Bad Sister

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.

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.

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).

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

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.