Despite admiring Joan Crawford hugely and really liking to loving many of her performances, quite a big part of me was not expecting an awful lot from 'This Woman is Dangerous'. The premise sounded quite interesting and Crawford is worth seeing at least in most of her films, but the not so good critical reception and that Crawford herself had a low opinion of it (calling it her worst film at one point) dampened expectations by quite a lot.
Seeing 'This Woman is Dangerous' though fairly recently for the first time as part of my Crawford completest quest, it was a little better than expected. It is not a terrible film and really do disagree with Crawford when she said that it was her worst film, it is nowhere near close to being one of the worst let alone the very worst. She certainly did much better (i.e. 'Mildred Pierce'), but she did so much worse than 'This Woman is Dangerous' before and since (i.e. 'Berserk').
'This Woman is Dangerous' does have strengths. It looks good visually, the shadowy lighting and equally atmospheric and neither overblown or static photography are very easy on the eyes. The music has an appropriately moody vibe when necessary. Some of the direction is assured.
Crawford brings edge and vulnerability to her role and doesn't over-egg it. Am one of those people that though that David Brian did very well here, suitably loathsome and not being reserved in that (a tough guy role played with relish). Phillip Carey manages to be even creepier and an every bit as tough character.
Less good is Dennis Morgan, his character is rather underwritten and Morgan underplays the role too much so he comes over as dull. The story was problematic to me, it definitely had moments and it did pick up at the end with a tense ending. But it really would have benefitted from a shorter length, which would have meant that the pace most likely would have been tighter and the story, which to me was too thin and over-stretched, more succinct. It also felt contrived and strains credibility to breaking point.
From a scripting point of view, the film fared pretty oddly here. It wasn't soapy in a way, but it did lack tautness and could be overripe. Tonally it is something of an odd muddle, with a feeling of not being sure what type of film it wanted to be. Ending up with having more than one tone and not doing enough with any of them.
All in all, watchable and a long way from Crawford's worst but this could have been better. 5/10
Seeing 'This Woman is Dangerous' though fairly recently for the first time as part of my Crawford completest quest, it was a little better than expected. It is not a terrible film and really do disagree with Crawford when she said that it was her worst film, it is nowhere near close to being one of the worst let alone the very worst. She certainly did much better (i.e. 'Mildred Pierce'), but she did so much worse than 'This Woman is Dangerous' before and since (i.e. 'Berserk').
'This Woman is Dangerous' does have strengths. It looks good visually, the shadowy lighting and equally atmospheric and neither overblown or static photography are very easy on the eyes. The music has an appropriately moody vibe when necessary. Some of the direction is assured.
Crawford brings edge and vulnerability to her role and doesn't over-egg it. Am one of those people that though that David Brian did very well here, suitably loathsome and not being reserved in that (a tough guy role played with relish). Phillip Carey manages to be even creepier and an every bit as tough character.
Less good is Dennis Morgan, his character is rather underwritten and Morgan underplays the role too much so he comes over as dull. The story was problematic to me, it definitely had moments and it did pick up at the end with a tense ending. But it really would have benefitted from a shorter length, which would have meant that the pace most likely would have been tighter and the story, which to me was too thin and over-stretched, more succinct. It also felt contrived and strains credibility to breaking point.
From a scripting point of view, the film fared pretty oddly here. It wasn't soapy in a way, but it did lack tautness and could be overripe. Tonally it is something of an odd muddle, with a feeling of not being sure what type of film it wanted to be. Ending up with having more than one tone and not doing enough with any of them.
All in all, watchable and a long way from Crawford's worst but this could have been better. 5/10