Develiker terrible... so disappointed.

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

seymourblack-1 This low budget mystery thriller is intriguing right from the start and becomes incredibly tense following the unexplained disappearance of one of its main characters. The atmosphere steadily becomes more threatening and the presence of a number of rather suspicious-looking individuals soon fuels a profound sense of paranoia that continues to grow until the story's denouement finally provides some important explanations for what's transpired.Newly-married Ruth Bowman (Jeanne Crain) and her husband John (Carl Betz) seem in good spirits at the start of their honeymoon on the ocean liner "S.S.Monrovia" as John carries Ruth over the threshold of their cabin B-16. After the stewardess who was arranging flowers in their room leaves, John tells Ruth that he's going to leave some cash with the Purser for safekeeping and arranges to meet her in the ship's main-deck bar in 15 minutes. When he doesn't turn up as arranged, Ruth visits the Purser who tells her that he hasn't seen John. She then returns to cabin B-16 which she finds locked and is told by the steward that B-16 hasn't been booked by anyone for this voyage. The Purser is then called and confirms from his passenger list that Ruth's reservation (which had been made in her maiden name) was actually for cabin B-18. At this point, she becomes very confused and distressed and so the ship's doctor is called.The good natured Dr Paul Manning (Michael Rennie) makes some enquiries and everyone he speaks to, including the stewardess Anna Quinn (Mary Anderson), deny having seen John. In view of the circumstances, Manning takes Ruth to see Captain Peters (Willis Bouchey) who arranges for the ship to be searched but also doesn't seem to believe her story. His scepticism increases when the search proves to be fruitless and it emerges that Ruth doesn't have a passport, a ticket or even a wedding ring in her possession.Ruth is surprised when she receives a telephone call from John who tells her that they're both in danger and that she should trust no-one. This only increases her anguish and the presence of a sinister-looking elderly gentleman with a cane, a steward whose manner is rather strange and a wealthy divorcee who tells her that "husbands can get lost so easily", only add to her discomfort and her reliance on Dr Manning to solve the mystery of what's happened to John and also to discover the reason for his disappearance."Dangerous Crossing" is well-paced, skilfully directed and claustrophobic and the whole production is held together by the radiant Jeanne Crain who's at the centre of everything that happens. Her ability to convey the degree of Ruth's torment without going over the top is very impressive and Michael Rennie does well as the handsome doctor who's unwittingly closer to the solution to the mystery than he could ever be expected to realize. With its fine supporting cast, superb cinematography and unsettling atmosphere, this is an enjoyable thriller that's both gripping and guaranteed not to disappoint.

grizzledgeezer "Channel 65.3 presents... Miserable, Miserable Movie!"The only "dangerous crossing" is from the sidewalk into the theater. (Don't do it!) It must not have occurred to Fox that if you wanted to get people back into the theaters, you should make good movies. This isn't one of them."Dangerous Crossing" is based on a radio play by the popular mystery writer John Dickson Carr, and was probably made for no better reason than to help amortize the "Titanic" sets.The script is lame and amateurish, with dialog suggesting a first draft from people who've never written a screenplay. As clichéd as it is, it never gets really bad enough to evoke laughter until the last ten minutes.The plot -- such as it is -- is so contrived that it's not merely implausible, but beyond unbelievable.The acting never rises above the competent, but even a "just competent" Michael Rennie adds a touch of class. Jeanne Crain has never impressed me; here she oscillates between scared/upset and faux-slutty.Joseph Newman was a strictly journeyman director. * His direction is largely perfunctory. He makes no effort to build and maintain the sense of paranoia needed, and he even includes voice-overs from the radio play for Ms Craine, so we know exactly what she's thinking. No one bothered to tell the writer that this was a movie, where you can actually //see// the actors, the better ones of which are capable of conveying emotion without dialog.This is a model film -- of how not to write, how not to act, and how not to direct. Anyone considering a career in the motion picture industry should view it, simply as an object lesson.* If it weren't for "This Island Earth", he would likely be forgotten.

hall895 Jeanne Crain plays Ruth Stanton, only now she's Ruth Bowman because she just married John Bowman who she barely knows. The couple seems happy enough as they set off on their honeymoon, a transatlantic sea voyage. But then John disappears soon after they board the ship. Cue melodramatic hysterics from Ruth. Crying, screaming, shaking, fainting spells, the whole bit. Something surely seems to be tormenting this woman, maybe something more than a husband who's gone missing. Nobody else on the ship recalls having seen John. And it turns out Ruth was booked onto the ship alone, under her maiden name. Did John Bowman ever really exist? The ship's crew sure have their doubts, the general consensus is that Ruth is delusional and insane. Only one person seems genuinely interested in helping her. That's the ship's doctor, played by Michael Rennie. He may have his doubts about Ruth's story but he at least makes the effort to get to the bottom of things.So what exactly is going on here? Has Ruth really misplaced her husband or is she just nuts? It's supposed to be a mystery film but if we take it on face value there's not much of a mystery. The movie tries to lead you astray with a number of red herrings but it becomes rather obvious very quickly what's really happening. There are so few plausible explanations for the goings-on that the movie can't even stretch to a proper feature-length running time, clocking in at just 75 minutes. There's just nowhere for the story to go. And the ending disappoints on multiple levels. Firstly it's much too predictable, meant to shock but failing to do so. And secondly it's jarringly abrupt. Wham bam, movie's over. That's it? Not even a cursory explanation for what happened, no insight into the background and motivation of those involved? Nope. It's a movie with some decent moments and a good noir atmosphere. Rennie is quite good in his role. Crain is over the top with her hysterics but hard to blame her, that had to be what the director was looking for. Crain's overwrought emotion may be a desperate attempt to give the movie some life. It certainly could use some kind of spark. All in all it's very bland and not very compelling. The story doesn't grab you and if you think about it that story has some rather massive holes in it. Logic is often tossed overboard in this movie. Dangerous Crossing is a movie which had some promise but ultimately was doomed to disappoint.

ferbs54 "Husbands can get lost so easily," someone tells Jeanne Crain's character in the 1953 Fox thriller "Dangerous Crossing," and boy, do those words ever prove prophetic! Here, Crain plays Ruth Stanton, a wealthy heiress who departs on a honeymoon cruise after a whirlwind courtship. When her husband (Carl Betz, who most baby boomers will recognize as Dr. Alex Stone from the old "Donna Reed Show") disappears from the ship before they even leave the NYC harbor, Ruth becomes distraught...especially since no one on board, including the ship's doctor (sympathetically played by Michael Rennie), will believe the story that her husband ever existed! What follows is a tale of escalating suspense and paranoia, with no one on the ship seemingly worthy of Ruth's--or our--complete trust. While not precisely a film noir, "Dangerous Crossing" certainly does have its noirish aspects, and the scene in which Ruth searches the boat for her husband at night, in a dense mist, the only background sound being the intermittent blare of the ship's foghorn, is one that all fans of the genre should just love. Jeanne, very much the star of this film and appearing in virtually every scene, looks absolutely gorgeous, of course (the woman had one of the most beautiful faces in screen history, sez me), and her thesping here is top notch. She is given any number of stunning close-ups by veteran cinematographer Joseph Lashelle, who years before had lensed that classiest of film noirs, 1944's "Laura." In one of the DVD's surprisingly copious collection of extras, it is revealed that the picture took only 19 days to produce, at a cost of only $500,000; a remarkably efficient production, resulting in a 75-minute film with no excess flab and a sure-handed way of delivering shudders and suspense. Very much recommended.