Born to Be Bad (1934) User Reviews

young Loretta, young Cary, pre-code - who could ask for more?

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 30 July 2005]

Well, a little LENGTH might have helped. This is a short film but a fascinating one - it's pre-Code and Loretta Young plays a tramp. It's also a pairing of two of the golden era's stars before they really hit the big time.

I don't think Young was the best actress in the world but boy, was she beautiful. A face like a cameo, and she was early 20s in this. She plays an unwed mother who lives off of sugar daddies. She sees the mother lode when her brat son gets hit by a truck.

Though the con doesn't work, Loretta's child is adopted by millionaire Cary Grant and his wife - or soon to be ex-wife if Young, hot on another scheme, has anything to say about it.

In her TV show, Young experimented more with "against type" characters. This hard, street smart woman is a departure for her in film, and she does a good job. Grant in this has not yet matured into his incredible looks or his screen persona, but he is effective. This film is worth seeing for a glimpse of these stars as they were before they "made it." And for Young's clothes and rare, radiant beauty.

Interesting mainly for the performances of Young and Grant...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 25 July 2012]

Loretta Young looks angelically beautiful as an immoral young woman, radiant in all of her many close-ups. Her eyes have such an innocent beauty despite the fact that her character is supposed to have the sort of hard edge usually assigned to Harlow or Crawford. The story asks us to believe she had an early pregnancy from a man who deserted her and left her with a bratty son whom she smothers with mother love while garbed in glamorous clothes.

It also asks us to accept Cary Grant as a wealthy millionaire who takes pity on her situation and invites the boy to live with him in his posh home in the country. Grant seems a bit ill at ease here, and clearly had not yet fully developed his typical Cary Grant persona. Still, it's interesting to see both he and Loretta cast against type in this kind of story.

I don't agree with harsh words about Jackie Kelp's performance as her son. I found him reasonably believable in the part although he did look more than the supposed seven years. Loretta's scheme is to ingratiate herself with Grant so that she can steal the boy back even though Grant can give him everything.

The weak, abrupt ending is probably due to production code etiquette which was still having a hard time with all the sordid ingredients implied by the script. It's an unsatisfying ending for a story that could have been developed with more care for the downbeat ending.

Minor characters are very underdeveloped, notably that of Henry Travers as Young's loyal friend.

Summing up: More of a curiosity piece for Loretta Young's fans than anything else--and she was definitely a vision of beauty in her early 20s.

Interesting glimpse at early Grant, mid-Loretta

[bob.decker · 5/10 · 13 March 2005]

This flawed second feature -- about a beautiful floozy, her streetwise little boy, and the millionaire who comes to their aid -- sustains interest only thanks to the attractive stars. Young, with her huge eyes and dazzling smile, has the aura of Joan Crawford in her "Dance, Fools, Dance" period, while Grant, who was 30 when this was made, has not yet fully matured into the character we know from the second half of the 1930s. The story, despite its implausibility, is not unappealing; it is pleasant to imagine oneself being a slum-kid one day and being invited to live with Cary Grant and his affectionate wife the next. The screenplay is oddly structured; the story begins with Young being admired by an odd trio that looks as if it wandered off from the set of "Dinner At Eight" and whom we never see again, and the picture ends just as abruptly. Still, not a bad way to spend 65 minutes.

Almost a movie

[worldofgabby · 6/10 · 12 December 2011]

This film illustrates the havoc that was caused by the Hays code. Loretta Young tries her best to portray Joan Crawford in the bad-girl role, with little of Crawford's ability to show internal conflict and humor. Grant is adequate in his early cardboard handsomeness. The film, however, does not hold together, and has the look and feel of something that was taken apart and reassembled a number of times. Apparently Born to Be Bad ran into a lot of trouble with the censors, and was cut and tweaked to facilitate its release, leading to some mystifying gaps, puzzling voice-overs, and an ending which strains ones already diminished credibility. Still and interesting film to see for its historical value, being made on the cusp of an era which gutted movies of adult content and moral ambiguity.

This one has "Pre-Code" written all over it!

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 26 May 2009]

When you see this film, it soon becomes obvious that this is a so-called "Pre-Code" movie--one made before the strengthened Production Code was enforced later in 1934. This new code was enacted because of rampant sex, violence and crudities in films up until that time. The new code made films more boring in some ways, but they also made the films a lot more family-friendly--and this was needed. Examples of some of the excesses before this time were nudity in Biblical epics (such as in the original BEN HUR) and kids' films (one of the Tarzan films has a 2 minute long nude swimming scene).

So what is so Pre-Code about this film? Well, it begins with sweet Loretta Young playing a high-priced prostitute! She has an illegitimate child who is an amoral terror and Loretta lets him drink, skip school and run wild. On one of the kid's "adventures", he swings from the back of a truck into the path of a dairy truck. Mom convinces the kid to lie about the accident and claims he's badly injured. However, in court the dairy brings out film of the kid taken after the accident of him romping about with no evidence of the "serious injury". As a result of this obvious perjury, the court sends the case to family court and the little juvenile delinquent is taken from his mom's custody. This is NOT a case of the evil social workers or courts--Loretta is bad and the child was raised horribly by his trampy mother. Loretta Young, the bastion of purity playing this sort of woman?! Yep.

Once the kid is in custody of the child protective services, Cary Grant (who owns the dairy) agrees to intervene and takes the kid home to raise him right. However, Loretta sees the kid as a possession and tries to steal the kid back--thinking nothing of the kid's welfare. Interestingly, the boy now has decided that he doesn't want to go back--maybe his mom is unfit. So, when this fails, she insinuates herself into Grant's home and stays a while--while she connives how to win at any cost. She is just bad....real bad...antisocial personality bad.

Loretta's shyster lawyer helps her come up with a scheme. Although Grant is married, she will claim that he forced himself on her--thereby blackmailing him into giving her both the kid and a boatload of cash. And, because Grant is such a nice guy, he is a serious risk to succumb to her evil wicked yechy ways! Will she win and destroy sweet Grant or will he wake up and face that she is a soul-less she-devil? Tune in for yourself to find out what happens next. Just remember that it's a Pre-Code film and in such a movie ANYTHING can happen and good doesn't necessarily triumph over evil. And, mothers like Loretta are portrayed as being capable of eating their young!!

Overall, it's a very fast-paced and enjoyable film that will most likely shock most audiences today because of its odd moral compass and less than likable characters. For lovers of Pre-Code films, it has plenty to shock you and offers quite a few odd surprises. The only serious negative is Grant's wife. She's just too ridiculously good to be real--no woman is THAT understanding without having a brain injury!! Plus, the changes you see in Loretta late in the film just aren't consistent with the type of character she'd been through most of the film. Still, it's entertaining and fun and worth a look.

"You're an ill-bred little tramp....You are a common little beast and I intend to tell you..." They just don't make dialog like this any more!!

No matter how beautiful, scum is scum!

[stevehaynie · 6/10 · 6 February 2006]

Letty (Loretta Young) is a tramp. Early in the film she is established as a classy, attractive girl who appreciates fine things. The viewer is then given a shock when she suddenly changes in demeanor. I was impressed with the way Loretta Young was able to go from "nice" to "naughty" in one scene, giving away her character's true nature beyond a doubt. For nearly the full length of the movie we see Letty trying to cheat her way through life, convinced it is the only way to survive.

Audiences of 1934 may have been looking for escapism in motion pictures, but I do not believe they could have found Loretta Young's character appealing. Pregnant at 15, she was taken in by a kind book store owner, but as she reached her early 20's she had taught herself and her son to win at any cost. In doing so, she becomes an escort to prominent men while her son, Mickey (Jackie Kelk), learns to be "street-wise" at a very early age. You could easily imagine Mickey ending up in prison. Having a lawyer offer advice on how to commit a new scam was a nice touch. Surely no one could feel sorry for Letty losing her son as an unfit mother. Loretta played that "unfit" part perfectly.

Cary Grant really blended into the background in Born To Be Bad. His star was rising, but virtually any lead actor could have played Mal Trevor. Jackie Kelk was slightly older than his character, Mickey, at the time the movie was made. I found Mickey's change of heart to be a bit too easy, but as others have commented the movie is a bit short. Maybe with more time to show the supporting characters develop the movie would have made more sense. The only characters that really had any depth were Letty and Mickey.

Loretta Does Her Best

[Handlinghandel · 4/10 · 12 January 2006]

Loretta Young looks gorgeous. She gets to wear a lot of clothes. It's a little hard to buy her as an amoral, manipulative man-trap. But she works hard and this is partly because we know her oeuvre.

I have recently watched a lot of her early movies, which are not substantial enough to comment on. These include "Road To Paradise," "Party Girl," and "Big Business Girl." These are all early sound pictures and very creaky.

Here, though, Young is costarred with youthful and handsome Cary Grant. He hasn't quite become the Cary Grant who is rightly a fable in the history of Hollywood. But he's of course handsome and they are well matched -- if not necessarily plausible romantically.

The rest of the cast is OK. But the director was Lowell Sherman, who was excellent and has been underrated in later decades.

Loretta Young Seduces Cary Grant

[jayraskin1 · 8/10 · 5 November 2010]

This is the type of Pre-Code film that makes you curse the Hayes Code and the Catholic Legion of Decency. It is more serious and adult orientated movie than almost any movie for the next 20 years.

You have ambiguous lead characters who are allowed to be both good and bad people, so you can't really guess how things will turn out. The Hayes Code pretty much separated characters into good and bad and you could easily guess who would be rewarded (the good) and who would be punished (the bad).

Loretta Young is the revelation here. She looks a bit like Liza Minnelli in "Cabaret" and she seems to genuinely enjoy breaking social customs and taboos. She reminded me of Joan Crawford's character in "Rain". Her determination to seduce Cary Grant away from his wife still manages to shock us, or at least me, in 2010.

I know that Loretta Young hosted an anthology television series in the 1950's, which was rerun in the daytime through the 1960's. As a child, I found it quite boring and never watched it. I'm sure I would find it fascinating today.

The lackluster boy actor is the only weak part of the film. Young plays their scenes with genuine warmth, but the kid just gives us an early version of the East Side Kids caricature.

Cary Grant is his usual good guy self, but undergoes quite an unusual transformation. It is rare when Grant does something to alienate the audience in a movie, as he does here. He seems in complete control, but Loretta's sexiness causes him to lose his cool persona.

In most films we root for a mother who is going to lose her wayward son to state institutions. Here, we almost root against her getting her kid back. All in all, a fine film.

Just watch the clothes, not the story line

[jmileslaw · 7/10 · 25 July 2012]

This movie is worth watching if only for the costumes. Loretta Young's hair is soft, shiny, straight at the top and fuzzy and curly at the bottom. It's a virtually impossible hair style to achieve. Her acting is stellar, her figure so razor thin,yet still feminine and curvy. This was before there were anything but natural fibers, and the cloth used to make the costumes in the movie looks like liquid silver and gold. Cary Grant is a little weak, hair plastered down, no good dialogue for him. But he's still Cary Grant, so that's all you need to hold your attention completely. The little kid actor is awful, and worse, he's not even cute! He makes you want to turn away from the screen. Huge ears, huge nose, looks like he's already hit puberty--really embarrassing scene where he's in a tight swimming suit and his mother comments it looks like a girl. Also some icky scenes of what could only be described as family violence between the mother and the son. When the movie is over you say, "What!? It's over?" Then you start going over the last scene to see if you missed anything. Keep your eyes open in the last five minutes. Not that the surprise is anything but the abrupt ending, but you'll feel better if you were concentrating. Just sit back and get lost in those beautiful Loretta Young eyes, and ask yourself, "Are her eyes blue or violet?" *sigh* It's also a little disturbing when you think about how the movie is portending Loretta's own life. I really hate the character of the creepy little book store owner who is supposed to represent decency in Loretta's character's life. He just comes off as a perv. Also insulted by the antisemitism in what appears to be a crooked Jewish lawyer. Still rude even though it's 1934. I think Cary's wife is actually a strong character, though not well-developed. Probably most of her scenes ended up on the floor. Interesting use of the latest technology of the age--movies in the courtroom and recording in your own home. Must have been very space age at the time, and it's so fun to see the old 78 records you could break apart with your hands. It's a revealing slice of 1934 which shows that the human experience has not changed much in 75 years. But the movies have-where are those gorgeous movie stars?

Sends the wrong message

[1930s_Time_Machine · 4/10 · 9 May 2022]

Daryl Zanuck had just left Warners and set up 20th Century Pictures. At Warners he was a real pioneer. What had made him so successful was his sensationalist, non compromising approach to championing the underdog and raising awareness of social issues. The other thing he knew audiences wanted to see was young women in their underwear - whilst I have no objection whatsoever to this, used out of context, it's a bit tacky. This trope is unfortunately exploited to the full in this movie at the expense of developing the plot.

To launch his new business he seems to have abandoned his social campaigning and just focussed on sensationalism - with of course young women in their underwear! This is such a shame because this could have been something special with a real positive message.

Women's lives during the depression, especially those struggling on the breadline had to change. Along with the men, women needed to reinvent their roles, their place in society and in relationships. Difficult and confusing choices had to be made, not all of them were good but it was far from black and white. Loretta Young's character had been an unmarried teenage mum and seemingly because of that she chose to be bad. Such a horribly over-simplistic device to create a male idea of how some women were. It's almost like she needs to be punished for her "immoral" behaviour when she was fifteen. There's no sympathy or understanding of the torments she's endured - she's just bad. She's not only bad but beautiful, seductive and bad like some immature schoolboy's sexual fantasy.

If the film wasn't so short, perhaps they could have developed her character but because it's so short this just encourages us to view her through judgmental glasses.

Loretta Young does however make the best of a bad script- she is an exception actress. The little boy isn't too bad either but Cary Grant is appalling in this. A contender for the most one dimensional performance in a motion picture ever.

I've already mentioned that it's too short to develop the characters, it's also too short to give the story any sense of credibility. The ridiculous seduction of the shop window dummy (which looks like Carey Grant) is beyond unbelievable. Basically within the space of about three minutes we have: hello, I'm pretty - ok, let's go to bed - I love you - I am going to leave my wife.

This is a lost opportunity sacrificed for cheap impact value.

Snappy and chic ...

[serious89 · 8/10 · 25 July 2005]

Having grown up w/Loretta Young as a paragon of virtue in her TV show and her movies (seen on TV) - The Bishop's Wife, The Famer's Daughter, Come to the Stable, etc, etc, etc - I was surprised and entertained by this bauble. She plays a slut w/verve, AND she is dressed w/ her habitual hyper elegance. She changes outfits 5or 6 times a day, evidently. Her rather brutal screaming at her raucous son strikes an odd note, making her (no other word will do) horniness even more striking. Cary Grant is about as long-suffering & gullible as he was w/ Mae West, but he also looks good. Fast, sentimental and raunchy, she even gets to tear up several times - a swell little film.

Not very sophisticated, but interesting historically

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 6/10 · 25 July 2012]

This picture was right on the cusp of the Motion Picture Production Code, and as such it ran into quite a bit of trouble before its release.

This film is on another "cusp" -- right during that period from about 1932-1934 when films were beginning to be sophisticated. This film was more sophisticated than some, but not as sophisticated as others.

And interestingly, this film was made when Cary Grant had been making films for only a little over a year, and it shows Cary Grant before he was...well, Cary Grant. You see none of the Cary Grant persona here. He's just another actor near the beginning of his climb "up".

So this film is interesting in the annals of film-making for several reasons, but that is not saying it's a very good film. It's overly simple and almost funny in a few places where it's not supposed to be. Loretta Young is quite good here, but her character is almost as low as they go...so you're not apt to like her role very much. But, she sure was beautiful.

Watch this film...once...for the time frame in which it was made. But I doubt you'll come back a second time.

One Sexy Package when the picture called for it

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 22 January 2012]

Born To Be Bad takes the unusual step of casting the normally wholesome Loretta Young as a bad girl. She's not only a woman of easy virtue, she's got an out of wedlock kid to prove it in the person of young Jackie Kelk. She supports herself and Kelk with a job at Henry Travers's bookstore.

But Loretta thinks she might have hit the mother lode when Kelk gets hit by a dairy truck that belongs to rich farmer Cary Grant. She's going to follow the American dream of getting rich by suing somebody with deep pockets. And she's got an attorney in Harry Green from the whiplash Willie Gingrich school of shyster attorneys to help out. But Grant's attorney Paul Harvey gets the goods on them.

For a film which strays into The Fortune Cookie territory it then takes the road to Stella Dallas as Grant and his sterile wife Marion Burns offer to adopt young Kelk to give him a decent home. Loretta's down, but her bag of tricks is far from empty.

Young was already a star and Cary Grant was up and coming, but hadn't quite found his niche yet in comedy. He's a serviceable leading man her nothing more.

As for Loretta she was certainly one sexy package when the picture called for it. Born To Be Bad will never be rated in the top films of either Cary Grant or Loretta Young, but it did no harm to either star.

As for the ending, think Stella Dallas.

Loretta Young: Mother Shark.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 25 July 2012]

Cary Grant was 30 years old and Loretta Young was 21, and neither had quite fixed their personae. Grant doesn't seem able to relax. The guy was an acrobat earlier in life but here he seems wooden. Loretta Young, on the other hand, slings that slender chassis around with abandon and looks dewy, moist, gorgeous. When she smiles, from some angles, she resembles Blythe Danner.

But, man, she is a greedy and unprincipled shark. Her young son is hit by a truck. Damage is minimal but a "specialist" is brought in to tell the very wealthy Grant, who owns the truck company, that the kid may never again walk or play the violin with his feet. (Sob.) It's all set up to milk cash out of Grant and his dairy and Grant agrees to any settlement. As the "specialist" is leaving the room, he takes Young aside and mutters that she "can settle with me later -- outside." This was before the Hayes Office Of Morality and Rectitude dropped the porticullis and eliminated such salacious filth.

Man, is that little kid a nuisance. He's obviously older than seven and his ears are those of an African elephant. I swear I saw them flap in a slight breeze. His voice is an irritating whine. Cary Grant and his loving wife adopt him to raise him properly. I'd have stomped him like an insect.

It's diverting and it's short. It's an historical curiosity too, and Loretta Young is a delight. Not just for the eyes. She plays a rather low-down creature who smokes, chews gum, and drops her "g"s, so that "nothing" becomes "nuthin."

Almost

[boblipton · 6/10 · 10 March 2004]

This melodrama from 1934 almost works.

Henry Travers, as always, is excellent. Cary Grant does a good job as a the male lead who is not a star, but who is supposed to support the acting of the lead. He comes off as thoughtful,kind and wise.

Loretta Young, however, cannot quite pull off her leading role as the woman who, kicked around by life, decides to kick back. Jackie Kelk, as her barely pre-Code bastard son, is simultaneously whiny and predatory in an oh-gosh-gee-whiz sort of way.

The entire thing has the air of having been cut down to serve as a second feature: some extra scenes might have been helpful. Give it a miss unless you want to see what Cary Grant was like while working his way up the Hollywood star system.

Are you kidding me?

[ivegonemod · 1 August 2012]

Fantastic film but so drastically unbelievable in parts. I really enjoyed the relationship between Letty and her son even if she wasn't that great a mother. The son, at the moment I've forgotten his name, was excellent. He really brought a lot to the role, but I just kept thinking he has to be older than 7.

The relationship between Letty and Cary Grant's character I didn't get at all. How could they love each other as deep as all that in a less than 8 days? Really? There was no build up to it, perhaps because the movie is so short. Letty should be nothing more than a pretty misguided young woman to Mal or what have you.

The relationship between Mal and his wife was a complete joke, but not a single moment of it was funny. How on earth could she know that her husband would have sex with another woman right down the hall from her own bed and just look sad and pitiful and say she loves him with all her heart and he has done no wrong to her? Obviously she cannot have children, so she believes that since Letty could give him a son and she can't that what he did was OK. First of all, that is STUPID! Second of all, Letty did not really give him a son. She had no custody of him but the judge said that if she would agree, he would release the boy to Mal as his legal father. Sure, she agreed, but the alternative was to leave him in a home, and anyway, she tried to kidnap him back. They shouldn't have written the wife as such a sap.

Watch the courtroom scene - someone else did.

[campbell-russell-a · 7/10 · 22 June 2014]

I found Born to be Bad quite interesting and entertaining but it was the courtroom scene that rang bells with me. A young brat has been hit by a truck whilst skating in a dangerous manner and a shyster lawyer attempts to take the truck's owner who happens to be rich for all he can. The boy recounts his injuries and is transparently led by the lawyer through a series of claims concerning his inability to play, learn and otherwise enjoy life since the accident. Does this sound a lot like a Simpsons episode to anyone else? It gets better. When the boy's claims are exposed through film evidence as fabrications, his flustered lawyer objects and I quote: "This is immaterial, irrelevant ...inconsequential and has no bearing on the case." Does this sound a bit like Jackie Chiles from Seinfeld? This is not a criticism of The Simpsons or Seinfeld but it is indicative of how little life and comedy has really changed over the years. Bogus litigation and shyster lawyers have always been and will always remain good for a laugh.

Throwback to an Earlier Era

[Scoval71 · 5/10 · 16 March 2005]

Breathtakingly beautiful is the young Loretta Young in this movie--short movie, that is, which gives us life in the thirties with a look at fashion, language and life. It is a fair movie but pleasant to see because of the era in which it was made is so apparent in it. Cary Grant is young and vibrant and charming, isn't he always? As said, Loretta seems to own many lovely and glamorous clothes for a woman who is down on her luck, but well, it is a movie. Did I say she looks beautiful. She is a selfish woman who devises a plot to win her son back but comes to realize what really matters in the end is not her own good, but the well being of her child. A very short movie, too short, and ends abruptly, but I did enjoy seeing it. Stars today are not as beautiful as once was Loretta Young.

Young's best role in a perfect unbelievable movie

[lvovacampos · 10/10 · 2 October 2021]

Pre code glamour, sleaze, pure evil.... Listen, I don't know how to describe it other than... Along with Babyface, Redheaded Woman, Safe in Hell... ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES EVER MADE!!!!

Early Grant and Young film with different characters

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 13 April 2016]

Although known mostly for his comedy and mystery-action roles, Cary Grant was in a number of drama films. Those were mostly in his early years, and he was quite good. In "Born to be Bad," Grant plays opposite Loretta Young who also is in a type of role she was much lesser known for in her career. Here, she plays a loose character, con artist and small-time crook who's willing to perjure herself and try any scam to make some money. She has no compunction about the proper upbringing of her young son, or concern for his future and well-being. She's quite happy to use him in any scam.

Young was much more the established actor in 1934 and over time she became known for her roles as a decent woman, and caring and loving person. In this film, she commands top billing, along with a much meatier role. She plays Letty Strong. A young Jackie Kelk plays her son, Mickey, who's about 10 years old. He does very well in his role here, but as with most other childhood actors, he didn't have much of a career in films as an adult. Grant plays Malcolm Trevor, a wealthy dairy owner and caring and kind man. He's also no dupe to be hoodwinked by a scam, except possibly one of the heart. He and his wife, Alyce (played by Marion Burns) haven't been able to have children.

The story takes off after Mickey is hit by a milk truck that Malcolm is driving; and Letty comes up with a scheme to bilk Trevor's company for serious damages. I won't divulge how the story plays out, except to say that a love triangle soon develops with the alluring Letty duping Malcolm into a romance that may lead to an end to his marriage.

The film is a good look at Cary Grant in an early dramatic role, and Loretta Young in a diverse role. It's an interesting and entertaining film, but nothing special.

Guilty Pleasure

[robb_772 · 5/10 · 15 October 2006]

An uneven melodrama, BORN TO BE BAD stays afloat thanks to it's talented cast and some interesting, surprisingly risqué pre-code moments. The film's "bad girl" storyline is routinely handled, but frequent references to promiscuity, direct dishonesty, adultery, and general amorality are shockingly blatant and would not be seen in the film world again until the sixties. Somewhat inspired by the similar Joan Crawford films of the early thirties, Loretta Young's Letty, the "heroine" of BORN TO BE BAD, openly uses sex and dishonesty as means of fulfilling her own selfish desires. She even seems to view her own child as little more than leverage in her illegal swindles, and the film offers very little rationale behind her wickedness - an odd stance for a film of it's era.

The film also gains interest due to it's capable cast, featuring many soon-to-be-famous faces. A young Cary Grant and Henry Travers (best known as angel Clarence in 1946's It's a Wonderful Life) offer sincere and professional performances as the men in Letty's life, both of whom are polar opposites of the other. Loretta Young is cast very much against type as the dubious Letty, and she is not convincing for a single moment. However, she dives into the role with everything she's got, and it is a total hoot to watch her attempt to be believable as a cold-hearted femme fatale.

The film has several other campy delights, particularly in trying to pass off the eleven year-old Jackie Kelk (in a rather grating performance) as Letty's supposedly seven year old son. The film also clearly takes place in some fantasy realm, where logic is thrown out the window in lieu standard plot devices. In this film, all of the good folks are ceremonious saints who only error when they are corrupted by a devilish woman like Letty, where as Letty inexplicably becomes a model citizen in the last few minutes of the film just for having known such good people. Naturally, it makes no logical sense whatsoever, but it sure makes one blissfully entertaining piece of camp cinema.

One of Last Pre-Code Films, Open Marriage Premise Wouldn't Be Shown For Another Thirty Years

[springfieldrental · 7/10 · 15 March 2023]

Twentieth Century Pictures' May 1934 "Born to be Bad" would never had reached the screen in its current form if it had been released a couple of months later. The Hays Production Code office was undergoing a drastic transformation during the summer of 1934. This controversial film is a story of a young woman with an illegitimate child whose job was to (ahem) entice wholesale buyers to sign contracts for a friend's business.

Despite the relatively tolerant 'pre-code' censorship, the Hay's office still had the studio rewrite, chop and recut the movie before "Born to be Bad" gained a stamp of approval, just under the enforcement wire. The film also involved a loosely 'open marriage' arrangement that created roadblocks from the newly invigorated censors soon after its release.

Loretta Young appears in her career's most brazen role as a young single woman (Lette Strong) who became pregnant at 15. She raised her son, Mickey (Jackie Kelk), to be streetwise, but his education suffered greatly from his truancy. Through a quirk in fate, Mickey is taken in by dairy mogul Malcolm Trevor (Cary Grant), whose wife is unable to have children. During one of the visits to see her son, Lette's seductiveness is too much for Malcomb to resist. She plans to hold the evening's romp over his head to obtain money. But she's foiled by Malcomb confessing to his wife, who has no problem with it because Lette provided the son she always wanted.

One film reviewer highly recommended "Born to be Bad" not only for the stunning gowns Young wore, but to gain "a glimpse at a world that will not appear in Hollywood films for the next 30 years." This was the last film silent actor-turned-director Lowell Sherman would direct after delivering such classics as Mae West's 1933 "She Done Him Wrong" and Katherine Hepburn's Oscar-winning 1933 role in "Morning Glory." He died of double pneumonia at age 46 a few months after his last movie's release.

The Ending

[[e-mail] · 5/10 · 10 January 2006]

I want to comment on that the romance was there...

I just want ed to say that I thought the ending would be better, but she just leaves.. I think eventually in the future if this was a true story that she would stay with him... Like if they made a sequel to this that she would come back and be with him in the end with Mickey...

With saying that.. I pretty much liked the rest of the movie.. I think that Cary Grant is very gorgeous in his younger years in this movie.. and Loretta Young is just as beautiful as she is in The Bishops wife (Which Cary Grant plays her guardian angel also in which he falls in love with her)...

The movie is a lesson to stay strong and tough....and lie... to get out of unbeatable predicaments.

strong character study

[petersjoelen · 7/10 · 15 October 2023]

This movie is a very interesting study when you look at it from a modern single mother standpoint , you can see clearly the difference in portraying bad influence from the mother in a more realistic way back then , and the blind ( all mothers are good trope ) in these modern times .

The lack of critisising bad female behavior was back then not an issue yet compare to now .

The characters are all well cast , Young is strong in her performance as the mother who loves her son and does not realize she sets him up for failure .

The kid plays well too but lack a bit in the emotional scenes .

Grant is less impressive , descent but not outstanding , maybe his serious performance was somewhat strange to me because i know him mainly for his comedy parts .

Conclusion , interesting social study with good acting .

Grant's best performance?

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 19 September 2017]

I didn't like the abrupt finish! The movie runs only 59 minutes on the Fox DVD. Not exactly good value for the money! I actually bought this 2005 Fox DVD in Australia and it cost me $21.00.

Was it worth the money? Yes, just! Although you would think that a rich film-maker like 20th Century Fox would have thrown in a few extras - especially as the movie ends with this unexpected fade-out rather quite suddenly and very abruptly.

But right up to it's somewhat abrupt and disappointing finish, "Born To Be Bad" (presumably the title is supposed to refer to the Loretta Young character) is very well acted, particularly by the leads, Loretta Young and Cary Grant - and also by the young boy whom I've not heard of before! (His name, according to the Fox DVD is Henry Travers! Perhaps giving people wrong or defective names is some sort of new publicity ploy that Fox have dreamed up to give their DVD releases greater mileage with critics and pressmen. It's a novel idea, I'll admit, but I don't like it and have no wish to encourage it).

Anyway, according to the Fox DVD, the director was someone called Lowell Sheerman. Never heard of him either! But I do know Lowell Sherman - a top director, in my opinion. Brilliant in fact! I think this was his second last film as a director. The only later title I have for him is "Night Life of the Gods" (1935).

But getting back to the movie, I'd say again that under Lowell Sherman's brilliant direction, both Young and Grant never gave better performances. That fact alone makes "Born to be Bad" worth seeing.