jkochoa4966 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.

Robert Gold I saw this movie when I was a teenager when it first came out. I didn't know a lot about Gable or Lombard at the time, but I had seen some of their films since I was getting into old movies at the time. Since I only knew a little about them, I loved the movie.Now watching it in 2013, I still enjoyed it, but I agree with many other reviewers that too much fiction was added for the sake of entertainment. I have read biographies of Gable and the book the film was based on, but that was YEARS ago, so now even watching it last night, I had forgotten how much was fiction and how much was reality. For example, I suspected that the courtroom scene when Lombard was coming in to defend Gable for his paternity suit in the manner she did was totally fabricated, but other parts of the film made me wonder whether they could have been true.Someone in the board discussion posted a link where the screenwriter Barry Sandler discusses the film. I would like to post it here too since I enjoyed the insight I received from it. It helps to answer some of the many questions other reviewers have asked. It's: jeffcramer.blogspot.com and then click on the right where it lists names. Go to Barry Sandler. Regarding the music, even though the Michel Legrand love theme was used very often, I have always enjoyed it. It didn't bother me that it was a bit repetitive.Sure, it's a flawed film, but it's fun. If you can put aside the truth and watch it for the story, it's fine.I do think Brolin did a magnificent job in capturing Gable's essence and I think Clayburgh (who died before her time) was also good.

BooBoo516 This movie was quite maligned when it came out. Since I had been a big fan of both vivacious Jill Clayburgh and the manly James Brolin at the time I went to see it. Since I was a teen, I took a lot of what was portrayed as quite accurate. True it is a mostly fictionalized account of the two stars, but it has got some redeeming qualities. Namely, Brolin's dead on Gable. He is indeed very good, and I kept forgetting that it was not really Clark Gable. Clayburgh, as attractive as she is does not have Lombard's classic beauty or figure, but she's so gosh darn likable as Lombard one can overlook her shortcomings. Seeing it again recently, Jill Clayburgh as Lombard is a stretch, but I felt she put so much into the character, and a better script couldn't have hurt. Physical aspects aside, the two actors have great chemistry, and one gets the impression they are really crazy about each other. It's ashame that neither Brolin or Clayburgh got more to do...the story does meander at times and the film is a tad too long. Although it's not a great film, it's definitely worth checking out. Be on the lookout for Melanie Mayron as Dixie, before she went from frump to vixen.

unisphere64-1 I have to say I thought I knew more about this couple then I did. I enjoyed it very much. Too bad this golden era of Hollywood is slipping away. From the likes of Hopper, Parsons, Winchell everyone who was anyone is mentioned in this film. The references to the "Brown Derby" make me nostalgic for the old days as did the scene in the Cocoanut Grove from the recently departed Ambassador Hotel. Louis B. Mayer obviously had great control over his stable of stars. How things have changed.I was struck by Brolin's resemblance to Clark Gable. I think he did a respectable job playing the King with restraint. Costumes, makeup and set decoration are excellent. I really enjoyed this window to the past.