Delightfully Dangerous (1945) User Reviews

If there was a "High School Musical" of 1945, this would be it!

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 20 January 2012]

The still lovely Jane Powell stars as a musical student whose older sister (Constance Moore) is a burlesque star unbeknownst to Ms. Powell. After discovering the truth, Jane decides to help make her sister legit with the help of Broadway producer (Ralph Bellamy). The rest is predictable, yet entertaining, and features a top-notch cast of supporting players including Arthur Treacher and Louise Beavers, plus the usual group of rowdy, boy-crazy teenage girls. (Has nothing changed?) The musical numbers are rather second rate, but there are a lot of amusing bits of comedy. After this, Ms. Powell went over to MGM, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Early musical effort by Jane Powell

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 20 December 2022]

15-year-old Sherry Williams (Jane Powell) attends a private all-girls music school. She's very proud of her older sister Josephine (Constance Moore) whom Sherry believes is a very famous concert singer. Sherry heads to the city to track down her sister, only to learn that she's actually a burlesque queen known as "Bubbles Barton". Sherry's image of her sister is shattered, and Josephine and friend Arthur Hale (Ralph Bellamy) try to smooth things over. Also featuring Arthur Treacher, Louise Beavers, Ruth Tobey, and Morton Gould & His Orchestra.

This was the second film appearance for teen singing star Powell, and her first in a fictional role (she'd played herself in 1944's Song of the Open Road). She's cute and has screen presence, but she's also a bit rough, acting-wise, overdoing several scenes. But perhaps that was intended, as she's an emotional teenager. The songs are passable, if unmemorable. The burlesque setting, and some of the racy dialogue, shows that the production code boundaries were being pushed against, if ever so gently.

Bubbles' troubles

[weezeralfalfa · 6/10 · 21 April 2019]

A minor musical drama. Future star Jane Powell's first starring role in a Hollywood movie. Unlike the rest of her musical dramas, it was not sponsored by MGM. Symptomatic of it's limited budget, it was shot in B&W, whereas musicals with several big productions should have been shot in color at this time. The copy I saw, at YouTube, had lots of pops and vertical lines, which wasn't too distracting.......... The 2 big production numbers were the highlights for me. The first comes early. It's put on by the musical school that Jane(as Sherry Williams) attends. Jane is featured in part of it, as she sings "Once Upon a Time", while walking along a thin bouncy tightrope-like board, with a parasol. The other participants mostly danced more or less in place, after a gallery shooter hit a target, which activated them from a frozen posture. As a grand finale, shooters reactivated the several groups simultaneously...........The second production acts as a grand finale, taking about 8 min. It takes place in Arthur Hale's(Ralph Bellamy) legitimate theater in NYC. On the billboard outside the theater, Jane(as Sherry) and Constance Moore(as Jo) are headlined as a sister musical team. Jo is Sherry's older sister. Normally, she performs in a burlesque house, as Bubbles Barton, but has abandoned that to costar in this legitimate theater. Perhaps the neatest thing about this production is that there is a mixture of burlesque and legitimate attributes. Jo leads the dancers dressed in typical skimpy burlesque outfits, while Sherry lead the bevy of dancers dressed in white evening gowns. Sometimes they alternate, while at other times , they are mixed together. The producer was taking a big chance as to whether this odd mix would go over with his clientele. Nothing is said about this, but the assumption is that it was a hit. Sometimes Jo and Sherry sang separately, while near the end, they sang together, although it's mostly Sherry who sings..........Broadway producer Hale had taken an interest in Sherry, impressed with her singing. However, he said she had to be at least 18 to perform on his stage, unless a relative signed to OK her inclusion. In this case, that relative had to be Jo. However, there was a problem that Jo was still a burlesque queen at that point, which ruled her out as being qualified to sign for Sherry. At the point where Hale said she had to be 18yo, she goes out and gets things to make her look older. Then goes out dancing with Hale, who is shoved aside when a bevy of sailors discover her, thus proving to Hale that she can pass for 18...........A romance angle to this story is virtually lacking, except that near the end, Jo tells Sherry that Hale has asked her to marry him, and she has accepted......... Just a year later, MGM released its own B&W film "Two Sisters from Boston", which has a very similar plot.

An Average Musical

[Snow Leopard · 3 December 2004]

This light musical is solid if nothing special, with a story, characters, and production that are all about average overall. The cast is probably the strongest part if it, with a young Jane Powell in the lead role.

The story concerns two sisters and their dreams of a career in show business. As the younger of the two, Powell's character wants to be a singer, and Powell is given several opportunities to perform. As her sister, Constance Moore has a simpler role, but she fulfills it adequately. Ralph Bellamy probably gives the best performance, and he is well-cast as a well-meaning, slightly befuddled Broadway producer. Arthur Treacher also pitches in playing Bellamy's butler.

Most of the rest of it is rather plain, although there are no real flaws. The story is purely lightweight, but it has enough to keep you watching, and the characters are just believable enough to make you care about them.

Sweet Jane Powell

[syerramia-61598 · 6/10 · 5 March 2023]

IMDB says that this is a remake of Mad about Music featuring Deanna Durbin. That surely must be an error. This film, Delightfully Dangerous rather has an identical premise to Two Sisters from Boston featuring Kathryn Grayson, June Allyson & Peter Lawford. If so, pretty incredible given that these films were made within a year of each other. Rather, The Toy Tiger with Jeff Chandler, Laraine Day & Tim Hovey is a very charming remake of Mad about Music. Incredible how many 1930s films were remade in the 1940s.

Pleasant enough film, if slightly exasperating at times. Musical sequences bit too long, in my opinion.

wreckage

[Cristi_Ciopron · 6/10 · 17 April 2016]

This musical _dramedy with Jane Powell as the poison ivy, Constance Moore as her sister, Bellamy as helpless but resigned, directed by Lubin (who was a director otherwise dependable for gentle humor, mostly gags like the ice-creams) and written by DeLeon but also a few others (which usually means slapdash), has its meager graciousness and classiness (but not as naughty), with a bit of awkwardness, and it was meant as extravagant, grand and piquant. Although perhaps not as much sleazy as sulfurous in spirit, it doesn't qualify as exploitation, it has a cool cast, mostly ineffective direction (mediocre, bland but knowledgeable) and likable sets; the fact that the players have styles so unlike enhances the meant extravagance and flurry. Bellamy's character is honest and chivalrous, but the casting _betted on the player's innate shrewdness and slyness.

The story bubbles away. Save for the cast, the result is disappointing. Jane Powell and Constance Moore play two sisters, and they both give good performances; Bellamy's character is a consummate gentleman, after all he gets to marry a stripper whose tits and ass are famous, and the player seems resigned and somewhat amused.

While the movie has a claim for being a fairy tale, it also comprehends the coarser facts, like the unnerving scene with the marines (the leading actress gives it its truth), and the numberless ironies, as when Ruth Tobey, the dependable and plump roommate, flatters Jo Williams for providing what to tell her children about.

Being the tale of a rescuing, it's nonetheless character driven (by the players, not in any way by the script) and it has a feel of laziness, of torpor, contradicted by Jane Powell's force. It's certainly watchable, but mediocre at best, and quite lifeless or uninspired, bland. Precisely what could of been exploitative is awkwardly delivered; so that the naughtiness comes across as bland, the piquant gags as rough, and the gentleness as enjoyable, the storyline, mostly random footage, manages somehow to be good-natured. Yet, why did people like DeLeon and Lubin have to be involved with it? The general sentiment is of aimlessness.

Constance Moore's tits and ass are complimented, which they presumably deserve.

When the tall girl on the toes enters, she exclaims: 'They just came!'. Maybe they did.

Z musical

[n_r_koch · 5/10 · 10 July 2008]

In the '30s and '50s the Hollywood musical did mostly Broadway-style material, but during the WW2 period there was a craze for the vaudeville era: "For Me and My Gal", "Lady of Burlesque", "Ziegfeld Girl", and many more. These musicals were always best when they cast real ex-vaudevillians (Judy Garland) or Broadway dancers (Barbara Stanwyck). This one doesn't have either but it's not too bad. As usual with no-budget musicals there isn't a lot of music in it, and though it's got some burlesque sequences of course there are no authentic burlesque (i.e., stripper) numbers. (The censorship period in Hollywood was a bad time to get nostalgic for burlesque.) There is one clever dance number, with the dancers are got up as marionettes at a fair.

Ralph Bellamy is an impresario and Powell is the cute girl who dreams of Carnegie Hall and discovers (it is never a secret to us) that her "theatrical" sister (Moore) is really a burlesque queen. Powell dreams up a way to redeem the sister. Never mind that Powell and Moore look nothing alike and don't appear to like one another. Moore, who made only Z movies, seems to sense that Powell was on to bigger and better things (she was but not for very long). Powell is a bit annoying in the early scenes, but she gets rather funny later once she's swathed in mink and pretending to be a diva. All in all, this is kind of a fun period piece. It's more typical of 1940s musicals than the big classics everyone knows about.

Quite cute

[calvertfan · 8/10 · 18 May 2002]

An early outing for Jane Powell as Sherry, a student at a musical school who yearns for a career on the stage, like her elder sister Jo (Constance Moore). But the fat is in the fire when Sherry travels to New York to see her sister on the stage, and finds out that she's not a top Broadway actress, but "Bubbles Barton" the burlesque queen.

Jane P does the annoying little sister thing as well as Shirley Temple did in "The Bachelor And The Bobby-Soxer", though at least this time she's not in love with the older man (phew!). "Delightfully Dangerous" starts off a bit slowly, but soon picks up, and is a treat to watch - except for the final musical number which drags on for what seems like hours. No one suddenly breaks out into song in this musical, all the numbers are the ones on the stage, so only one of them really seems to fit into the storyline at all. Constance Moore was brilliant as Bubbles, and the definite standout star of the movie has to be Arthur Treacher (one of my childhood favourites!) as Jeffers the butler. Remarkably witty as always, even he has seen the infamous Bubbles on stage and thinks she has "a wonderful pair of - eyes."

"Whenever you get one of your Super Dupers, somebody winds up in the soup!"

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 19 June 2009]

Five writers worked on this kinda-cute/kinda-silly frolic starring Jane Powell as a 15-year-old boarding school youngster who's been bragging about her big sister, a Broadway chanteuse; turns out sis is really a burlesque queen nicknamed "Bubbles Barton", a secret which her idolizing sibling finds out the hard way. Begins with a flurry of teenage activity and wisecracks, some of which are very funny. Second act away from the school settles into more conventional comic material, ending with both sisters on stage for some trilling and hoofing. Pleasant enough, but Super Duper thin. Director Arthur Lubin sets up several creative visual gags, but he can't do much with the film's sentimental side, which is pure mush. ** from ****

C'mon peeps, this movie is FREAKING AWESOME

[rooprect · 9/10 · 15 April 2007]

I just finished watching this wonderful movie and immediately rushed to IMDb thinking I'd find a whole bunch of cult followers to yap with. Instead I find only 1 post in the forum and 2 lukewarm reviews.

As my title states: C'mon peeps, this movie is FREAKING AWESOME! First of all Jane Powell is absolutely adorable as "Little Poison Ivy", the 15-year-old girl who has a spooky way of looking twice her age at times. But regardless of how she's gussied up, she carries a sweet, impish, Jennifer Jones-like charm which is just perfect for the role.

It's perfect because--enter the sultry sister--Constance Moore works the other end of the spectrum. As a worldly, boogie-woogie burlesque showgirl, Ms. Moore is the perfect compliment to Ms. Powell's Baroque innocence.

Caught in the middle is Ralph Bellamy as a very Jimmy Stewart-like father figure who gets dragged into the whole mess that these feisty sisters create. He does a fantastic job. I would venture to say that in this case he out-Stewarts Stewart.

But what really knocked me out were the supporting performances from the butler Jeffers, the schoolchum Molly and the maid Hannah, each of whom make perfect comedic entrances at the perfect time. It was like watching a Shakespearean comedy where the real big laughs are handled by the minor characters, leaving the major characters to focus on the plot an dialogue. Freaking brilliant stuff & excellent performances all around. This is one of those movies where the cast is absolutely perfect all the way down to the extras, and I can't imagine anyone doing a better job in any of the roles.

Lastly I have to mention the excellent camera work and framing of shots. The director was very creative with perspective and depth, so we don't feel like we're watching a 2-dimensional cartoon all the time. There are clever shots where the action is in the forefront, but our eye is drawn to some detail in the background. And when the director applies this cinematic style to the actual dance numbers, the result is staggering (like in the finale where a parade of girls magically "flows" from behind a column and draws the shot toward the camera while Powell remains the stationary focal point in the background. Yeah it's hard to describe.

I am truly dumbfounded at why this film has such a low (5.9) rating on IMDb. I'm guessing it's because this is a very female-dominated story & performance, and practically all of the votes are from males (out of 40 votes, only 2 are female). Well golly, I don't feel like any less of a man for saying "this girly movie kicks ass!"

Good actors wasted in cheap, dull musical

[rhoda-9 · 4/10 · 19 June 2009]

It's a treat to see the majestic, golden-haired, golden-voiced Constance Moore, but what a shame she is in something so cheap and lame. From the first shots we know this movie isn't going to bother with coherence. We see an orchestra leader conducting a symphony, then Jane Powell in her boarding-school bedroom. She falls asleep and we see her dream of joining the orchestra at Carnegie Hall and singing with them. Huh? Who is she? Why should we care about her? Why show us a character's DREAM before showing us anything about who they ARE? The whole thing is slipshod like that. Moore is supposed to be the love interest for Ralph Bellamy, but we never see them do anything but argue. Then, near the end, they are reconciled, but nothing more romantic happens. No love words, no kiss. Then, right at the end, Moore whispers to Powell that Bellamy has asked her to marry him and she will say yes! It's as if the movie makers suddenly woke up and realised, uh-oh, we forgot the love stuff! The movie also has its distasteful aspects--the 15-year-old character (Powell's real age at the time) puts her hair up, wears lots of makeup and a sexy dress to show that she can pass for eighteen and be in a Broadway show. As a result, dozens of soldiers and sailors flock to her eagerly, and she encourages them. It gives the viewer an uncomfortable feeling that she is being taken advantage of.

There is also the weird elevation to star status of the mediocrity Morton Gould. He is the conductor at the beginning, playing Carnegie Hall, and throughout the film we are told, ooh, they are putting on an original Morton Gould show, ooh, that's Morton Gould!, ooh, Morton Gould wants me for his radio show! Gould himself, as we see from his appearance in the movie, is as dull as his unmemorable music.

And the burlesque! The typical embarrassment of Hays-code burlesque theatre, with men roaring and stamping at girls who wear more clothes than real girls of the time did at the beach. The little sister burns with shame at seeing Moore display a leg (horrors!) to the audience, but in the Broadway show at the end, in which they both star, Moore is wearing a costume that shows BOTH her legs! Ridiculous.

It is very nice to see such likable performers as Arthur Treacher and Louise Beavers (there is a sweet moment when he stops making ice-cream sundaes for Powell and instead makes one for himself and one for Beavers, and they dig in). But both have been much, much funnier with better material.

Amusing early Jane Powell vehicle

[dorbel · 7 June 2010]

Poor plot, dire music, amateurish dancing, but surprisingly likable overall! The screenplay is quite witty and the acting in the minor parts is excellent. Better directed and photographed than most musicals of this type the time passes quite nicely. Watch for amusing cameos by stalwarts Arthur Treacher and Louise Beavers. There are a number of glaring inconsistencies and holes in the plot. Morton Gould, surely the least charismatic band leader ever to star in and write the music for a musical, plays just the sort of dull symphonic schmaltz that is apparently holding back the prospects of Arthur Hale's new production, while Josephine's shocking burlesque act shows a great deal less leg than her interminable number in a legitimate play at the end of the film.

Kinda creepy when seen today...

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 12 September 2011]

Jane Powell stars as a 15 year-old who goes to a boarding school and idolizes her sister (Constance Moore). This sister, according to Jane, is a Broadway star and she regales her classmates of stories about the sister. However, her sister is NOT the sort of star she assumed, as she is a Burlesque performer. On a lark, Powell decides to leave school and go to New York to see her perform. When she does, she is indeed shocked--and her illusions are destroyed. Moore would like to show Powell around the city, but her show is about to go on the road. Jumping in to save the day is nice-guy Ralph Bellamy--a Broadway producer who has taken a special interest in Jane. In fact, when Jane first sees her sister on stage, she runs away and looks for Bellamy for help. And, naturally, since he's so gosh-darn swell, he agrees to watch Jane and put her on a train back to the school. Naturally the plan doesn't go as expected--mostly because of Powell's hijinx.

To me, this was a very unsettling film. Powell looked to be about 15 and when Bellamy jumps in to help, you can't help but feel creeped out--and wonder if he might be a child molester--especially when he practically begs her sister to let him help! Maybe it didn't seem so creepy back in 1945, but with today's sensibilities you can't help but find the plot very worrisome. Now back then, they did NOT put characters in films who were into pedophilia--so it was all pretty innocent. But would you let a strange man you barely know hang out with your teen and be responsible for her?!?! Creepy indeed--and the title doesn't help at all to dispel this feeling! Interestingly, however, I seem to be the only reviewer so far that was bothered by all this--perhaps it's because I am a father with a teenage daughter! If you can manage to look beyond this, the film is a pleasant piece of fluff. How much you'll like it will depend a lot on whether you like the style of singing in the movie, as Powell's voice was almost operatic and not the sort of voice that the average person would enjoy. It's at best a fair musical--and one mostly for die-hard musical fans and non-fathers!

A joyful movie starring the amazing Jane Powell

[RogerMooreTheBestBond · 8/10 · 26 May 2009]

This is only Jane Powell's second movie and she can more than hold her own. She plays the little sister of Constance Moore, who is a big star in New York. Ralph Bellamy plays a Broadway producer and really gives a great performance. Jane wants to follow her big sister to New York and she won't let her go. Jane talks with Ralph about her sister and he tells everyone what a big star she is on Broadway. Jane goes to New York to see her anyway. She is crushed when her sister is the star of a burlesque show. She runs into Ralph and he calms her down and calls for her sister. He explains to the sister why he lied to Jane about her. Jane is noticed and hired to do a show until they find out what her sister does. Jane finds out Ralph needs talent for his show and she secretly records her sister. He hears it and hires her. She does a great job and Jane also gets to sing in the play. This was a nice movie with a good pace to it. The three leads were perfectly cast and I recommend watching this film. The DVD releases are cheaply produced, but it's still worth watching.

Low Budget and It Shows, but it Does Contain Dancing

[lepoisson-1 · 3/10 · 24 July 2010]

OK, I'll admit it: I'm a sucker for dance movies (I'm a mediocre male dancer). I've sat through some horrendous movies in spite of bad reviews just to see the dance scenes (i.e I saw Center Stage on the big screen). I was bored the other night, and this came on the public access channel, so I gave it a shot.

The opening dream sequence sets the initial height (high? low?) of the schlock bar, properly preparing you for the predictable and atrocious plot and screen writing. I really didn't care for any of the characters (except Arthur Treacher and Louise Beavers as butler and maid: they were adorable, especially with the ice cream). There was a unique dance number with "mechanical" dancers, and the final "climatic" dance-singing routine (oops! Was that a spoiler?). The music was downright mediocre (that was supposed to be the point of this movie, right?).

There's not really much to recommend. If you see it on DVD, catch the dances.

Putting Strauss in the groove

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 9 February 2013]

In between her contracts with Universal and MGM Jane Powell starred in this independent musical picture Delightfully Dangerous. Jane is about as dangerous as my cat, but the film is an easy to take musical with Powell doing her best to be a junior Deanna Durbin.

In fact she and Gloria Jean were both signed as backup sopranos for Durbin, but the folks at Universal decided they had one soprano too many and with the studio now carried by Abbott&Costello they let Powell go which was one lucky break for her because MGM signed her right up. Louis B. Mayer never met a soprano he didn't like.

Jane's got a Durbin like part in this United Artists release, she's the younger sister of Constance Moore who has told her she's in a musical show. What Moore didn't say was that she was in burlesque as the famous 'Bubbles Barton' and has left Jane to imagine that she's a bit more than a burlesque queen.

It's quite a shock when Jane and friend Ruth Tobey run away from school to New York and meet up with Moore baring the legal limit. Of course with the help of Broadway producer Ralph Bellamy everything gets worked out in the end as both Moore and Powell appear in a Strauss operetta that gets revived with a bit of swing. Arthur Treacher plays Bellamy's butler (what else) and Louise Beavers is Moore's maid. When the households blend those two should make it interesting.

Hunt Stromberg who produced several films at MGM including MacDonald/Eddy musicals produced this film and he sure must have missed those lavish MGM budgets. Still those that Jane Powell certainly had a bright future awaiting her at Leo the Lion's den.

Strauss In Swing Time

[boblipton · 5/10 · 26 September 2019]

Jane Powell thinks her sister, Constance Moore, is starring on Broadway. Producer Ralph Bellamy confirms this to her classmates at her posh school. When she goes to New York to visit, she discovers the truth: Miss Moore is starring in burlesque. Meanwhile, Bellamy is unable to cast his new show, a swing version of Strauss as arranged by Morton Gould.

Except for the burlesque connection -- alas, the camera cuts away before we get to see the good stuff -- this looks a lot like a Deanna Durbin musical from the late 1930s, with Miss Powell standing in for Miss Durbin. Miss Powell gets to sing a number of songs in a variety of styles, and Miss Moore cuts loose a couple of time, especially with the big finale, which is a lot of fun; the staging suggests R. Strauss' DIE FLEDERMAUS more than Johann Strauss, but that's fine. Miss Powell shortly went to MGM, where she played this sort of role for several years; Miss Moore appeared in several movies for a couple more years, often in a specialty number; and Bellamy made one more movie that year, then was not seen on the big screen for a decade.

It's the type of story that was often done better for Miss Durbin, and clearly didn't serve anyone's career. Director Arthur Lubin stages the musical numbers pretty stodgily; even if they are set in a theater stage or where Morton Gould's orchestra is playing, there's little sense of the visual fantasy that most movie musicals provided.

Cute and fun

[Alicemingo · 29 April 2021]

I thought this was a lot of fun. Great old film. Solid performances by all.

A Powell Whirl-Wind

[dougdoepke · 15 August 2021]

Plug Powell's bouncy effervescence into a generator and the sky would light up. At times she's a little much, but as an aspiring teenage singer, she really lights up the screen. Now, if she can just get the vocal career she wants and turn sister Moore from a burlesque queen into a legitimate stage performer, she'll be happy. Meanwhile, big-time stage producer Bellamy gets to stand around and look handsomely important. All together, they make an engaging threesome.

For sure, director Lubin keeps things moving, while the choreographed musical numbers are imaginative eye-catchers. Too bad the songs are forgettable even with the renowned Morton Gould conducting. Note the fringe presence of all the lively servicemen as the big war winds down in the production year of 1944. And for those interested in ladies' fashions of the time, there's plenty, especially with the stately Moore modeling. Then too, is that the great W. C. Fields doing a quick grab-by in the rolling record scene. It passes quickly, but see what you think.

Anyway, it's a fast moving, if not particularly memorable musical, that showcases a teenage Powell clearly on her way up the movie ladder.

A lesser musical comedy before Jane Powell's star rises

[SimonJack · 6/10 · 3 May 2024]

The very talented Jane Powell was a delightful and enjoyable actress, especially in her string of musicals from the mid-1940s to late 1950s. But, this was just her second film, and a loan-out from MGM with much lesser quality material than MGM would provide for her. She doesn't have the wonderful musicians, top actors, writers and material here that were just around the corner for her at MGM. Those would make her star shine brightly in some wonder musical comedies and romance films.

There isn't even much music or comedy here The best is the school's annual production in which a number of skits - song and dance routines are performed in a carnival setting. The performers appear as mannequins who come to life to sing and dance when a carnival patron shoots the bulls-eye for their skit. It's an original sort of arrangement that is quite good. But the rest of the film has very little music and just a couple brief scenes with slight comedy Arthur Treacher and Louse Beavers provide most of the comedy as Jeffers and Hannah.

There is one little aside for Ralph Bellamy fans This is one film in which Bellamy gets a girl. In most films with Cary Grant and a host of leading men in which he plays second fiddle, Bellamy always loses out to the more handsome hero.

Of all of the musical comedies and romance films that Jane Powell made, only was a real dud - "Athena" in 1954. This film is the only other one that isn't at least very good. And she made some great ones.