The Reckless Way (1936) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Lack of sympathy for the leading lady here.
mark.waltz10 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
In the 1930's, there were two films called "Million Dollar Legs", the name of the film with in a film that Marian Nixon is starring in. The paint by numbers script of this poverty row comedy romance is a weakness for any credibility that the film might have, the often repeated story of a rising film star and her struggles on and off the set. The lack of sympathy for Nixon is also accelerated with no charisma of leading man Kane Richmond who would go on to be a great B film detective a decade later.

Nixon is ruthless in her pursuits to rise from model to film star, and her character is not always consistent. The film shooting sequences (particularly her screen test) are laughable. The only real amusements come from Inez Courtney as the wisecracking best friend, John Peters as a Von Stroheim like imperious director and Art Howard and Gloria Gordon as an aging businessman and his imperious wife. I'd rather have spent my 70 minutes watching them argue than deal with the whining Nixon and the wimpy Richmond.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Despite the saucy innuendo, the film is quite tepid.
planktonrules13 March 2012
The DVD for this film bears the title "The Lure of Hollywood"--perhaps in an attempt by Alpha Video to make it appear to be an exploitation film (and they market quite a few of them). IMDb does not list this alternate title, so it took some digging until I could establish that these were the same film.

Marian Nixon plays a girl who doesn't want to settle for second best. She is offered chance to be a model and jumps at it. Her boyfriend is upset--he just wants to marry her and settle down to a life of domestic bliss. But she has stars in her eyes--and soon learns to use publicity to create a new movie star persona. Throughout all this, the sappy boyfriend is always waiting nearby--hoping that she'll come to her senses and give up this new life.

Overall, a decent film but one that seemed pretty tame and a bit tepid from time to time. Had this been made during the Pre-Code years (1934 or before), the film probably would have been a bit racier...and more interesting. Still, it's not a terrible film and it's worth seeing if you want to see what a very low-budget version of both "A Star is Born" and "Red-Headed Woman" would be like if they were merged into one movie. Otherwise, there are a lot better movies out there that touch on these same themes, as occasionally "The Reckless Way" comes off as a bit cheap and second-rate.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Poorly Written and Executed
boblipton5 September 2018
With a cast that included Marian Nixon, Kane Richmond and Inez Courtney in front of the camera, I expected some decent acting but not much else from this Poverty Row romantic comedy. The story is that Miss Nixon is a hotel stenographer, and Mr. Richmond a desk clerk. They're in love, but while he wants to get married, she's ambitious. A modeling contract to sell stockings as "The Girl With the Million-Dollar Legs" gets her some publicity, especially when the manufacturer's wife imagines an affair between her husband and Miss Nixon. She sues for divorce and the scandal hits the newspapers. Miss Nixon is figuring how to monetize this, when a studio contract drops into her lap, and elements of satire on movie-making enter the mix.

Unfortunately, the problems with the first half are immense, ruining my modest hopes. Director Bernard Ray seems unable to raise a decent line reading out of some professional actors; Miss Courtney, as the wise-cracking friend, seems mechanical, Mr. Richmond's character changes from moment to moment to suit the plot and the only consistently sympathetic character is William H. Strauss as the studio head (which seems to be a requirement in movies of this sort; doubtless it was the only way to get them to agree to make this sort of picture); his delivery of Yinglish malapropisms is weak. Several characters and subplots, including a process server and a writer whose understanding of colloquial English and how to write for performers seems non-existent, appear and disappear to suit the constraints of the 70-minute running time.

Many comedies are funny in the beginning but run out of steam in the last third, when getting ahead with the plot. In this one, the picture seems to settle down and the performances improve (except for John S. Peters as the pseudo-von Stroheim director, whose shaky German accent disappears, to be replaced by a monotone). By then I had lost interest in the movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed