Recensioni degli utenti

In the 70s after MGM compiled their wonderful THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT docos highlighting their musical treasure trove, other equally stocked companies decided not to do the same but actually make feature films about the same Hollywood history. So, instead of getting That's Fox or That's Paramount or Universal or Columbia (like the pubic actually wanted...and still do...) we were served new movies about old Hollywood. Enter GABLE AND LOMBARD (and WC Fields and Me, and Day Of The Locust...and Won Ton Ton The Dog That Saved Hollywood...and Hearts Of the West...and The Last Tycoon etc). Not as ominous as the proposed remake of Casablanca starring Tom Selleck and Jane Seymour, and nowhere near as 'bad' or 'wrong' as critics of the time cruelly labeled it, GABLE AND LOMBARD is a lush valentine to a fan mag style and memory of a period in time...rather like the production design of The Talented Mr Ripley is actually reflective of what Hollywood thought the jet set Mediterranean 50s were like as opposed to its fishing boat reality. As with At long Last Love, GABLE AND LOMBARD was slammed by crits and left to drown when without the bile and guffaw, there is a very entertaining biography with quite good casting and sensational visuals. Unfortunately for the producers, it was made when most everyone from the 30s were still alive and could spew on this film. Had it been made today, it would play 3000 multiplexes to a docile audience who struggle to know anything about 'the past' and be a $50million hit in week one by default of the TV ads and shopping center cinema location. I am sad not to see Jill Clayburg in films much past the 70s, like the superb Lee Grant she too can make an ordinary film watchable. In this case we have a great actress in a lavish (slavish) biography with sturdy James Brolin doing his damnedest not to be a dumb-Clark. As with WC Fields And Me this film deserves a better reception and a lush DVD transfer to be re discovered and appreciated. It's quite good.

Slammed by critics in 1976 for playing loosely with the Hollywood facts (to put it mildly), this expensive, handsome-looking bio-pic regarding the romance between 1930s screen idols Clark Gable and Carole Lombard actually doesn't take the facts into consideration at all. Perhaps starting with the presumption that nobody knows the real dish, screenwriter Barry Sandler concocts a movie star yarn around personalities we mostly remember today through their pictures. Of course, film-historians were quick to point out all the inaccuracies, but I don't think Sandler nor director Sidney J. Furie was preoccupied with the truth. Sandler's Gable and Lombard appear to be based solely on his (and our) movie memories of them both, and leads James Brolin and Jill Clayburgh approach their roles in this precise spirit (particularly Clayburgh, who models her performance on Lombard's performance in "My Man Godfrey"). In a way, this was a novel concept considering that 1930s reality has now been permanently blurred via time and celluloid. Now for the bad news: Sandler's 'plot' spends far too much time on the loving couple having to sneak around since Gable was already married, and their meetings with Louis B. Mayer (Allen Garfield, playing Father Confessor) are pointless. In actuality, Clark and Carole brazenly showed up everywhere together, and the public ate it up. Sticking to the truth in this instance might've served Sandler better than the silly melodrama on display, which mitigates the screwball humor Furie stages at the beginning. This picture is a real mess from a narrative standpoint, and the acting isn't dynamic enough to hold interest. There's a terrible, shapeless sequence wherein Lombard barges into a Women's Press decency meeting yelling, "Cock-a-doodle-do!" and a limp bit in the courtroom with Carole getting blue on the stand (much to everyone's delight). Brolin has Gable's squint, mouth movements and vocal inflection down pat, yet his King is made to be so downtrodden that it comes as a surprise when Lombard expresses rapture over his bedroom prowess (again, in reality, the comedienne once famously confessed she adored 'Pa' but that their sex life was lacking). Had Sandler gone full-throttle with a high-comedy approach, the movie may have been a hoot. However, the phony dramatics overshadow everything in the end--and since the film is useless as a biography, a good portion of "Gable and Lombard" is utterly without purpose. ** from ****

Have you ever heard a lie so supremely unbelievable (based upon what you know), you feel insulted and wish the teller were a better liar? That's how I felt suffering through the first 30 minutes of "Gable and Lombard". Historical inaccuracy upon historical inaccuracy tarnishes this telling of the love between two of Hollywood's brightest stars. There' nothing histrionically bad here (despite Clayburgh's terrible miscasting), production values are exceptional; yet movies such as "Gable and Lombard" can be career killers, and the producers deserved to lose every penny they invested. While no one's career was completely killed, James Brolin (who actually does a pretty good job) was never offered another major film role. Sidney J. Furie, who impressed so much with "The Ipcress File," "The Appaloosa" and "Lady Sings the Blues" found himself directing "Superman 4: The Quest for Peace" and the "Iron Eagle" series. Ironically, Jill Clayburgh, given her near inept performance as Carole Lombard, fared the best, snatching up hit roles in "Silver Streak," and Oscar nominations for "An Unmarried Woman" and "Starting Over." Clayburgh's problems playing Lombard are not entirely her fault; Clayburgh is simply not classy enough or pretty enough to play Lombard. Much of Lombard's appeal was her ability to handle vulgar material in a classy way. Coarse language can seem almost charming, depending upon how it's delivered. Lombard could pull it off for the same reasons Katherine Hepburn could do it, because she had the refinement.

Since I didn't finish the movie, I won't rate it. "Gable and Lombard" is okay as fiction, but I would have greatly preferred it had the writer stayed as closely as dramatically possible to the true story.

At first, I could not believe James Brolin was playing Clark Gable, but he is dead on with his portrayal!!! He's a great reason to see this film. I don't know why this film is rated so low. It was sweet, entertaining and the ending was heartbreaking. It was also great to see the implications of not being a "moral" and "upstanding" actor in the film industry during its early years. It shows how much times have changed. It was also fascinating to see if Clark Gable really had a softer side in him, since he was probably the greatest leading man in the history of Hollywood and a symbol of American manhood during his time. In my mind, this film is wonderful.

Struggling in the mid-seventies just before the blockbuster era settled in, Hollywood looked back to its history for material, and this was one of the results. Based on a pretty good book by Warren G. Harris, the problem with "Gable & Lombard" isn't so much the acting (Brolin does what he can in a no-win situation, and Clayburgh's halfway decent, though it's nearly impossible to suspend disbelief and believe she's Lombard), but the script. It's awful, and worse, historically inaccurate in so many ways (unlike the book).

First of all, Clark and Carole initially met filming "No Man Of Her Own" when Gable was loaned to Paramount in late 1932, while Lombard was married to William Powell; they got along well on the set, but no sparks flew and from all accounts they didn't keep in touch.

Second, Lombard was never a bigger star than Gable (although at the peak of her career, she was the highest-salaried star in the industry thanks to her shrewd business sense). Both elevated their rank in 1934, ironically through films at Columbia -- "It Happened One Night" for Clark, "Twentieth Century" for Carole. Her only film at MGM also came that year, but it wasn't with Gable; it was a gangster comedy called "The Gay Bride," sort of a thirties "Married To The Mob" (in fact, that phrase is actually used in the film). Carole always called it the worst film of her career (although, personally, I deem it far superior to her lone foray at Warners, "Fools For Scandal" in 1938).

Third, and perhaps most inexcusable to me, was having Gable in uniform at the time of Carole's death in a 1942 plane crash returning from a war bond rally in her native Indiana. Lombard was far more interested in world affairs than Gable, and many believe Clark enlisted out of guilt for what had happened to his wife -- something that would have been far more poignant than what was shown on screen. (There's also been conjecture that Gable and Lana Turner, who were making "Somewhere I'll Find You," were having an affair at the time of Carole's death, and that Lombard decided to fly home because of her suspicions. Since Turner was alive in 1976, one can understand why the script didn't touch this issue.) All in all, a mediocre film about two personalities who deserve far better treatment, especially since both were, by all accounts, generally good people and acknowledged as such by those who worked with them. Lombard in particular deserves a decent biopic, as her timeless, iconoclastic qualities still resonate today.

GABLE AND LOMBARD is the kind of film that Hollywood history buffs hate, but fans of love stories just eat up. In other words, the truth is often distorted or ignored, but the emotional core is dead-on.

I won't dwell on the many mistakes, but two are glaring, and must be pointed out. While Carole Lombard was a truly gifted actress (particularly in comedies), she was never Hollywood's #1 star (Lombard never achieved the status of Shearer, Garbo, Davis, or Crawford); L.B. Mayer's 'ordering' rising star Gable to 'make nice' with her, so she'd agree to do a picture at Metro with him is pure hokum. Actors had virtually no say in 'loan outs' in the 1930s; studios made all the decisions, based on maximizing their profits, and controlling their stars. A case in point was Gable's participation in Columbia's IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT. Had he been given the opportunity, he'd have refused to go (he considered it a 'step backward', and it was, in fact, done as punishment against him, on MGM's part), and he would have never have won his only Academy Award!

The other major gaffe is showing Gable as an AAF officer at the time of Lombard's death. He didn't enlist until after she'd died, partially because of the guilt he felt over his lack of involvement in the war effort, a cause Lombard had died supporting. While Brolin, as Gable, looks terrific in uniform, it just wasn't the truth.

The effectiveness of a story like this relies heavily on the actors portraying the stars, and GABLE AND LOMBARD offers an interesting combination. Despite David Janssen's heavy lobbying for the role of Clark Gable (he always felt he was, actually, Gable's son, and he did, in fact, share many of the actor's physical and vocal qualities), the producers felt that, at 46, he was too old for the role, and went, instead, with 36-year-old James Brolin. Brolin, best-known for his stint in the hit TV series, 'Marcus Welby, M.D.' (and later, in another series, 'Hotel'), was an actor who had all the right 'tools', but never quite achieved film stardom. Nearly cast as Roger Moore's replacement as James Bond (despite a terrific screen test, producer Cubby Broccoli decided to stick with United Kingdom actors), Brolin, with a mustache, looked eerily like Gable during the actor's peak years, and could mimic the actor's vocal inflections and physical mannerisms very effectively. The end result of his mimicry, however, was a Gable who lacked depth, and his performance frequently seemed more a caricature than a portrayal.

Jill Clayburgh, as Carole Lombard, faced a different problem. The 32-year-old actress (who would achieve stardom the following year, in SILVER STREAK), had a very well-written role, which was, in fact, quite close to the actress' actual personality (big-hearted yet at times acerbic, Lombard was known for her salty humor and frequent use of four-letter words, in stark contrast with her classic beauty). Clayburgh, however, with her broad features, looked nothing like Carole Lombard. (If you're unfamiliar with Lombard's 'look', her closest contemporary counterpart is Michelle Pfeiffer.) Clayburgh plays the role very well, but, knowing this, I could never 'suspend disbelief' enough to accept her as Lombard.

However, as I said at the beginning, if you are hooked by true love stories (and aren't familiar with the 'real' Carole Lombard), GABLE AND LOMBARD has all the elements you can ask for; antagonism turning to attraction and then 'forbidden' passion, nearly insurmountable obstacles blocking happiness, eventual triumph, then a heartbreaking tragedy that would ultimately immortalize the lovers. Gable 'carried a torch' for his lost love until his death, in 1960, and GABLE AND LOMBARD gives ample evidence of her impact on his life.

The film is a flawed, but moving testament to their love.

Highly fictional movie about the love affair between Clark Gable (James Brolin) and Carole Lombard (Jill Clayburgh). It chronicles how they first meet and hate each other but eventually fall in love. The problem is Gable's first wife won't give him a divorce and their studios are threatening to drop them.

There are so many factual errors here it's pointless to try and discuss them all. The biggest one for me was the portrayal of Louis B. Mayer (badly played by Allen Garfield) as a kindly man. He was loud and obnoxious and treated the actors like dirt. Here he comes across as a nice gentle father figure which is wildly inaccurate. Still if you just accept this as a fictional tale it's not too bad. It's pretty obvious they spent a lot of money on this--there's some truly beautiful sets and clothes. Also the script isn't too bad. It mostly consists of Brolin and Clayburgh screaming and arguing with each other or hopping into bed...but it still works.

Brolin is VERY convincing as Gable. He looks like him and sounds like him. Also, from what I've heard, he pretty much gave an accurate portrayal of Gable as he really was. Clayburgh looks nothing like Lombard but her acting is excellent and she does show Lombard as she actually was--strong, funny and independent. Also Red Buttons is excellent as a studio publicist. Beautiful music score too.

There are a few problems. The movie is way too long--it's 131 minutes and should have been shorter. Also there's a truly tacky sequence involving a "c**k soc" that should have been eliminated. But, as a fictional tale, this is pretty good. R rated for swearing and very frank sexual talk.

Not quite excellent but Both James Brolin and Jill Clayburgh give creditable performances in one of Hollywood's great love stories. This film was re;eased the same year as "WC Fields and Me" about another Hollywood couple, Fields and Carlotta Monti. "Gable and Lombard" captures the Hollywood scene of the 1930's a bit better than the other film does, and the two leads are more believable then in the other film. More than showing the screen side of these two, "Gable and Lombard" explores the off screen life of the pair. Anyone looking for dirt will be greatly disappointed. The life of Clark Gable and Carol Lombard as shown in this film is anything but boring. Thus, the emotion is genuine when we learn as does Gable that nothing is forever.

"Gable and Lombard" gives us an honest look into the lives of two people who just happened to be movie stars.

Gable and Lombard ended up being a real treat for me to watch. I was skeptical about James Brolin playing Clark Gable but it wasn't long into the movie I got lost in Clark Gable and not in James Brolin. Jill Clayburg, I knew she could pull off being the sexy yet foul mouthed Carol Lombard. This movie is quite authentic with little embellishments here and there as I have read just about everything on this love struck couple. You will die laughing when you see what Carole Lombard had knitted for Clark Gable and her cute little comment when she sees it might be too big for him to fit into. I would though recommend not watching it on tv as it was edited so badly it took away from the story lines. If you can find it on video or happen to catch it in your cable guide, please try to catch it and I think if you really give it your undivided attention you will find the greatest love story of this century!

If you're a fan of its subjects and haven't seen this feature --you either dodged a bullet, or missed a lighthearted but highly fictionalized biopic, depending on how you look at it.

This reviewer (practically from birth a Golden-Age-of-Hollywood geek) must agree with the majority, that the story---which was told better, and more factually, in the Warren Harris book---suffers from an overfictionalized screenplay and subpar writing, in spite of its big budget and capable actors.

If someone had to be cast in 1976 as the King of Hollywood, Brolin did look and sound more the part than most of the then-big names who'd been suggested--and he actually gives a decent impersonation of Gable. He even sounds like him, though he's kneecapped by some of the dialogue and the occasional appearance of a yokelly accent.

The talented Clayburgh, likewise, would have benefited from a better-written part. As it is, she spends nearly half the movie as a snobby hysteric, which by all accounts Lombard was not.

There are many, many moments of invention (Lombard disguising herself as a Confederate extra while Gable films a scene with Vivien Leigh in 'Gone with the Wind', for instance.) But there are effective ones too, like the camping/fishing scenes where the couple really begins to fall in love.

An amusing bit is Allen Garfield's portrayal of studio boss L. B. Mayer, as he "my boy"'s his way through a few paternal finger-wagging scenes, warning Gable of the risks of public backlash to adultery. (Rumor has it that the real L. B. wasn't one to preach that particular sermon.) Likewise, Gable's being the fabled King of Hollywood eventually affected all his marriages----fidelity was all but impossible for him, though by all accounts Lombard was the big love of his life.

Overall, the moviemakers apparently believed that most people would buy this fictionalized account of their relationship if it looked pretty and had a lilting Michel Legrand score. That bet doesn't pay off for the most part---there are other sources from which to mine the real story---but if you love the era of Old Hollywood and you have a couple of hours to kill some night, you might give "Gable and Lombard" a watch, if only as a tip of the hat to a good cast and a fabulous era gone by.

To be frank, this film was nothing but a ghost of one of the greatest love stories in Hollywood. When looking at it from a purely fictional standpoint, Gable and Lombard could be a mildly entertaining film, which is why I gave it a three to save it from utter ruination. But when looking from a historical standpoint and becoming familiar with the real Clark Gable and Carole Lombard, one realizes how ridiculous this film really is. The poorly written script should have been based upon the novel by Warren G. Harris rather than fantasy while the casting offices should have looked for actors better suited for the parts. While James Brolin did what he could with a poorly written part, he certainly was no Gable and ended up performing a dull imitation of one of the greatest legends Hollywood has ever known. But my main concern was with the terrible miscasting of Jill Clayburgh as the iconoclastic Lombard. She was entirely wrong for the part in both physicality and personality and ended up coming off as crude and impudent. The real Lombard was hardly such and while she used the language that Clayburgh shouted over and over again in the film, in reality it did not come off in the cheap manner that Clayburgh performed it in. Those closest to Lombard said she used class with her swearing and certainly Clayburgh was entirely incapable of portraying the class associated with Lombard's personality. While Clayburgh is not a terrible actress, she could not become the essence of Lombard and again it eventuated in a cheap mimicry of one of Hollywood's most signature actresses. Addressing that other problem associated with Clayburgh's casting, her nonexistent physical resemblance to the real Lombard, comes off as a travesty. While I would normally overlook poor physical resemblances to the real life people an actor is portraying, it was nearly impossible to do whilst watching a tall, shrill woman portraying a woman who, in reality, was petite and classy. I will grant that Clayburgh, perhaps, did all that she could to capture Lombard but certainly it did not seem so when watching this pathetic film.

Gable and Lombard eventuated in a shrewd, mediocre film that is not worth the time that it takes in dragging the viewer through the unbearable misrepresentations of various figures of Hollywood's classic period. If you are brilliant enough of a magician to suspend the image of the real Clark Gable and Carole Lombard long enough to see through the historical inaccuracies and rather mediocre acting, Gable and Lombard can be enjoyable. Certainly, I wouldn't be one to suggest it.

Might not be the best movie, but most of the incidents in this film really took place (read the book by Warren G. Harris)! Some of the character's are fictionalized, but the story about the romance is not. James Brolin IS Clark Gable. Brolin has Gable's personality and mannerisms down to a "T" and plays Gable with dignity and grace(unlike Edward Winter did in Moviola:The Scarlett O'Hara War. Winter played him as down home, backwoods, stupid hick, which Gable was FAR from!) I don't know if Brolin did any research for his role but he's sure got Gable down pat!! Jill Clayburgh, on the other hand, overplays her role a bit, but maybe that was the way Lombard really was! All in all, Gable and Lombard is an excellent movie for film buffs, fans of Gable and/or Lombard, or suckers for old fashioned romances. Unfortunately, the only way to see this film is on cable in a heavily edited TV version. Put it out on DVD!!

I just saw this film today and as an avid Gable worshipper, I was shocked that people even attempted to capture Gable and Lombard's chemistry on film. Even though James Brolin (who played Clark) was I suppose alright acting-wise, he was not the best. Jill Clayurgh (who played Carole) didn't even look like Lombard, but I also suppose she did mediocre acting-wise. Its hard, at least for me, to watch a film where actors and actresses are trying to play someone who's passed away and don't even look like them! I know the love story between Clark and Carole like the back of my hand, I KNOW it. I wish Sidney J. Furie, the director, should of done more background information about both Hollywood legends before trying to make a film about them. I mean, I know the film focused on their love, but still if you don't have the right information to play in front of the camera, other fans will dislike it. I wouldn't watch this movie again, but I suppose if you have a free afternoon, its not worth watching. for God's sakes, just pop in Gone with the Wind!

If there would have been a zero instead of a 1 I would have selected that. The supporting actors that appear here in small and bit parts are more believable and certainly less annoying than Brolin and Clayburgh. James Brolin was made up with mustache, hair/wig, and bizarre prosthetic ears that don't enhance his portrayal as Clark Gable. The Brolin to Gable transformation generally consists of a silly contortion of his facial expression that he had difficulty holding and really does nothing to bring forth any recollection of the real Clark Gable. Nor will you recognize any similarity in Brolin's voice mimicking of Gable and a very bad impersonation of the real man. Of the two lead actors Brolin is better than Jill Clayburgh, so what does that say? When I first started watching this I felt it was so bad it must have been a TV movie till I heard Clayburgh's loud curse word language that I imagine wouldn't have passed TV censors of the 1970s. Despite the 1930s glamour getups for Ms. Clayburgh she manages to look completely unattractive and bears no resemblance to Carole Lombard. There are lots of silly scenes as she carries her "Lombard banter" sometimes as a drunk /foul/life of the party Lombard who seems adored by the supporting actors who appear as party goers (of course). In those scenes she flits from one person to the next with lots of one liners that are must have been designed to show Lombard's personality, but are not well delivered, funny or interesting. This is one 'portrayal' that if you encountered a Miss Clayburgh behaving this way with anyone in real life would have made you wonder "what the hell is wrong with this annoying person?" Fortunately she went on to make a few much better movies where her looks and physical acting adequacy do not take away from the memory of lifestory of anyone else or the whole movie.

Love Jill Clayburgh but she is miscast as Lombard. Her voice and OT acting is insufferable. Either she or the crew did not do their homework about character development.

It's amazing how I could not have seen this movie but once a few years ago considering how old it is. When Brolin first appeared on the screen, I had difficulty believing it wasn't Gable. As one other commenter put it, James Brolin IS Clark Gable. Yes, indeed, as much as Joaquim Phoenix IS Johnny Cash; it seemed he was born to play Cash, as it seems Brolin was born to play Gable. Not being a movie critic I cannot give a critique on the movie but when I watch a movie, I get INTO it; lost in the world that exists in the screen. This is only true of movies that really have an emotional effect on me, like Casablanca, Dr. Zhivago and the like. There are numerous others that weren't blockbusters but they definitely depict natural human experiences. That's from the perspective of a romantic, not a critic.

A few legendary stories about both Gable And Lombard, a juxtaposing of facts and we get a film like this one about the marriage of two Hollywood legends. Real life isn't as neatly dramatic as when we fictionalize it to make dramatic sense.

The biggest error in Gable And Lombard is the notion they hadn't met before and when they did meet Gable was not quite a big star yet. Not only had they met but had done a film together. MGM loaned Gable out to Paramount to film No Man Of Her Own and the film is all right, but in and of itself not the best film in either star's list of credit. But because it is with those star crossed lovers Gable And Lombard it now has a bit of cult status.

When they made No Man Of Her Own Carole Lombard was married to William Powell, but they divorced soon after and she was involved with both Russ Columbo and George Raft for a bit. The Columbo story is one that ought to be told on film.

Gable had been married twice before to women older than he and Ria Langham was a Texas oil heiress. She did not need Gable's income by any means, but she did not like betrayal. She's played here with proper bitterness by Joanne Linville. Gable met her at a Hollywood party in the late 30s and the two started dating. The rest is history.

James Brolin looks like Clark Gable and sounds like Rich Little doing an impression of Gable. Jill Clayburgh does capture some of the zaniness and free spirit nature of Carole Lombard. She was the least pretentious of female stars in her era to the extent of not even having her own private dressing room. Meal times were always with crew on any picture of her's.

Best role in the film is Allen Garfield as Louis B. Mayer. He was every bit of unctuous in real life as you see Garfield play him on the screen.

Gable And Lombard ain't history, but it's as good as you will get when Hollywood portrays its own.

I graduated in 1971 , so when this movie came out in 1976 I was 23 and at a time in my life when showing any emotion was something that only women would do.Then I went to see this movie about Clark Gable and Carol Lombard and it absolutely changed my outlook towards what real love should be.James Brolin was great in portaying Clark,they could not have picked a better actor for the part.Jill Clayburgh was also wonderful and held her own.This movie could lift you up with laughter and then make you wish that the end would never come,and to think it was a true story.This movie never got a fare shake from the critics, which has convenced me to never listen to critics on anything anymore and that really the only critic should be yourself and how you feel about something.I highly recommend this movie to anyone who would like to have a heartfelt experience.I give this movie its 4 star rating it deserves.Thank you , Jon Kodi

Was this a made for TV film? Couldn't be for mainstream TV (and cable wasn't in place at the time), with all the sexual innuendo's, such as the penile sock to keep Gable's male part from 'catching cold.' I thought Brolin played Gable very well; looks, mannerisms; and, the make-up artist did a nice job on his ears. The voice resembled Gable's. Jill Clayburgh is too sweet to play Lombard, although I wouldn't know Lombard if I bumped into her. She was not a major player.

So, the pair had sex every day; I doubt it, with the busy and conflicted schedules. Only teenage 'lovers' have sex every day. Makes it appear that it was a lust relationship rather than a love affair.

Brolin played the role well but the film still resembles TV fare. I might be too young to comment on Lombard; I'm only 71 and wasn't born yet during this torrid romance.

"Gable and Lombard" is a film that flopped when it debuted and I think the biggest reason is that the film tried to do the impossible...have someone play Clark Gable realistically. But there was only one Gable and his bigger than life persona is one that I doubt is any actor could replicate...so James Brolin was screwed from the onset. As for Carole Lombard, she is played by Jill Clayburgh...who isn't as widely known today or even in 1976, so Clayburgh received far less criticism than Brolin when the film debuted. Plus, Lombard is just an easier person to replicate on film.

So, if you ignore that the pair really aren't that much like the originals, what are you left with when you see this movie? Well, instead of the real story of how they met, fell in love and lost each other, you get something that plays much more like a 1940s movie...and a bit of a screwball comedy at that. As I watched, I sure felt that the film bears much semblance to their lives. It sanitizes things (such as Gable's infidelities) and seems to think off-screen the pair were pretty much what you saw in movies. One exception is that Lombard reportedly WAS as earthy (and foul mouthed) as the woman Clayburgh played.

So, if you ignore the facts and the actors...is there anything left to like? No.