Parnell

I only watched this as part of my Myrna Loy viewing quest, and it's far from my favorite movie, but it's also far from the worst that I've seen of hers. It was just...there. At one point, there was a courtroom scene, and that added a bit of tension, but that only brought my overall score up to a 5. Overall, it seemed slow and went on and on, yet the story didn't really progress very far. Loy and Gable weren't terribly well cast here, however they and their characters just didn't have much to do, just talk, fret, talk some more.

John Stahl is famous for his tear-jerkers -often excellent- which make ladies (and gentlemen)cry rivers of tears.Remember "only yesterday" "back street" or his precedent movie "the magnificent obsession"."Parnell " is another matter because it deals with the life and times of an Irish hero who fights for his people right ,a real human being ,not,say, a Fanny Hurst's character.The problem is that Gable's and Loy's characters resemble Fanny Hurst's characters.The movie runs almost two hours and the screenplay is often muddled and confuse.Arguably,Stahl hesitates between a straight political biography -and he's not really good at that- and a full bore melodrama -Gable's and Loy's impossible love)and it satisfies neither the fans of the first genre nor the soap operas' buffs.The ending ,which is guaranteed to send the sensitive people tearing through a ton a kleenex,is pure Stahl Stuff. Best part comes from Edna May Oliver ,playing Loy's auntie.Otherwise,a disappointment and .. a bore.

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.

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.