Corny by today's standards ..... - Dangerous Crossing (1953) Discussion

[–] robm256 14 years ago

I think you are being very harsh with your comments. The film look's like it is from it's time, the early 50's and not CG enhanced like today's movies are. The acting is OK, and yes the film is melo dramatic, which many film's were in the early 50's and not too painful too watch either.................the only thing wrong for me is "picking" a few holes in the plot.

Jeanne, Toby, Mitzi, Eleanor, Frances, Deborah - are adorable - I love them all.

reply

[–] liscarkat-2 11 years ago

This is a pretty good movie, with good performances. You have to put yourself in the proper frame of mind to watch a movie from one period or another. You don't go to an opera to see a stage play, and you don't watch a 1953 movie to see a 2013 movie. The styles are different, and the more you watch, the more comfortable you become. I prefer old (pre-1960) movies, and if I closed my mind, I would be unable to enjoy current films, which I find generally inferior. You just have to relax and go with the flow.

reply

[–] grizzledgeezer 9 years ago

I watched Dangerous Crossing this morning, just to see how bad it would be. It exceeded my low expectations.

I'm 68. Bad movies are bad movies, regardless of era. You don't have to get into a special state of mind to appreciate Bride of Frankenstein, The Thin Man, Citizen Kane, and scores of other great films. Movies work or fail largely on the basis of the story they tell, and how well or poorly that story is told. *

Dangerous Crossing is a stinkeroo. Amateurish writing, mediocre acting (except for Rennie), undistinguished directing from a hack director, and a "plausibility hole" the ocean liner could pass through sideways.

* It should be no surprise that McKee's book on screenwriting is titled Story.

reply

[–] nickatnoon61 (51) 8 months ago

Good points liscarkat! I'm also a B&W film buff, and prefer them bcuz society has deteriorated harshly since the late 1960s!

reply

[–] bsantosu 11 years ago

This movie was probably made because the studio has the Titanic set there and wanted to get a little more bang for the buck out of it before they took it down.

reply

[–] first-things-first 11 years ago

Spoilers:

I found it predictable on my second viewing, losing its charm. But the first time I remember enjoying it. The female protagonist is played as someone trusting, she had no ticket, no key of her own, no identity. Then the reveal of her past, and you wonder. It would have been more suspenseful if the opening scenes had been shot with just her. The narration doesn't work in my opinion. She conveyed her growth in talking to the doctor. She acted like she was drugged not confused or frightened to me. But maybe weak is what the director wanted, I don't know. After the many reveals, the story made sense.

The movie is predictable due to the damsel in distress plot. I can't remember strong female portrayals in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. But not knowing that you are sleeping with the enemy is timeless. One thing I found funny was she grabbed her coat before she left the room in her nightie. Most would have run without it. Is it better than 2 and a half stars? Not in my opinion.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply

[–] activista 11 years ago

@first-things-first

I liked this entertaining and well-made little thriller---what really sold me on watching it was the foggy atmosphere on the boat and the whole being-at-sea setup when Bowman goes searching for her husband---that was genuinely creepy in itself. A decent film noir flick in its own right---granted the damsel in distress tale was old news even by the time this film was made, but I liked the fact that the lady knew that something was wrong, she just couldn't figure out the why or what of it, but she fought like hell the notion that she was crazy,and stuck to her guns. I also thought it was kind of sexist that the captain and most of the men (except for the kind and thoughtful ship's doctor,and the helpful woman she'd first met when coming aboard) were so quick to write her off as crazy because she was a woman, but that was typical for that era,unfortunately. I have to admit, Jeanne Crain's acting is melodramatic (especially when she goes somewhat over the top screaming and freaking out--to be fair, that was a typical acting style for the 1950's) but other than that, she was actually pretty good (and looked great in her glamorous gowns,too.)

The movie is predictable due to the damsel in distress plot. I can't remember strong female portrayals in the 30's, 40's, and 50's.

Obviously you haven't seen a lot of old films---the 1930's and 1940's films are chock full of strong female portrayals---in fact, the whole film noir genre is well known for its strong female characters,period---its femme fatales and gentle but tough mystery solving women who weren't sitting around waiting for a man to tell them what to do--they just got out there and did it. Which is why,even today, they're still fun to watch---like this one.

reply

[–] first-things-first 11 years ago

You are right, I don't remember the genre of strong willed female. Femme Fatales, yes. I was a fan of Bill Kennedy and Rita Bell. Both would show old movies and I loved them. But that's way back when...
I do recall the movie "Night Nurse" starring Barbara Stanwyck, and she was great in the role of protector. Most of what I've seen recently on TCM has been the woman lying, cheating, or pining for a man. But it's not over, and I have time to catch those great women of film.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

Jeanne Crain's acting is melodramatic (especially when she goes somewhat over the top screaming and freaking out--to be fair, that was a typical acting style for the 1950's)

It's hysteria. Haven't you ever seen it or given such a show yourself?
There's nothing over the top about it. That's how it is.
Most over the top antics on the screen is nothing compared to some of the stuff I've seen.

reply