source: Harlow

source: Harlow

I watched this film, with the mindset that the movie would not be historically accurate, but rather one to watch purely for entertainment. However, I soon realized, that I was watching a train wreck, not a movie. The facts were so far off, they would have been describing another person's life. They never examined her big hit films like Libeled Lady, Red Dust, Red-Headed Woman, Suzy, they only depicted how she was originally used for slam-stick shorts. Hell's Angels and Howard Hughes were huge events in her life, and greatly impacted her rise to fame. How can you make a film about Harlow and completely ignore those details. In the film, they never show her interacting with fellow film stars (Such as Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy, Franchot Tone), or how she went out of her way to be friendly with the crew. Instead the depicted her as a woman who had to drown her sorrows in liquor and sex. While she was known as one of the first Sex Goddesses, her true personality was far from that. They even fail to address her love for William Powell, which she was very much in love with when she passed. Anyone who has ever read about Harlow, knows that she did not die from pneumonia, that she contracted from passing out drunk on a beach. Even Wikipedia (which is not the most reliable source) knows that she passed away from uremic poisoning. This films tries to hard to sensationalize a woman's life that was already sensational. I wish that film makers would research their subjects more. What a shame.....I wish someone would make a good/truer to life film about her life. Do not see this movie....it is not even entertaining, more distracting that anything else.

Is ANY of this true? Who knows? HARLOW is a dud of epic proportions, miscasting Carroll Baker as the sultry, free-spirited 1930s movie star. Baker, a fine actress, is all wrong for the part; never once conveying anything approaching the effervescent qualities the real Harlow possessed and put across on the screen. The film itself is a glossy, almost plastic looking piece directed by the highly unimaginative Gordon Douglas. All of the names, save for Harlow, her mother and stepfather, are changed (as are the names of the studios) so it's impossible to really know who's who and what's going on. The supporting cast is odd and the acting ranges from good to really bad. Red Buttons is Arthur Landau, her agent, and he gives a terrific performance. Martin Balsam is a studio chief and barely registers. Leslie Nielsen is a producer; Raf Vallone is Harlow's creepy stepfather; Peter Lawford is Harlow's husband and Angela Lansbury is her mother. They're all pretty bad, though they're all eclipsed in the idiotic acting department by Mike Connors as a very Gable-like movie star. He's saddled with a lot of silly philosophical sayings instead of actual dialog. Neil Hefti's overwrought music score adds little to the proceedings.

It would be hard to imagine a more ineffective, uninteresting result from such potentially fascinating subject matter. Given its impressive cast and important budget, Hollywood has rarely come up with so little.

I watched this movie because I was interested in Harlow's story, but that is not what the movie attempts to show. Caroll Baker had no magnetism, and seems a creature of the 50s not 30s. It focussed on her virginity at the time of her marriage to Paul Bern and the marriage ruined her because of her sacred ideas of sex and the marriage vows. It completely ignored that she had been married previously. And it gave no insight on her death.

In 1965 two big screen duds trying to capture the life and times of Jean Harlow hit the screen. Carroll Baker is miscast as Harlow. She doesn't look a thing like her. Another problem is all the inaccuracies. Maybe if the filmmakers actually had actually put some thought into instead of trying to make money, it possibly could've been good. The recreations of early Hollywood are mostly terrible. People walk in 1930s shoes and clothes and some even wear 1960s haircuts. Don't waste your time with this trash. My rating: 1/10 stars

I had been warned that this movie was inaccurate, and all those warnings were warranted. First of all, the film portrays Jean as having been a virgin prior to her marriage to Paul Bern, while Paul Bern was Jean's second husband. Second, the film makes no allusion to William Powell, who was Jean's love through her last years (he was the one who gave her the sapphire ring that is seen in her last pictures). Third, no mention is made of Jean's third marriage. Fourth, the film makes it look like after numerous sexual liaisons with strangers, Jean became a washed-up film star (as noted by Red Buttons, who portrays her agent). In reality, after playing multiple roles as a platinum blond, Jean took more serious roles (e.g., in Wife Vs. Secretary) where her acting abilities could be showcased. No mention is made of this in the film. The film states that Jean died of pneumonia (and, alludes that she died shortly after Bern). Both of these are incorrect. Jean died of kidney failure in 1937, which is 5 years after Bern's death. Carroll Baker's portrayal is poor at best. She seems to spend the 2+ hours strutting about the screen speaking Harlow's dialog in a shrilling voice that seems more akin to the parts Harlow played in her early acting years rather than the actual Harlow who has been described as a shy, tomboy.

No doubt the fact that there were two movies about Jean Harlow in 1965 might surprise some people; to add to that, apparently neither Carroll Baker nor Carol Lynley was the right woman to play her (I have to admit that I've never seen any of Jean Harlow's movies - unless you count her appearance in "City Lights" - so I can't comment one way or the other). Either way, this "Harlow" seems to go in two directions. On the one hand, it shows how the Hollywood dream looked: the opening scene shows what many people coming to Tinseltown expected, and then Jean Harlow gets to live that dream...at least superficially. On the other hand, the portrayals of Harlow's public life and private life make it nearly impossible to determine which is to be best remembered. Here, her frustration with her mother (Angela Lansbury) and anger at her stepfather (Raf Vallone) get played to almost comic effect. Is every movie star doomed to have something in his/her personal life that has to get sensationalized in a biopic? So, I would say that this movie takes the same approach to its subject that "Mommie Dearest" did: trashy, but something about the movie gives it an almost desirable feeling. Did I like the movie or hate it? Well, it has its visuals (I would call Carroll Baker a visual in and of herself), and it sure beats any Steven Seagal movie for smarts. In a way, that's about it. Since I don't really know much about Jean Harlow, I just have to accept what "Harlow" says. It's not outright worthless, but don't make it your first choice. Also starring Red Buttons, Martin Balsam and Leslie Nielsen.

Poor Jean Harlow! To have her memory degraded in this way is sad. Based on a muckraking sensationalized bio of the late actress that has since been discredited this shallow exercise in fiction takes someone whose life was interesting and unfortunately scandal ridden and makes things up out of whole cloth while ignoring or falsifying the actual events. Marilyn Monroe, a great admirer of Harlow, had wanted to to do a film about her but when offered a similar script to this stated "I hope they don't do that to me when I'm dead" which should clarify the value of this picture. As to the performances everybody except Angela Lansbury as Mama Jean is either bland or terrible. Carroll Baker, who can be a fine actress, is all wrong in the lead. She's certainly a beautiful woman but has neither the allure nor the charisma of the original Jean. Skip this shiny junk and seek out some of Harlow's actual films. Red Dust, Bombshell, Libeled Lady or Dinner at Eight are all fine examples of her peerless work.