Bad Sister

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.

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

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.

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'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.