User reviews

Virginia Bruce was a vision of blonde loveliness, who started off at Paramount in bit parts (lady in waiting to Jeanette MacDonald in "The Love Parade", one of the chorus girls in "Safety in Numbers") When she married John Gilbert, strangely her career took off (he was at the end of his career and sadly almost at the end of his life). "Dangerous Corner" was made around this time and paired her with Melvyn Douglas.

This is an interesting "what if" film from an intriguing play by J.B. Priestley. The action takes place one night at a dinner party, a year after the suicide of one of the partners in a publishing firm and the theft of some bonds. Gordon (Henry Wadsworth) is tuning the radio when a fuse goes and a game of tell the truth goes horribly wrong.

I found it a fascinating film definitely helped by a superior cast. Not only Virginia Bruce and Melvyn Douglas but Conrad Nagel, with his beautiful speaking voice (he was a founding member of the Academy of Motion Pictures). Erin O'Brien Moore was an underrated actress from the stage who was very memorable as Humphrey Bogart's wife in "Black Legion" (1937). Betty Furness was also good as the sweet young wife, whose life wasn't as happy as everyone thought.

Recommended.

This film is full of surprises, twists and turns. The whodunit theme has the added plus of making the viewer think about big issues like, "what is truth?" The Dangerous Corner is taken when the main characters "spill their guts out" -- telling secrets and hidden feelings that lead only to conflict, hurt and despair. The film supports the theory, "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie" -- purporting that the mind can only come up with meager "small truths". The mystery is eventually solved in this innovative, intriguing film. Wonderful Virginia Bruce is on hand to admire, along with dapper Melvyn Douglas, Conrad Nagel and hammy Ian Keith. I've watched this film many times and had great conversations with friends afterwards. Unusual!

That's the start of a song from HMS Pinafore, and this picture goes on to prove just that. "Dangerous Corner" is a filmed stage play and is a fascinating character study of a group of people with skeletons cascading out of their respective closets. On the surface, it seems one of their number has committed suicide over some embezzled funds. Please note that 'on the surface' is the operative term in this engrossing film.

All concerned turn in good performances and the dialogue ranges from clichéd to the profound to the philosophic, and you can't leave the room or else you'll lose the thread of the story - remember, it's only 65 minutes long and with a lot of plot squeezed in.

This is a timeless parable about human frailty and appetites and layered relationships. Nevertheless, it becomes all the more interesting to consider that it was made in 1934. They think like us, exhibit our own doubts and weaknesses but all are in evening clothes and smoke and drink at all hours, all of which gives the proceedings a surreal feel, that we are eavesdropping on a living museum scene. You think of how alien such a lifestyle seems today.

"Dangerous Corner" turned up on TCM the other morning and is not available in any format. If it comes on again, you should do yourself a favor and watch it.

This is an intriquing mystery of a bond theft and a suicide (?) that is discussed by a group of people (connected with both) over dinner. There are sooo many flashbacks and plot twists/changes, that it becomes quite confusing as to "what's what"! The ending leaves you with a feeling of "that's IT?!?!",

& I'd recommend that you see it SEVERAL times before everything "sinks in"!

I passed by the bond theft and supposed suicide which were a spin of accusations,(secret loves are disclosed; sham marriages revealed; questions about who shot Martin fly everywhere) preferring to ponder on the character of Maude Mockeridge, famous author. (She reminded me of Joan Hickson as Miss Marple, though in a more glamorous tone).

In the opening scene: Ann (a partner in a publishing business) is about to host a breakfast interview on her apartment balcony for romance author Maud Mockeridge. She carefully arranges the author's books in a flattering display. The English lady novelist has already published "A Flame", "Scarlet Flowers", "Burnt Wings" and "Paradise For Two". They discuss her new book "Ecstasy" and a possible contract.

Later that morning Ann joins the publishing group and joyfully announces that she has secured a three year contact with Miss Mockeridge. Next month "Ecstasy" will be ready. Six months later "Emma The Passionate" and in one year "Sleeping Dog".

The twist at the end? How it might have been followed by how it really ended… no body revealed anything!

A very young Melvyn Douglas gives quite a solid performance in this screen drama adapted from a successful stage play. The film's origins are not at all disguised, and even the nice trick ending looks like the type of thing one would expect in theatre. There are a number of curious ideas that are spread throughout the film, especially in terms of distorting the truth, however there's relatively little action, with events told through dialogue, which makes it a bit overly talkative and a tad confusing. It is also inappropriately slow to build up and melodramatic, although never poorly done. It is hard to know what to make of the film, but by the end I did not feel like much had happened, and therefore I can only half-heartedly recommend it, although Douglas fans are sure to delight at seeing him here so young.

A bond goes missing from the finances of Chatfield Publishers. One of the Chatfield brothers isn't present for most of the film. He is the one who would seem to get the blame especially after he is supposed to have committed suicide. But then there is a torrent of revelations and accusations from other characters concerned with the publishing business. Suspicions of theft and murder pass from one suspect to another.

A potentially interesting character is novelist Maude Mockridge. I felt she should have been in it more especially with her book title of 'Let Sleeping Dogs Lie.' This phrase takes on significance with the younger characters and their secret longings and unhappy marriages. And what exactly was their feelings towards the dead man and why does everybody seem to be lying?

A good reason to watch this film is to see the natural performance of Melvyn Douglas who plays Charles Stanton. His is the only 100% natural performance throughout the film. You may find the complications irritating at times and it is certainly an atypical murder mystery. Be prepared to retrace your steps through the story towards the end. Although I have to admit this is not really my type of mystery I will probably re-watch this at some point to try and unpick the confusing thread of feelings running between the characters.

"Dangerous Corner" transfers J. B. Priestley's talkathon stage whodunit (or "howdunit") to the screen with a handsome cast and slightly expanded environment (from a single large room to three different rooms and a patio). The play suggested that the little dishonesties of everyday social life are preferable to unabashed truth telling, which if unhindered would cause mayhem and suffering. The problem with the original play was that it was populated by an after- dinner gathering of undistinguished characters (partners in a publishing firm and their spouses) conversing endlessly about whether one of their colleagues stole a sum of money before committing suicide one year previously. As the individuals speculate dryly on this past event, certain revelations come to the surface that expose each one of them to the group as deeply dishonest on some level. The concept and execution are mildly interesting at best, rather like a Noel Coward drawing room play minus the wit and humor. At his best, Priestley wrote beautifully about ordinary people but was also fascinated by paranormal theories of Time. He plays with Time a bit here too, in ways I won't detail, in order to explore what might have happened had certain people kept their mouths shut. Conrad Nagel and Virginia Bruce, previously paired in "Kongo," try their best, as do Erin O'Brien Moore, Doris Lloyd, Betty Furness and others, but the results are never more than mild. Ian Keith, who plays the dead man in flashback, has the most colorful role but the production code enforcement which took effect the year this film was made cannot refer to his drug addiction, so he comes off as just wacky.

I'm an admirer of J B Priestley's "Time Plays" of which this was in fact the first and from which this Americanised version was adapted. I also made a point of reading the actual play just before I watched it too, even if it did reveal the ingenious twist the writer employs at the end.

The film could have been subtitled "Let Sleeping Dogs", the title of a book the visiting novelist Mrs Mockridge has written, especially when one of the characters correctly asserts that what won't lie is the truth. Gathered with her in the lovely country house where they're all assembled are effectively three couples, two married, the other comprising an unattached female and her ardent but unrequited pursuer. The three men are partners in a successful business but the real connection between all of the six main characters is the deceased brother of one of them, an apparent suicide by his own gun a year past and all of their connections to him.

When the older brother drunkenly fires a gunshot out the window, thoughts turn back to their prismatic memories of the dead man's influence on their lives, now, just as much as then and just for good measure, around the time he died, there was an unsolved theft of a substantial amount of money from the business, attributed not only to the dead brother but also as the justification for his self - destruction.

A lull in the evening caused by a malfunctioning radio is filled by a conversation, sparked by a chance remark about a music box, which goes progressively deeper and darker enveloping all six of the protagonists until another gunshot is fired at the climax, when all is revealed...and hidden away again.

I did notice some notable excisions from the original play, most notably the homosexuality of one of the male characters, confirmation of a physical liaison between his sham wife and the character who actually stole the money as well as the drug use of the absent but omnipresent Martin character. There's also a flashback to the night of his death showing us his character in person.

Unsurprisingly given the source material, the fact this was an earlier talkie and probably crucially the Hays Production Code had just been introduced, the film naturally has a stagey appearance and feel about it. The women are all in evening dress, the men in suits and tuxes but the themes of the play, exposing the hypocrisy of all the well-to-do participants and at times surprisingly modern dialogue among them, still make it very watchable even today.

Definitely based on a play, "Dangerous Corner" from 1934 is a dated melodrama starring Conrad Nagel, Melvyn Douglas, Virginia Bruce, Betty Furness, and Ian Keith.

The story begins with the suicide of Martin Chatfield; eventually, the film goes into flashback about what really happened on the night he died. The film has an odd, twist ending.

The premise is "let sleeping dogs lie," except during most of the film, they don't, with the various people who knew and worked with Martin revealing feelings and actions that are often painful. I imagine this worked very well on the stage. It's a film about the upper class, as plays were before the "working man" plays of Odets.

Conrad Nagel, who had been a matinée idol in the silent era, stars here. Melvyn Douglas is very young and gives a good performance, and Virginia Bruce is absolutely beautiful. The acting as can be expected is a little on the melodramatic side as was the style then.

The problem with this story as a film is that it is very static and all talk with no action.

Certainly worth seeing for the young Douglas, Bruce, and the small role played by Ian Keith who was so fabulous in "Nightmare Alley."

It's amazing how different 1934 looks to us now, on the evidence of this movie. An ensemble cast of no more than eight, all with speaking parts and none of them filmed anywhere but the standard three sets. Camera angles are static and rigid, only the occasional pan out when confessions are being made and these are legion. Clearly this script could not have been filmed without the invention of cigarettes - they are central to almost every scene and crucial to the turn of the plot itself.

The plot is strong and rather typical of J B Priestly in that much of the drama consists of revelations and contradictions. No-one is quite what they seem!

A partner in a publishing firm seemingly commits embezzlement, then suicide. A year later three couples involved with the firm drift into an after-dinner conversation about the circumstances in which new facts continue to surface.

The film is based on a stage play, there's more talk than action, and some incriminating facts are admitted a little too readily, so you may find stretches of it a bit slow or unconvincing.

However there's quite a clever twist at the end with, in true pre-code fashion, a somewhat unexpected moral.

So if you're looking for slam-bang action, forget it, but considered as an old-fashioned mystery with a twist at the end, the film moves at a reasonable pace and delivers as promised.

BTW "Plot Keywords" on the IMDB main page includes "homosexual subtext." I have nothing against homosexual subtexts but any homosexual subtext in this film exists only in the imagination of someone who created a list with that title.

Largely of interest only as a historical piece, a document of movies made from the factory mill of drawing room stage plays of the period. It's part domestic drama, part detective movie, with supposedly sophisticated repartee with drinks, mild references to sex, affairs, marriage and relationships, with some high-minded talk about truth and - perhaps self-referentially - plot devices holding it all together. Except for a few slight flourishes, it's little more than a filmed play, with full shots interspersed with a few two- and three-shots. That said, the performances are expertly delivered, with Melvyn Douglas particularly good and charismatic as the single-man charmer who is after the leading lady, well played by Virginia Bruce. It goes down fairly easily, and the 'smart' lines, many expertly delivered as slight aphorisms by Doris Lloyd - playing a writer and so a kind of bemused commentator and proxy for the author on the unfolding drama. It was clearly meant as not much more than a diversion at the time, with production and performances a pale echo of better pictures or the era.

"Dangerous Corner" begins with text reading:

"This is a story of what really happened... and what might have happened."

We were then introduced to our main characters at different intervals. There was Ann Peel (Virginia Bruce) and Charles Stanton (Melvyn Douglas). They were the talent scouts, in a sense, of a book publishing company. There was Robert Chatfield (Conrad Nagel), co-owner of the publishing company Whitehouse-Chatfield, and he was married to Freda (Erin O'Brien-Moore). There was Gordon Whitehouse (Henry Wadsworth), the other half of Whitehouse-Chatfield, who was Freda's brother and married to Betty (played by Betty Furness). Finally, there was Martin Chatfield (Ian Keith) who also had a role in the Whitehouse-Chatfield firm.

Ostensibly, they were all the best of friends. Their friendship was challenged when $50,000 in bonds was found missing from a safe only the four men had access to. No one admitted stealing the bonds and there was no clear suspect until Martin was found shot to death. Everyone assumed he committed suicide because of guilt, but as they began questioning each other about the theft and the death, things began to get a lot seedier than they'd hoped.

"Dangerous Corner" was truly about the "truth": what is it and how much of it should we know. How much of it do we want to know? It leaves the viewer him or herself pondering that very thing. It was a bit salacious and soap opera-ish as well, but it was also a mystery which held the attention a lot more than the interpersonal drama. I liked it overall, and the ending was a bit unique.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

When you watch "Dangerous Corner", you can't help but see that it was originally a play...and the screenwriter did a poor job translating it to the big screen. The film is very talky, poorly paced and is above all...dull. You would think a film beginning with a suicide would be exciting...well, you'd be wrong. What follows is a very mannered film where slowly various skeletons come tumbling out of the various characters' closets. What makes it all worse is come very bad and thoroughly unbelievable dialog...dialog that no real human beings EVERY spoke in real life...ever.

See this mystery film if you'd like. All I know is that I had a hard time even paying attention after a while because so little of it made sense.

By the way, it's not a huge gaff but they call a semi-automatic pistol a revolver. A revolver and semi-automatic are very different sorts of guns and you would have thought the writer would have bothered to learn the difference.

Plot— elite members of a publishing house gather for a celebratory evening only to find out one of their staff has apparently committed suicide. In the emotional aftermath, a number of hidden truths emerge.

There are elements of a mystery in the story, but overall, the film amounts to considerably more. The narrative appears fairly conventional until the upshot. Then the threads that have accumulated are exposed in an unexpected manner, and we're left with considerable food for thought. As a lesson in "sleeping dogs" the film succeeds brilliantly; as movie however, the narrative requires real patience. There's no action and darn few scene changes. Instead, the cast stands around in evening clothes and talks and talks-- it is, after all, a filmed stage play. At least a few interesting personal embarrassments get revealed as the story moves on, but how interesting you find the characters themselves is, I think, a matter of taste. Except for actor Keith's overdone Martin, the acting helps by being nicely accomplished.

Anyway, as a dramatized lesson in social truths, the movie rates highly. As a form of sheer entertainment, however, the movie's average, at best. My advice is to exercise patience because the upshot does furnish timely food for thought.

Watch this movie from 1934 (from a 1932 English play by J.B. Priestley)to see how early the English-speaking elite began to smash up their values, with a direct path to the mayhem and anomie of the 1960s/70s, and now the politically correct straightjackets of the early 21st century. I don't give it a 10 because of the excisions made to satisfy the censors - too bad for that, as it would have made the movie even more delicious.

For delicious it is, watching people throw up on their values as they wear magnificent gowns, even if we are living with the consequences now. Watch it to see what we need to recover...

Priestley is of the GB Shaw school - tradition and the wisdom of our ancestors is out the window, with no one knowing at the time what great new world awaits us. Unfortunately, we know now, and owe it all to these misguided geniuses for dramatic dialogue.