Michael_Elliott Born to Be Bad (1934) *** (out of 4) Letty Strong (Loretta Young) is a street tough girl who really isn't that good of a mother to her seven-year-old son Mickey (Jackie Kelk). One day Mickey is hit by a car and he's actually okay but his mother makes him play up his injuries to try and get more money out of the rich Malcolm Trevor (Cary Grant). The plan backfires in court and Letty loses her son. Malcolm agrees to take the child but complications follow.BORN TO BE BAD is a pretty ridiculous film in many ways but it's impossible not to enjoy it. After all, it's got two screen legends working together and both of them are in fine form. It's also worth noting that the film runs an incredibly quick 61-minutes so it flies by and while it's not "deep" or overly intelligent, it's certainly entertaining and that the main thing.What I enjoyed most about this film was the performance by Young. I'm not going to lie but she's one of my favorite actresses and my love for her started with this film. Obviously she's an incredibly beautiful woman and I really loved that toughness she brought to this character. I really thought she did a great job at playing this street-tough woman who will stop at nothing to get what she wants. Grant, loaned out by Paramount, really doesn't have much to do but he's always fun to watch. Kelk is good (and annoying) as the young kid and you've also got Henry Travers and Paul Harvey in small roles.As I said, if you're looking for a deep drama then you're not going to find it here. BORN TO BE BAD got released just before the Hayes Office stepped in and caused issues in Hollywood so the Pre-Code nature is another thing the film has in its favor.

ivegonemod 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.

Jay Raskin 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.

boblipton 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.