Wonderful character development!

What a waste of my time!!!

Lack of good storyline.

Good concept, poorly executed.

Bette Davis said of this film: "I was...insulted to have to appear in such a cheap, nothing story..." Take her word for it. Bette Davis gets my vote as the greatest American actress, but not because of films like this. When watching it, I didn't know what year it was produced; I would have guessed very early 1930s, because the film is typical of the shallow scripts so common before...well...let's say 1933.The plot is so shallow a tick couldn't drown it. Bette is hired to be an heiress to a corporation that uses her for publicity; in reality, she's just a small town girl. She chaffs at the role she is playing, and falls for a reporter (George Brent), quickly marries him...for all the wrong reasons. The marriage is a sham, which Brent intends to get out of at the earliest possible moment. But, they end up falling in love...which conquers all. Yawn.Bette Davis does show some spunk here, so it's not a total waste. Brent is quite good. It's not the acting...it's the story line that is the problem. The supporting actors are pretty much wasted.About the only reason to watch this film is if you're a tremendous fan of Davis'.

The Golden Arrow casts Bette Davis and George Brent as a typical 30s heiress who abounded in so many films and the reporter who married her. Heiresses and reporters, ever since It Happened One Night they were together in movies like ham and eggs.But there's an interesting twist on it here. Davis is a pseudo-heiress hired by Henry O'Neill to play his daughter and live the good life as a walking breathing advertisement for his cosmetics. Of course reporters are to be avoided as they tend to get curious and ask embarrassing questions. But Davis falls for Brent and they marry.After which like Tyrone Power in Love Is News and That Wonderful Urge he becomes the object of press scrutiny. Now George knows how the boyfriends of Madonna and Paris Hilton feel.This screwball comedy is not the best of material for Davis and Brent who certainly did some classics later on. But it's passably amusing and Bette's fans will like it.

I often like to guess the year a film was made - this was an easy one - with a very young Bette Davis playing an heiress -- it had to be post-1934's It Happened One Night and before her really major late '30s work began.Yes, it's about an heiress and a reporter - I'd love to see a count of how many films were made post-1934 about heiresses and reporters, probably hundreds. In this case, Davis is a cafeteria cashier hired by a cosmetic firm's publicity agent to live the life of Daisy Appleby, heiress, with the idea that gossip about her will keep the Appelby name in the headlines.It's not long before Daisy is tired of being chased around, so she asks a reporter named Johnny (George Brent) to enter into a marriage of convenience with her. He needs money to write a book, and she wants to rest. Johnny, however, finds that the good life isn't for him. In fact, it's a big fat bore. He acts out by going after the daughter of an oil tycoon. And you can guess the rest.Davis is pert, bubbly, and expressive, to the extent that Brent seems a little stodgy for her. I would have loved to have seen her paired with someone like Joel McCrea or the boyish Henry Fonda. I think then it would have been a better film. As it is, it's okay, and she's always a pleasure to watch.If you like Davis in this, check her out in one of my favorite early comedies of hers, "It's Love I'm After," with Leslie Howard.

George Brent is a reporter sent to interview an heiress. She is supposedly the heir to a face cream fortune. He interviews her on her yacht. They fall for each other in bathing costumes.It turns out (quite early) that she is not an heiress. She part of an advertising campaign for the cold cream.The movie follows the ups and downs of their romance.The supporting cast does little to buoy it up. Davis and Brent carry the picture. Though it's fairly predictable, it is also fairly entertaining. It's far from her best. But, especially considering its obscurity in her oeuvre, it's not one of her worst, either.