Watch Dangerous Crossing For Free

Brilliant and touching

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

I could only award this film 4/10 as I found it very irritating on several counts, (despite unfettered praise from nearly all your other reviewers).Perhaps the screenwriter, Leo Townsend, should be blamed as he made the character of Ruth (Jeanne Crain) needy, neurotic, paranoid, melodramatic and rather wet.I brightened up when Dr Paul Manning (Michael Rennie) slapped her face to bring her to her senses at one stage.Also irritating was the stock footage of "The Queen Mary" posing as an American cruise liner, the producer should have picked a less recognisable vessel as it grated on me to hear American crew accents on a British liner! I disliked how Jeanne Crain's character kept drawing attention to herself and monopolising nearly all the time of the ship's doctor.When did Dr Paul Manning find time for his other patients?Jeanne Crain's character in this film continued to give women a bad name, being pathetic, standing on the sidelines while the "baddie" grappled with the "goodie" by the ship's rail at the denouement.The evil stewardess' character was insufficiently dramatised.Ruth obviously should have lived with her fiancée much longer to learn about his true character.As a previous reviewer stated "Marry in haste - Repent at leisure".The director/producer must also take a large part of the blame for this "B" picture.

That's what the passengers of this cruise ship must constantly have said in watching the chicly dressed Jeanne Crain every time she had a panic attack while searching for her missing new husband who vanished right before the ship sailed. Ship psychiatrist Michael Rennie becomes her confidante while other ships personnel and an overly anxious female passenger pacify her. The husband does eventually contact her, but bit by bit, she is getting nuttier and nuttier. Crain, along with Gene Tierney and Linda Darnell, was one of the top dramatic stars at 20th Century Fox in the late 1940's and early 50's, does all she can with this convoluted thriller (one of the few film noir not set in a big city, yet alone on dry land), but the film is even more dramatic than "Sorry Wrong Number", the epitome of the lady in peril sub-division of film noir, which this emulates. It is apparent that when what is going on is revealed, it will be a real loo-loo, and by that time, many viewers will have stopped caring.

I enjoyed the film. Visually grand, the plot reminds one of a Hitchcock film where the audience feels as trapped as the lead character.One could quibble about Jeannie Crain's performance. It is, shall we say, a bit broad. However, we should remember two things: 1) that this was the style of time - remember "Sorry, Wrong Number" where Barbara Stanwyck gives a very uncharacteristic over-the-top performance and 2) the character is supposed to be unstable mentally and many mentally ill people are not generally subtle in expressing their feelings.Michael Rennie gives a good restrained performance that keeps things realistic. It was great seeing Carl Betz (a fine actor in "The Donna Reed Show," and the excellent courtroom drama, "Judd for the Defense"). I thought he was very effective.I think the movie works as a mystery and as a film noir with an unusual homme fatale. Don't read any more reviews before seeing the picture and don't let any one tell you the ending.

I'm not sure who's worse: the people who write this rubbish, the actors who sign-up to perform it or the people who watch it and think it's great stuff.The plot is generic; it's been seen time and time again. One spouse marries the other for her or his money and then tries to do away with her or him, and the plan always backfires.Let's be clear; this is weak story where the main character gives an overly dramatic performance and the secondary characters are little more than cardboard cut-outs.This is definitely a relic in it's portrayal of men and women. The main character is portrayed as a hysterical idiot devoid of any ability to reason. Seemingly her abandonment issues fuel a desperate need to cling to any man within arms length: father, husband, doctor. This antiquated characterization of woman is absurd in today's world. Likewise, the male characters are patronizing or worse. In one scene, the woman just gets slapped across the face by the doctor; was that standard medical practice in the 1950s? After all, who needs silly medication or talkie-talk therapy when a good belt across the kisser resolves any disorder; please.