User reviews

From a bit actress in the late 1920s to stardom in the '30s as a Hollywood bombshell, actress Jean Harlow's triumphs and pitfalls are cartoonishly documented; it's as if the filmmakers were quite satisfied dishing out movie-magazine nonsense instead of headier truths, with most of the names changed to protect the embarrassed. Harlow manages to hold onto her virginity even through a short-lived marriage, but fate dealt her a bad hand and she died at the age of 26--yet the movie sees all this through a rose-colored lens. Carroll Baker is a sweet, sometimes dazed Harlow; Red Buttons acquits himself affably as her agent and Angela Lansbury is nicely low-keyed as Jean's mother. Viewers hoping for some Hollywood dirt won't be satisfied with the scrubbed-clean goods showcased here, although the pacing is fast and portions of the presentation are very colorful. A rival production, also entitled "Harlow", was released the same year and starred Carol Lynley and Ginger Rogers. **1/2 from ****

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.

In 1965, in yet another classic example of "Copycat Movie Making" Hollywood produced not one, but two film biographies of Jean Harlow, the 30s 'Blond Bombshell' whose tragic, short life was reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe. One was a gaudy, ambitious big-budget production starring theater and film actress/sex symbol Carroll Baker; the other was a low-budget, experimental film starring television actress/sex 'kitten' Carol Lynley. Both films failed, both in capturing the essence of Jean Harlow, and as film biographies. While the Baker film, which I'll discuss here, had enough lurid titillation for three films, the sweet-natured girl who was loved by nearly everyone who knew her never makes an appearance.

The 'real' Harlow, born Harlean Carpenter, in 1911, arrived in Hollywood at 16, with an over-ambitious mother and newlywed husband in tow. Divorcing her husband, she appeared in 'bit' parts until Howard Hughes 'discovered' her, and cast her "Hell's Angels", in 1930. She was a sensation, despite possessing a tinny, twangy speaking voice (which voice coaches would work on, throughout her career.) Eventually signing with MGM, she would become a sensation, frequently co-starring with Clark Gable, and her off-screen life would be even more sensational; her second marriage, to producer Paul Bern, would last only two months, and he would soon commit suicide, fueling rumors of his inability to 'perform' his duties as a husband; a third marriage, to cameraman Harold Rosson, soon followed, only to last eight months. She finally found happiness with actor William (The Thin Man) Powell, but before they could marry, she developed uremic poisoning and kidney failure, dying in 1937, at 26.

Baker's "Harlow" dumped any references to Gable and Powell (Mike Connors, in an off-beat piece of casting, plays the character 'based' on Powell), created an agent who served as a confidant (Red Buttons), and showed a decline in Harlow's spirit, until she became as sleazy as some of the characters she occasionally played (which those who knew her best flatly denied; the sensational headlines did not 'cost' her a career, or her 'soul', they maintain). The film presents her finally 'cleaning up her act', but dying before she can share her new-found joy.

Jean Harlow was an optimist, self-reliant and resilient, with a ready laugh, and an often too-generous nature. She never took her sex appeal too seriously, and preferred 'being comfortable' to creating illusions. She was adored by her co-workers, and the grief everyone felt at her death was genuine, not staged.

If "Harlow" had gotten even a part of this right, it would have been a far better film!

Years ago I read Irving Schulman's book Harlow upon which this film is allegedly based. Other than Jean's family the only other real characters were her agent Arthur Landau and her second husband Paul Bern, played by Red Buttons and Peter Lawford respectively. All the people she worked with and for at MGM are eliminated from the story. In fact none of the titles of her films are mentioned.

There's a reason that MGM didn't do the story of one of its legendary stars. Too much dirty linen would be exposed and why would Paramount who produced this want to get into litigation with a rival?

Landau who was still alive and the source for much of Schulman's book is a character. The seminal event of Harlow's private life, her disastrous marriage to an impotent man was crucial. And the overbearing mother (Angela Lansbury) and gigolo husband (Raf Vallone) all had to be in the story. But any reasonably knowledgeable fan of Jean Harlow won't recognize her at all.

Caroll Baker plays Harlow in this and the real Harlow was never as naive as Baker plays her. She was a pretty smart girl, sadly dominated by a first class stage mother and her husband who fed off her celebrity. She did in fact have three marriages, one before and after Paul Bern, so Jean was acquainted with the facts of life.

I did rather enjoy Martin Balsam as the Louis B. Mayer like head of Majestic Pictures.. I think Balsam channeled Mayer pretty good in his performance.

By accounts of her contemporaries, Jean Harlow was a warm, gracious, and generous soul. Rosalind Russell in her memoirs said she was a good friend and generous to her coworkers and they worked together in China Seas and Reckless. William Powell who worked with her in Libeled Lady and Reckless and was going to marry her said she was not at all like the films that used her life had her.

Harlow had two tellings of her life in 1965, the second was a cheap production that starred Carol Lynley, but had a few more facts straight about her life. Jean's story ought to be remade now, too many people with vested interests were still alive in 1965

Harlow is an interesting film following the "Blonde Bombshell's" rise and fall in Hollywood. Weighed down by a despicable yet charming family, Harlow hits it big in Tinseltown.

Despite playing fast and loose with the facts, this film brings the glamour of Harlow to audiences. Carroll Baker delivers well as Harlow. This may be heresy, but in my opinion, Baker is even more beautiful than Harlow herself.

The film doesn't do so well in ignoring important facts. First, Jean Harlow wasn't the innocent girl next door. In fact, she had wed at age 16. Second, Leslie Nielson's character, which was actually supposed to portray Howard Hughes was damn near libelous. Third, the interpretations on Harlow's marriage to Paul Bern paint him as a homosexual. His own biography tends to point to impotence.

Despite these diversions from "truth" if there is any in Hollywood, do not take away from the power of this film. If you don't know anything about Jean Harlow, the end may shock you.

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.

It's hard to believe anybody involved in the production of this glossy nonsense ever actually saw any of the real Jean Harlow's movies (none of the titles of which have been used). And apart from Harlow herself (who was seven years younger when she died than Carroll Baker was when she made this movie) only Paul Bern - played by Peter Lawford, who looked nothing like him - hasn't had his name changed. (Having been dead for over thirty years he presumably had no living next of kin liable to sue.)

But it's a sign of how standards have plummeted since this was made that while this was laughed off screens and died at the boxoffice in 1965, forty years later Scorsese's equally phoney 'The Aviator' (in which Harlow is fleetingly impersonated by a brassy-looking Gwen Stefani) won a fistful of Oscars.

Bears so little resemblance to the life of the real Jean Harlow it is hard to understand why they didn't film a story of a fictitious character, albeit vaguely utilizing incidents in the star's life. Mainly absorbing though, with some witty dialogue and convincing performances, especially Red Buttons as her agent and Angela Lansbury and Raf Vallone as the happy-go-lucky parents. And Carroll Baker is a great star even though she doesn't bring to mind the real Harlow for a minute. What lets it down, along with many other productions on both sides of the Atlantic right up to the present day, is an inability or refusal to get everyday aspects of the recent past right. Correct details, as near as possible, regarding costume, hairstyles, decor, as well as people's behaviour in the period in question are so important in establishing a convincing portrait of the era concerned. Why do the creators of film and television drama continue to be so slapdash in this regard?

Carol Baker is stunning in 1960s hair and gowns. Unfortunately, the film takes place in the 1930s. The soundtrack also contains 1960s lounge and twist music. This film is mostly fictional and has nothing to do with Harlow's life, but it is fun.

My favorite line is when she turns down a tryst with a famous actor. She tells him she has a date for dinner and a film. The actor says, "I can't believe you're turning down a chance of "being" with me for a night of indigestion and a stiff neck." Harlow replies, "Aren't you offering the same thing?" LOL. Think about it.

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.

It's big, it's expensive, it's colorful, and that's about it. The people behind "The Carpetbaggers," obviously hoping that lightning would strike twice, put together the high budget version of Irving Schulman's alleged biography of Jean Harlow the following year. This was a mistake. "Carpetbaggers" was trash, but it was enjoyable trash. "Harlow" doesn't even reach that level. Both the Schulman book and this movie were really more fiction than fact and many of those who knew and worked with Harlow, most of whom were still alive at the time, took serious issue with both. Then there are the performances. Even talented people like Angela Lansbury and Raf Vallone, as Jean's mother and stepfather, couldn't do much with this mess, and so compensated by going over the top. But for sheer miscasting, the real violator is not Carroll Baker's overripe Harlow, but Peter Lawford's Paul Bern. Here was the tall, handsome Lawford playing a man who was, by all accounts, short, bald, and, frankly, rather dumpy looking. It's a good thing everything and everybody else in this film other than Jean Harlow, her immediate family, and agent Arthur Landau, were cloaked under various pseudonyms. To have done otherwise would have left Joseph E. Levine and Paramount open to a world of trouble resulting from the libel suits alone.

In short, watching "Harlow," you'll gain nothing and lose 130 minutes you'll never get back again. It really isn't worth it.

The people responsible for putting this piece of trash on the screen never knew Jean Harlow, and obviously knew nothing about her. The storyline is untrue. The performances are terrible. Why a great actress like Angela Lansbury agreed to be in this turkey is a mystery bigger than any that she solved on MURDER, SHE WROTE.

The film is colourful and melodramatic enough but unfortunately the studios were not going to let us know the story. Here there is part of the story, but just not all the marriages and none of the films. It looks as if the films are really not there and they made up the fake titles. How very strange and so sad that it is just so silly it was untrue except something of the story of her parents. Of course Carroll Baker's outstanding, although Angela Lansbury as her mother was also good. Some of the time she is better than Baker.

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

IN THE 1930s, a young actress took the HOLLYWOOD film industry by storm. With her platinum blonde hair, Jean HARLOW (1911-1937) became a pioneer of later Hollywood blondes such as Lana TURNER and Marilyn MONROE. However, her limited lifespan makes it clear that this life could not have been as glamorous as Jean HARLOW's films suggest.

And that's exactly what this biopic from the 1960s shows, in which ACADEMY AWARD nominee (she was nominated for BABY DOLL in 1957) and later queen of the Italian giallo shocker Carroll BAKER slips into the role of her famous predecessor Jean HARLOW. Everything starts out very difficult. Young Jean gets work in the studios relatively quickly, but only to be pelted with cream pies in popular slapstick comedies. It was only through her manager, played by ACADEMY AWARD winner Red BUTTONS (he won the award in 1958 for SAYONARA), that HARLOW got better roles in crime film classics such as THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931) and SCARFACE (1932). And then everything happens very quickly and the platinum blonde is signed by MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer). More Stars Than There are in Heaven was the motto of the leading Hollywood studio at the time! And the titles of the films that were written for HARLOW were real announcements: PLATINUM BLONDE (1931) / RED-HEADED WOMAN (1932) / HOLD YOUR MAN (1933) / BOMBSHELL (1933) / THE GIRL FROM MISSOURI ( 1934).

But not all that glitters is platinum! There are of course the powerful and demanding men of the industry, played by ACADEMY AWARD winner Martin BALSAM (awarded in 1966 for A THOUSAND CLOWNS) and Leslie NIELSEN. Strange husbands (Peter LAWFORD and Mike CONNORS) cross the path of the diva longing for love. And of course mom (three-time ACADEMY AWARD nominee Angela LANSBURY) and virile stepfather (CINECITTA Divo Raf VALLONE) want to cook their own soup with the blonde star's gold. It happens as it has to happen: a now almost forgotten superstar from the early days of Hollywood dies far too soon...

The fact that the film is interesting despite its predictability is due to the director Gordon DOUGLAS (1907-1993). Gordon who? Even though I hadn't heard of this busy studio director before, his involvement here really makes sense. From a very young age, Mr. Douglas was an assistant director in the nascent film industry. The man knows what he's talking about. And you notice that very clearly in the film, especially in the opening scenes. The PARAMOUNT PICTURES have earned an insider's insight into the depths of the studio system.

Maybe the film is also a welcome opportunity to watch all the Pre-Code classics with Jean HARLOW again or for the first time. Hollywood films have never been this wicked and daring since then. And Jean HARLOW was right in the middle of it all!

This is one of my favorite old movies. It may not be a realistic biography of Jean Harlow, but it's entertaining. I remember watching it on TV during a period of depression, and, oddly enough, it helped to cheer me up! I'll always like it for that reason, plus it's a bit of escapism from reality.

I thought Carrol Baker was great as Harlow, I also liked Angela Lansbury as Mama Jean. Like I said, even though it's not accurate, the movie does a good job at portraying the rise and fall of an actress. It might have done better as a fictional story about a fictional actress, rather than using the name of a real life one.

This movie has some memorable scenes for me, especially the ones where Harlow is at the top of her career, then suddenly spirals downward, because she feels she's missing something no one can give her.

Others may disagree, but for me, Harlow is a great escapist movie.

At first thought, Carroll Baker might not seem the best choice to play Jean Harlow; but think again. She has a nasal voice, a large forehead, the same shaped nose, a small mouth, and a nice figure. She just isn't that great of an actress, so casting her in a biopic about a tragic figure doesn't automatically scream "Oscar".

There were two Jean Harlow pictures released in 1965, both titled Harlow, which was very unfortunate. Neither one was very good, and both for the same reason: they sensationalized Jean's life and used hardly any facts. Part of the fault in the inaccuracies is the lack of knowledge in 1965 about what really happened. Now, in the modern era, there's so much more information that a new biopic could be made with much more feeling behind it. Back in the 1960s, Hollywood studios still wanted to cover up Jean's second husband's murder and make it look like a suicide because he couldn't "be a man" to his sex goddess wife. No one wanted to lift the lid on the medical error that led to her tragic death; instead she was just painted out to be a wild child who lit the candle at both ends and paid the price. Nothing could have been further from the truth. She was a quiet homebody who was nothing like her screen persona. She was actually reduced to tears at the thought that audiences thought she was a loose woman and a gangster's moll.

So, if you're looking for the truth about the beautiful and radiant Jean Harlow, read these two books: Bombshell: The Life and Death of Jean Harlow by David Stenn and The Girl from Missouri by John C. Spahn (and Jean Harlow herself). If you're just a Carroll Baker fan and it won't bother you that Hollywood didn't give her Harlequin eyebrows, you can check out this Harlow. She is a very pretty woman and recreates some famous moments and costumes. There's also quite a crowded supporting cast: Angela Lansbury as Mama Jean, Martin Balsam as a Louis B. Mayer type, Red Buttons as Arthur Landau, Raf Vallone as Marino, Peter Lawford as Paul, and Leslie Neilson. Just keep in mind it's total fiction so you don't do Miss Harlow's memory ill.

This is one of two films released at the same time about the tragic, original blonde bombshell. Carrol Baker is certainly beautiful in the role, but the strange mixture of 1930's dresses and 1960s spike heels and hairdos undermine the attempts at any accurate 1930's atmosphere. The music in the background would be more at home on an episode of "Pete and Gladys" than in a story of old Hollywood. Leslie Nielsen's character has a bachelor pad that would be the envy of Hugh Hefner. There are no true references to any of Harlow's work. She never (to my knowledge) ever took a pie in the face or was sprayed with seltzer water. (She did have an impressive walk-on in an early Laurel and Hardy short). Her earliest film appearances were as a film extra in such pictures as "The Love Parade", 1929. Her breakthrough role was in the Howard Hughes 1930 epic, "Hell's Angels". Her performances got better and better as she went under contract to MGM and made some truly classic films there including "Dinner at Eight." None of this is shown in "Harlow." The character of the Mother is shown to be pretty much sympathetic as played by Angela Lansbury. What is glossed over is the fact that Jean Harlow's real Mother was a Christian Scientist who forbade her daughter real treatment for her "illness", reportedly caused by the beatings she suffered at the hands of Paul Bern, until it was too late to make any real difference. The inaccurate facts presented in this film could be due to the fact that many of the principals involved in Jean Harlow's life were still living in 1965, the year that both of these "biopics" were released. If you want an accurate biography of Jean Harlow, see some of her actual films and read one of the many decent books about MGM. On it's own, the film "Harlow" is mildly entertaining in a "Valley of the Dolls" sort of way. The Carol Lynley version of this story is only slightly more accurate than this glossy, Technicolor version. I haven't seen it in years, and therefore cannot give an accurate review of it.