Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

MartinHafer Regardless of the quality of the story, I felt I had to see "The Easiest Way" because it's one of Clark Gable's earliest films. He plays a supporting character, Nick, a guy far less sophisticated and lacking the trademark mustache. Laura (Constance Bennett) lives in a crowded apartment with her trashy family. They're poor and the father is a genial drunk. Because of this background, it's not at all surprising that when she is given a chance to become her boss' mistress, she jumps at the chance. After all, he's loaded and pampers her like she's never been pampered before! But folks who know her realize what sort of a woman she is, particularly her brother-in-law, Nick. He's wise to the trampy sort of life she leads.A bit later, when Laura is on vacation out west, she meets a nice- guy reporter, Johnny (Robert Montgomery). He's handsome, sweet and you assume they'll soon marry---and he knows what sort of woman she was. However, this is only about half-way through the film, so you know IF there's going to be a happily ever after, it will have to come after a few plot twists!This film is a great example of the so-called 'Pre-Code' and its sensibilities. Although most folks today think all the movies made back in the good 'ol days were very prudish, this was NOT the case before mid-1934. In the early 30s, studios made all sorts of very adult films with plots involving prostitutes, abortion, fornication and even, occasionally, nudity and cursing. While the films sometimes didn't always SAY that is what was going on, it was always heavily implied and the adults in the audience know the score. Here in "The Easiest Way", words like 'mistress', 'prostitute' or even that she's sleeping with the suave boss (Adolph Menjou)...but it's clearly happening! On top of that, he no-good dad doesn't mind...he LIKES the money she can send home! Welcome to the pre-code era, folks!So the important question about all this is whether or not the film is any good. If you're watching it for Gable like I was, don't expect too much from him. His role is very limited and he clearly is just a contract actor in this film. As for the film itself, its quite good. The only negative, and I actually liked this, was that the ending is very vague--so if you're looking for a perfect, formulaic sort of picture, this ain't it!

deltascorch90 The initial sequences of this film, and indeed a good portion of it otherwise, are arranged in such a way that truly evokes the environment of the time period, with the beginning shots capturing the squalorous destitution of the family home, and the amusing shot in particular of the family eating breakfast while the camera remains idle, focusing on their activity-- that's the type of stuff which I love. As others have stated; as the year implies; as I no doubt need to mention-- this is a Pre-Code film. Unlike films made later in this very same decade that have been rigorously codified and placed into the upper echelons of Golden Age fantasy and whimsy, this is one of those films that truly captures the gritty reality of the Great Depression, and which keeps all the trimmings in the process. What I find most interesting about this films is indeed the reality which they offer, which is something that goes to foreshadow the development of the sitcom; and indeed to watch a Pre-Code is exactly like to watch a modern sitcom (or at least one of the more classic sitcoms before that genre itself became overdone). At any rate, this film in particular really caused me to question the cultural in the given period of time; Art, after all, is a habit which reflects the mindset and mores of a given place, and therefore I'm brought to wonder concerning how much women of 1931 could relate to those in this film. To what extent is the normal woman living in destitution, blessed perhaps with supreme feminine charm, faced with such conflicts as are portrayed in this film-- I mean of course in 1931. Surely what the overwhelming majority of these Pre-Code films leads me to understand is that showbusiness and all other methods in which the female body can be exploited for a profit are things which women of this time are flocking to, at the expense of what is held to be traditional morality. Though with Art being a lens into a period of time, as above mentioned, I continued throughout this film to wonder as to how widespread the morality-for-riches tradeoff occurred actually. As far as a take-away message goes, this film in my opinion posits the existence of two classes-- one exuberantly rich, and one exorbitantly poor; conflict occurs, the film says, when people don't mind their class, and by this I mean that if the poor and destitute remained poor and destitute yet endured their struggle, they will find their due happiness in time. Similarly, if the rich abide by their own class, herein represented by Adolphe Menjou's character, then they too will find their due pleasure in life. Menjou always in my viewings perpetuates the same character: he is rich and sophisticated yet takes an interest in the exact type of woman that can never love him. Therefore, to betray your own class is akin to masochism: let the rich inhabit a romance with the rich, and the poor with the poor, for love cannot exist in any way befitting if these lines are crossed. I have not at all provided a synopsis of this film, since it is well documented by others and on websites, yet I have not rated its quality: to that end, to wit, this is a wonderful Pre-Code film enshrouded in MGM's spectacular production films, with a visual sheen and gloss that is pleasing to the eye. I encourage all with an interest for this period, or any of the factors above mentioned, to view it.

cbryce59 wearing a fox fur wrap complete with head.Shop girl Laura from poor family catches the eye of a rich ad executive and is soon doing more than modeling for him. We see her being gifted with jewels, an apartment, clothing, cars.Her sister's husband gives her the righteous speech, calling her a "woman like you." There's one in every picture, even in this pre-code film.Constance is beautiful as always and wears clothes better than anyone else of her time.Off she goes to Colorado with her boss/lover and attends a very strange picnic where she meets Robert Montgomery. A whole pig (poor thing) spins over a pit while a Native in long braids is seen wandering around. She and Robert M. spend some time at the shore of a dubious-looking river bed, and ride horses together, while he makes pretty speeches. And then he proposes marriage.Laura is in love; she breaks off with her rich lover, but soon finds herself in dire straights. In the end, she has to choose-the poor life with the man she loves, or comfort and security with the rich lover.

jotix100 "The Easiest Way" is an example of how Hollywood could deal with thorny subjects before the arrival of the Hays Code. We are presented with a situation in which a young, poor, but attractive young woman, could go up in the world using her natural charms in a realistic way. That was going to change in a few more years, as the Code would not let themes such as this one be dealt with the frankness prior to its arrival.The film, directed by Jack Conway, is curiosity piece by today's standards. The original work was made for the stage where there was an open mind about risky situations. We are presented with a poor family at the beginning of the story living in a crowded tenement. Laura, the beautiful young girl has no future of getting a rich man that will take her away from the poverty she is living. When a rich man enters her life, she sees the opportunity to escape her humble origins.The film deals in a realistic way with the subject of the illicit affair between Laura and Bill Brockton. When she falls for young Jack Madison, she believes that she must abandon the man that provides her comfort and easy life, until she finds herself penniless and must face with the fact that she has to go back to Bill, but loses Jack in the process. At the end, we watch her spying outside her married sister's suburban house which is the epitome of happiness.Constance Bennett makes an interesting Laura, but this is not her best role in the movies. Robert Montgomery is not seen enough in the film. Adolph Menjou makes a great Bill Brockton, the rich man who loves Laura in spite of the fact he knows Laura doesn't care for him. Clark Gable made a good impression as the brother-in-law critical to Laura. Marjorie Rambeau, Anita Page and Hedda Haper appear in minor roles.