shadow of Sidney Fox (also her film debut), the selfish, squeaky voiced lead character, and quite determined to get her way no matter who gets hurt. For her father (Charles Winninger) and mother (Emma Dunn), she seems like the sweetest girl around, but she turns down the handsome neighborhood doctor (Conrad Nagel) to go out with a fast-talking big city business shark (Humphrey Bogart in one of his earliest films). Bogart and Davis, the two biggest Warner Brothers stars of the 1940's, do share some screen time together, but this is a far cry from their later pairings in "The Petrified Forest", "Marked Woman" and "Kid Galahad". Nagel is graceful in letting Fox go, and when he turns to Davis, Fox sets out to get him back after things turn sour with Bogart.

    Comic relief is provided by David Durand as the smart-talking baby of the family, Bert Roach as an overweight suitor of Fox's who doesn't stand a chance, Zasu Pitts as the frustrated housekeeper and funny looking Slim Summerville as a dinner guest of Winninger's who enjoys a flirtation with Pitts. His presence in the film reminds me of Davis's quote about her early years in Hollywood where she claims she overheard a Universal executive claiming that she had all the sex appeal of Slim Summerville.

    This is fast paced and amusing, but not for the reasons film historians might think so. Davis's most ardent fans will be disappointed by her lack of a plot involvement in this (other than to be more worthy of love than Fox's bad sister), while Bogart is suave and sleazy as he uses false charm to swindle Winninger and other people in this small town. Fox has a great explosive scene which reminded me of Davis's later explosions in "Of Human Bondage" and "Dangerous" where her annihilation of certain characters left them speechless and almost destroyed. Fox and Bogart were later paired together in an independent crime drama "Midnight" (aka "Call It Murder") which turned out to be one of her last films in a sad and tragic life.
  • 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) 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.
  • The Madison family is financially prosperous but rotten to the core. When the film begins, you see that the daughter, Marianne, is gosh- darn awful--self-absorbed but vivacious. As for her parents, they don't see any of it and give in to her every whim. Their young son is also a brat, but not as hateful as Marianne. There's also Laura (Bette Davis) and, inexplicably, she seems like a pretty nice young lady but isn't as popular as Marianne.

    Through the course of the film, Marianne behaves abominably. When she meets a slick huckster (Humphrey Bogart), she quickly dumps her boyfriend and eventually forges her father's signature on a document that allows the huckster to steal from investors...then runs off with the rogue. Eventually, however, the nice sister gets the nice guy instead of Marianne getting him--proving in a less than subtle way that nice girls finish first.

    This heavy-handed morality story has a few strengths and quite a few deficits. Davis is very nice here in her first film and the story is engaging. On the other hand, Marianne is a poorly written character--way too obvious to the point where her parents would have to be practically brain dead to put up with her! Additionally, the film just ends very abruptly and seems almost as if there is a reel missing from the movie! All in all, a very mixed bag...only of interest to Davis fans or perhaps Bogie fans.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Any intelligent woman could make any man fall in love with her" - No, it has nothing to do with "The Bad Sister", but it was Sidney Fox's creed that she practiced. Who would have thought that in just 3 years, the quiet, dependable "good sister" would be making Hollywood sit up and take notice while the star, the "bad sister" who got most of the good reviews and publicity would be almost at the end of her career. Sidney Fox had both father and son (the Laemmles) twisted around her little finger. Junior was the first to fall in love with her - he saw her in the play "Lost Ship" in 1930 and signed her to a contract. She came to Universal with great fanfare, nothing but the best for little Sidney and "The Bad Sister" was a flashy debut.

    Marianne (beautiful Miss Fox) is the spoiled darling of the Madison household - sleeping late, insulting the maid, Millie (Zasu Pitts) is all in a day's work for her. Being a "little town flirt" keeps her busy as well - Wade (Bert Roach) is madly in love with her, as is Dick Lindley (Conrad Nagel) - or so he thinks!!! She also manages to almost lead her family to the poor house because of her extravagant ways and a father who cannot refuse her. While out with Dick, she meets Val Corliss (Humphrey Bogart) or rather "very neatly" picks him up. She begins a flirtation with Val - but Val is different to the other boys as he is a sophisticated con man. His "story" goes - he is planning to build a factory on the outskirts of town and wants to bring some local businessmen into key positions. He tries to hook Marianne's father (Charles Winniger), even though he has no money, all Val wants is his name and the influence he has over the town. Strangely, he is the one man in town who is unconvinced of Val's honesty - plus he hasn't made a thorough background check of the company yet. Marianne tries to use her wiles to get her father to sign the contract but when he refuses there is a huge scene. Miss Fox pulls out all the emotional stops as she belittles him, shaming him for his honour and respectability and in the end calling him a failure - until he has a heart attack.

    It wouldn't be a Booth Tarkington tale without a "fresh kid" and David Durand as Hedrick gives the movie many whimsical moments. Poor, mousey "good sister" Laura (Bette Davis) has a secret - she is secretly in love with Dick and has written all about it in her diary. Heddie finds the diary and gives it to Dick who is then caught with it by Laura. The movie which until now has been full of small town whimsy turns dramatic as Marianne uses her father's convalescence to take a forged letter to the townsmen stating that Val's scheme is all above board. With that she elopes with Val - only to return home sadder but wiser (Val has run out on her) and also to find that Dick has realised that quiet, dependable Laura can give him true happiness and Wade is her only, still ardent beau.

    Fox and Bogart made a good team - they played a very similar couple in "Call It Murder" (1934) - Bogart still waiting for his big chance while Sidney's star had definitely set. Apparently Bette Davis lamented for years that she had desperately wanted to play the bad sister but at that stage (it was her first film) she didn't have the vivacity or flirtatiousness of Sidney Fox, who was ideal in the role.

    Highly Recommended.
  • yrussell30 July 2021
    Warning: Spoilers
    Most people (including myself) almost certainly watched this film because of the early performances of future stars Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart. Indeed, their star quality shines through. Bette Davis (playing a good sister, in contrast to her later persona) delivers a beautifully understated performance. For example, in the moment after she gets kissed for the first time by the man that she had secretly loved, the expression on her face - a mix of astonishment, elation, and gratitude - speaks volumes within only a fleeting second. A beautiful moment. Humphrey Bogart, too, has such a distinctiveness that he steals every moment he is in. That said, all of the other actors were good too. And, really, it's more the story of the bad sister (Sidney Fox), and the interactions within the family while the two grownup sisters contemplate finding love. It all comes to a satisfying ending. Viewers who love that early 30's atmosphere in film should certainly enjoy this one.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The ups and downs of a small town family with two contrasting sisters, Marianne and Laura, played by film debutantes Sidney Fox and Bette Davis, one of whom had a mediocre career and one of whom became Hollywood royalty. You can't tell from this film though which one it would be. It is a pleasant film with nothing unsurprising though Wade ending up with Marianne is a bit far fetched.

    There are good comedy moments, mainly provided by ZaSu Pitts and young David Durand, who are both hilarious. It is a good cast including Humphrey Bogart as a bounder and a cad and Charles Winninger and Emma Dunn as the parents. Payne B. Johnson was the tiny baby but unlike Ms. Fox and Ms. Davis this was his fourth film! The legendary Karl Freund was the cinematographer.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • sylvain gross18 December 2001
    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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • This film is Humphrey Bogart's 2nd film and alongside him making her film Debut is the Fabulous Bette Davis. With them is Sidney Fox who plays the eldest sister who is according to many the Bad Sister, she is a constant bind to her parents and meets the City conman played by Bogart who is going to bring lots of money and jobs to their small town, she dumps her Boyfriend who indecently Davis the good sister fancies ....she forges her fathers signature which helps Bogart and allows the him to steal from investors, they run off together and well in the end she is also dumped.

    Meanwhile Davis, the good sister, has the happy ending by gaining the good guy and all ends happy.

    Davis and Bogart are little known when this came to the screen and its also pre Warner days for both of them as This was a Universal Picture. i feel they failed to make these stars shine enough considering how big Davis and Bogart became under Warners wing... more fool them.

    its a great little story but only 68 minutes long it had little time to pan out into a more memorable film but i still gave a rating of 10/10 because its a classic and it features two of my most favoured actors and just as they were sprouting their wings...
  • 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
  • lor_27 September 2023
    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.
  • richardchatten23 September 2017
    A stagy early talkie occasionally enlivened by Karl Freund's photography; based on Booth Tarkington's 1913 novel 'The Flirt', which had already been filmed in 1916 and 1922 (the latter by Hobart Henley, who also directed this version). Two young Broadway actresses made their big screen debuts in this version; by the end of the decade top-billed Sidney Fox in the title role was ironically completely forgotten and died of an overdose of sleeping pills aged 30, while Good Sister Bette Davis was one of Hollywood's top female stars. Also in it is someone called Humphrey Bogart playing a brilliantined spiv for whom Fox falls, and the lugubrious Slim Summerville, whose presence presumably accounts for the notorious quote attributed to Carl Laemmle - president of Universal - that Davis had "about as much sex appeal as Slim Summerville".

    The two girls actually make reasonably convincing sisters, aided by heavy kohl eyeliner that makes them resemble vampires and those famous Bette Davis Eyes already stand out. The Bad Sister played by Miss Fox - surrounded by male admirers like flies round a honey pot while Good Sister Davis pines in the background - is a silly, annoying brat rather than "BAD!", and although Davis at the time desperately coveted the role of the other sister, and would soon be playing Bad Sisters aplenty, hers are easily the most interesting scenes in the film.
An error has occured. Please try again.