Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

GazerRise Fantastic!

Prolabas Deeper than the descriptions

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

JohnHowardReid This ultra-glossy melodrama, directed with surprising style and flair by MacDougall, plus superbly photographed and set, adds up to a marvelous showcase for Joan Crawford. She's given a great lead-up entrance and then makes the most of her every scene. And she's handed a great support cast to bounce her charisma off. Even squinty-eyed Lucy Marlow looks attractive in her Jean Louis costumes. Sullivan, Ireland, Betsy Palmer, Fay Wray (in a small role right at the beginning) are most deft and convincing. But it is Crawford's film. Such style, such elegance, such glossiness. Yes, with Queen Bee we are back in familiar Joan Crawford territory - one of those heated Southern melodramas played with all stops out by Miss C in settings of tasteful luxury. It's all very much a woman's picture and despite the fact that it's based on a novel, it's also very much a stage affair with most of the action taking place on and around the giant central staircase set that is often even more stunningly lit than Miss C herself. The direction has what you might call an elegant style and the director allows Miss C to dominate the action, giving her an effective entrance and several scenes which she can play in the grand manner as she lectures Lucy Marlow (whose face is almost invariably in shadow). Miss M is obviously an inexperienced actress and is unflatteringly photographed to boot. John Ireland is also not photographed attractively, whilst Barry Sullivan is forced to go through the film with an ugly scar on his face (though he is the only one allowed to match Miss C in the histrionic dept). Fay Wray has a tiny role that is confined to one scene. Photography is glossy and the production slick, though production values are no more than average by "A" standards.

clivechristy-549-202969 The only thing this movie lacks is vivid technicolor to truly capture La Crawford stomping through scenes and chewing up the scenery..and also to see how green around the gills Joan was from her heavy drinking. Joan Crawford is the movie, and although Betsy Palmer does her best to keep a few scenes for herself, it's all Joan all the time. Joan is Eva, and evil and loves it. She is married to battle scarred Barry Sullivan who is a lush, and she rules over the family terrorizing each one of them in her own special way, and in a way specifically tailored to torment them the most. She is nothing, if not thoughtful. There is no point going into the details because the best part of the film is the unfolding of each layer, and the unraveling of Eva's life. It's film noir at the apotheosis of camp, but it's also clever and knows it has a story to tell. Joan Crawford at this juncture of her career had segued into a film noir queen after her win with Mildred Pierce. This little tale has a few things in common with Mildred,but not what you might expect. In Mildred Pierce we are encouraged to pity Mildred and understand that she was in an untenable situation, and was the real victim. There is nothing endearing about Eva at all, and it is intended that the audience will hate Eva hard. The connections between characters are not accidental because Randald MacDougall wrote the screenplay for both films. He certainly knew his Joan. She infamously had an affair with John Ireland during the making of the film, and many years later they were cast again in a William Castle film, "I Saw What You Did." In the final spasms of her career Crawford (and Bette Davis) were cast as horror hags, and this film is on the cusp of that descent. This film is also on the cusp of another of Crawford's well known descents...that of the drunk. It was probably best the film was shot in black and white because Joan looks hard faced in black and white and all the lighting men in Hollywood couldn't soften that. Having said all that, this film is fascinating because this film doesn't star Joan Crawford, it IS Joan Crawford. Christina Crawford said famously that Joan hated it, likely because it was too close to the bone and doubtless damaged the image and cultish personality she had fabricated and enhanced since the 30's. Christina Crawford suggests that the film showed who Joan was in reality, and there was no acting at all. For that reason this movie is as close to cinema verite as Joan Crawford would likely have flown. If Joan and Christina both hated, I have to love it. The other reason I love this film is because it is so ridiculous; so overblown; so over acted and so melodramatic that it screams for attention (and surprisingly without a southern accent.) This movie is best viewed in jodhpurs with a riding crop and a LOT of booze...why? Well it's the way Joanie would have wanted you to see it.

bkoganbing I think I'm not going too far out on a limb when I say that Joan Crawford probably did Queen Bee as a favor to screenwriter Ranald MacDougall who wrote the film that was her greatest success and brought Joan the Academy Award for Best Actress. I'm referring of course to Mildred Pierce. Queen Bee was going to be MacDougall's directing debut as well and I'm sure Crawford did this one for a friend.As a director MacDougall just gave Crawford her head and she just chewed the scenery right down to the foundations. It was that kind of part and her overacting also covered up a really bad melodramatic story.Crawford's cousin Lucy Marlow comes to live with Crawford and her alcoholic husband Barry Sullivan and their two children. It becomes rather apparent soon enough that Crawford sadistically manipulates events and people around her almost as a hobby. She's miserable and she can't stand anyone around who is truly happy. She even engages sadistic nanny Katherine Anderson for her kids. The film such as it is belongs to Joan Crawford who dominates the film totally. Her friend MacDougall to say the least didn't write a screenplay that was anything close to Mildred Pierce. Hence Crawford had to take up the slack.Joan's performance carries the film a couple of notches up from where it should be. Definitely a must for her fans.

Lechuguilla This film is all about Eva Phillips (Joan Crawford), the glamorous, spiteful, self-centered, vain, cruel, and overbearing matriarch of a Southern mansion, who makes life miserable for everyone in her orbit. The entire overwrought melodrama is one big soap opera.I couldn't identify with any of these sorry sobs. They emote, they quarrel, they whine, they speechify, they have no outside interests. Morose and brooding, all the characters are preoccupied with themselves and their own problems. Not surprisingly, the film's acting is theatrical and exaggerated. And there's a ton of dialogue. Yet, for a film set in the South, there's a curious absence of Southern accents.Most scenes take place indoors. That, combined with all that talk, makes the film seem almost like a stage play. The B&W cinematography is competent. I like those noir shadows; they render a depressing and melancholy look to the visuals that is totally in sync with the drab story. The drippy elevator background music is so 1950ish.A little bit of dolefulness in a film is okay. But in "Queen Bee" it just goes on and on and on. There is a neat plot twist near the end. But overall, this film is a real downer.There may not be any joy in this Southern mansion. But it's a movie to watch anyway, if for no other reason than to marvel at Joan Crawford's hammy performance, and to gawk at her caterpillar eyebrows.