User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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 .