Delightfully Dangerous (1945)

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.

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!

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!"

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.