Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

blanche-2 Just not good."Parnell" from 1937 stars two of MGM's greatest, Clark Gable and Myrna Loy, in the hopes, I guess, that people would go to see it. I wasn't there so I don't know if they did but I doubt it.As someone here said, the roles would have been better suited to Spencer Tracy and Maureen O'Sullivan.Parnell, who died at the age of 45, was a controversial figure with a complicated political career. And the film does show some of what he went through, including false accusations that he supported the murders of two people in power, the trial, and then suit against the newspaper. Other problems followed, but the film is most concerned with his torrid romance (well, not in this movie) between Parnell and a married woman, Katherine O'Shea. Now, in the movie, they don't get married. In real life, they did. And as far as a torrid affair, I'll say - she had three of his children while she was married. The couple wasn't married very long -- from June of 1891 and he died in October 1891 of stomach cancer. However, he also suffered from kidney failure. He is shown, not very convincingly, as ill in the film.The film is very melodramatic, with Loy relying on the melodrama to get her through her role. Gable could not have been more wrong - he did not have a great range as an actor, and this called for at least more than he had. He was a charismatic, rugged, gorgeous, charming man who radiated a lot of warmth, all of which made him perfect for many roles. Not this one.I spent time during this film dwelling on why mustaches went out of style. I decided Hitler and mens hair requirements during World War II caused them to go out of style. Gable looked great with and without one, and of course, he kept his as it was one of his trademarks.Parnell is not a good movie, and it was hard to concentrate on it.

calvinnme I watched Parnell and waited for the awfulness. It never happened. What may have thrown off audiences in 1937 is that this is a period piece with absolutely no action and lots of speechifying. I thought Clark Gable was good and believable in his role as Charles Stewart Parnell, Anglo Irish politician and champion of Irish home rule, but this was not what people expected when they went to the movies to see a Clark Gable film. I guess it would have been like seeing Johnny Weismuller on a marquee in the 1930's, buying a ticket, and finding out he is portraying Abraham Lincoln instead of Tarzan or a Tarzan like figure. Thus many people say this film was a case of miscasting in the star role. I think it was more a case of unexpected casting. The film keeps moving with Parnell dealing with one problem after another. There's even a murder trial thrown in at the middle of the movie! Then there is the married Kitty O'Shea (Myrna Loy) as Parnell's love interest.I thought the romance built slowly and credibly, and the charisma between Gable and Loy is electric. Kitty is unhappily married to Willy O'Shea, who is a complete weasel with high political aspirations. How many husbands are so unpleasant that their wives would rather pay their expensive bills to keep them away from home? That's what Willy kept threatening - pay this or that bill or I'll simply have to move back in with you. It does make you wonder why they married in the first place. One strange thing that the film did was have Billie Burke, who was 53 at the time, playing Clara, Kitty's rather flaky sister, when she was old enough to be Myrna Loy's mother and only one year younger than Edna May Oliver who plays Clara and Kitty's aunt Ben. Billie Burke had been playing matronly characters with grown children for some time, so making her up and dressing her up to be somebody in her 20's who didn't have a real place in the plot other than being Oliver's comic foil just seemed a little weird. As usual with biopics, this film got some facts about Parnell wrong. He actually toured the American south with his brother in the 1870's, not places associated with the Irish Americans in the 19th century such as Boston and New York. His affair with Kitty O'Shea was not that innocent. He actually fathered three of her four children while she was still married to her first husband. I can see how for the sake of dramatic license and the production code MGM would just make them guilty of holding hands and gazing into each other's eyes for years and years.Great performances all around, good production values, a plot that kept my interest, and great supporting characters who often starred in MGM's lesser films of the time - thus I'd say this film is probably a 6.5/10, but I had to give a whole number rating so I rounded up to 7. It certainly held my interest and made me curious enough to want to learn more about this part of Irish history of which I know so little, thus I consider it a success, not a failure.

MartinHafer I am an avid lover of the book THE FIFTY WORST FILMS by Harry Medved. It's brilliantly written and funny. However, a few times the book lists movies that are poor but really don't approach awfulness. This movie is one of them (along with THAT HAGEN GIRL and SWING YOUR LADY). While I will gladly admit that it is about Gable's worst film from the mid to late 1930s, it's certainly better than some movies he did in 1931 when he wasn't yet a star. Also, with so many bad films from Hollywood, this movie just seems poor--not bad. After all, even with a saccharine script, this movie STILL stars Myrna Loy and Clark Gable and how bad can a film be when it features these fine actors? Yes, it's true that Clark as Parnell is pretty wussy and unbelievable (and completely unlike Gable in other films, but I actually saw some merit, albeit little, in the film and just can't accept that it deserves a 1 or even a 2.

Hans C. Frederick I'm inclined to agree with the other reviewers who have commented on the fact that Gable was the wrong man for this particular job.It might bear some discussion as to why this might have been so.Gable's screen persona was that of a "man's man."Hearty,frank,forthright,generous,and good natured.You'd find yourself enjoying his company,if only for an evening.(Let's not get into the fact that his camping trips were manufactured for screen publicity,or the rumors of his having been a hustler at the bus depot.We've all done things that we've been ashamed of.)But Gable was a broad actor;truly subtle work was beyond him.And nobility and sensitivity weren't with his range,either.He did what he could do very well.But not with this.I keep thinking that Ronald Colman,Walter Pigeon,and Errol Flynn all would have been better choices.