Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

gridoon2018 It's a little surprising to see that "Dangerous Corner" was released in late 1934, because it has the kind of openness, honesty and cynicism about love and marriage (and crime) that is usually associated with pre-code movies. Then again, if the IMDb trivia is true, there were even more daring elements in the play (like homosexuality and drug addiction) that were taken out of the film (and it probably is true - after all, Gordon is the one character whose "secret" we never learn and Martin acts too bizarrely to be merely "drunk"). It all starts fairly lightheartedly, but it soon develops into something deeper, as it removes layer after layer of superficiality and deception and reveals everyone's hidden self. The ending twist is awesome - something like a 1930s "Run, Lola, Run"! An excellent example of "chamber cinema", with fine performances in every role. Many people will probably see themselves in this movie - and then prefer not to talk about that! ***1/2 out of 4.

MartinHafer 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.

sol- 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.

Baxter de Wahl 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!