User Reviews (32)

Add a Review

  • 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!
  • I haven't seen this film for some time, but I used to have a TV transfer copy of it I would watch with friends on "Bad Movie" nights.

    Aside from the bad dialog and the overly sincere performance of Red Buttons as the benevolent Hollywood agent from mars, the most hilarious thing about the movie is that it seems like a time warp feature. The 30's and 60's keep clashing in the oddest moments.

    Women sport bullet bras and big 60's lacquered hairdos yet drive around in old 30's jalopies. The clothes are period only when it suits the purpose of the plot, otherwise you have men with 60's Jerry Lewis haircuts (10 lbs of Vaseline) and golf sweaters. The women's makeup is all 60's liquid eyeliner and false eyelashes.

    Things are so topsy turvey that when Harlow is seduced by the sleazoid Leslie Neilsen, we see that he has an electronic 60's bachelor pad straight out of an issue of Playboy.

    However, my favorite idiotic anachronism is when Harlow is onstage at a personal appearance for one of her films, and to the accompaniment of the strains of 60's twist music, actually engages in an energetic twist while reading questions from the audience! What were they thinking? This movie blows, but in a lot of fun ways. There's that cheesy theme song by whiny Bobby Vinton, then there is stolid and expressionless Carroll Baker playing not jean Harlow but the Cheryl Barker role from "The Oscar." The males assembled (Leslie Neilsen, Peter Lawford and Mike Connors) are an oddly bland, sexless bunch; and throughout nothing rings even remotely true to life.

    Forget about seeing a film about Jean Harlow. Watch this mess like you would "Valley of the Dolls," strictly for laughs
  • arnolddenita8 March 2011
    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.
  • 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.
  • sbox8 December 1998
    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.
  • 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
  • Coxer991 April 1999
    An all around lurid film about sex symbol and superstar, Jean Harlow. There's no real point to the film, other than to present star Baker as a sex symbol herself. Her performance is nothing like her "Baby Doll," and everyone else is either bored with the material or reduced to overacting.
  • 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 ****
  • 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 is not even entertaining, more distracting that anything else.
  • superstar4918 October 2006
    This film has always been a favorite of mine for the past 20 some years after discovering it on late night television one night. It may not be the gospel truth on the late Jean Harlow, and it may not be completely historically accurate where hairdos, attire, furniture and music may be concerned. But it has a unique, special attraction that draws me in and friends who I show it to each and every time.

    For example. The other day I sent the video to a friend back east on the off chance he might like it. He not only liked the film but ended up loving it. We discussed the movie, and while it may not be the perfect Jean Harlow biography, we agreed there was so much going on in the picture that was appealing. Everything from the very beautiful and attractive Carroll Baker, to the little white lunch boxes that are given to the extras at lunchtime, from the handsome Mike Connors looking up at gorgeous Baker ready for action on the staircase, to the memorable line from Jean, "Oh mama not now I don't feel well." I suppose if you're a Jean Harlow fanatic you can find fault with the movie, which is understandable. But I just happened to see a film that appealed to me with the cast who starred in it. "The Godfather" which is a piece of junk, "Star Wars" which even has trash cans that revolve and talk, and "Postcards from the Edge" all failed to win me over like "Harlow" did.

    Here's one movie goer who has nothing but great things to say about "Harlow." I would love to see a special DVD release for it, perhaps with extras, a commentary of some sort, and maybe an interview with Miss Baker about the making of the film.

    Some movies just stick with you. This is one of them.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Do people really expect a dreary, realistic documentary or recreation of actual events when they see a movie about a Hollywood bombshell who dies tragically at a young age? I tend to think a movie about a famous actor who has some out of the ordinary episodes in his/her life should be somewhat over the top to begin with. Maybe a biopic of Fred MacMurray would be a toned down but probably boring movie.

    I really enjoyed the beautiful Carrol Baker in this film. She did a good job given that it was an extravagant 'Carpetbaggers' type film but it was entertaining. I didn't expect a true life biography.

    The same goes for 'Mommie Dearest' which was fun but Joan Crawford's life did have some bizarre twists and qualities to it especially in her later career.

    As for the problems with hairstyles and other things not looking like the 1930s, I suspect that an effort to get every detail 'right' as in the 'Changeling' can be a distraction when viewed in the present day. Miss Baker's look, which was 60s rather than 30s gave the audience the sense of what was appealing, perhaps, in the 60s even if not authentic. If they went to great lengths to give her 30s make up and hair styles, Baker might not have appeared as attractive to us in the 60s and we wouldn't have an appreciation of her sexual attraction.

    I recently watched it for the 3rd time and the theme music during the opening credits really moved me with its haunting sadness and foreshadowing of what was to come. Miss Baker actually made me care about the character she played even though the movie was a showy extravaganza.
  • Susie-411 November 1998
    Angela Lansbury made a sympathetic Mama Jean, and Red Buttons was fairly tolerable, but otherwise, this movie stank. I usually take these "true Hollywood" stories with a grain of salt, and just enjoy the spectacle, but this film truly offended me. Carroll Baker, fleetingly believable as some sort of actress, primarily posed and looked lovely, but evoked nothing of Harlow. The screenpplay reeked of cliche and carelessness with historical fact. Harlean deserved far better.
  • HARLOW is an interesting look at the life of Jean Harlow. Carrol Baker does her best to portray the silver screen siren, but the movie itself really doesn't lend much insight. This movie tends to make VALLEY OF THE DOLLS look like a cinematic masterpiece by comparison - over-the-top acting, bad script and corny scenes all contribute to it's demise. It's a shame, in a way, because Carrol Baker really is a good actress and is quite lovely to look at. To the best of my knowledge, this movie is not available on DVD ~ perhaps it should be, if only to warn future film students and actors

    ~ Don't let this happen to you....
  • 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.
  • JasparLamarCrabb10 August 2013
    Warning: Spoilers
    Is ANY of this true? Who knows? HARLOW is a dud of epic proportions, miscasting Carroll Baker as the sultry, free-spirited 1930s movie star. Baker, a fine actress, is all wrong for the part; never once conveying anything approaching the effervescent qualities the real Harlow possessed and put across on the screen. The film itself is a glossy, almost plastic looking piece directed by the highly unimaginative Gordon Douglas. All of the names, save for Harlow, her mother and stepfather, are changed (as are the names of the studios) so it's impossible to really know who's who and what's going on. The supporting cast is odd and the acting ranges from good to really bad. Red Buttons is Arthur Landau, her agent, and he gives a terrific performance. Martin Balsam is a studio chief and barely registers. Leslie Nielsen is a producer; Raf Vallone is Harlow's creepy stepfather; Peter Lawford is Harlow's husband and Angela Lansbury is her mother. They're all pretty bad, though they're all eclipsed in the idiotic acting department by Mike Connors as a very Gable-like movie star. He's saddled with a lot of silly philosophical sayings instead of actual dialog. Neil Hefti's overwrought music score adds little to the proceedings.
  • dianagerardi11 January 2013
    Warning: Spoilers
    I had been warned that this movie was inaccurate, and all those warnings were warranted.

    First of all, the film portrays Jean as having been a virgin prior to her marriage to Paul Bern, while Paul Bern was Jean's second husband.

    Second, the film makes no allusion to William Powell, who was Jean's love through her last years (he was the one who gave her the sapphire ring that is seen in her last pictures).

    Third, no mention is made of Jean's third marriage.

    Fourth, the film makes it look like after numerous sexual liaisons with strangers, Jean became a washed-up film star (as noted by Red Buttons, who portrays her agent). In reality, after playing multiple roles as a platinum blond, Jean took more serious roles (e.g., in Wife Vs. Secretary) where her acting abilities could be showcased. No mention is made of this in the film.

    The film states that Jean died of pneumonia (and, alludes that she died shortly after Bern). Both of these are incorrect. Jean died of kidney failure in 1937, which is 5 years after Bern's death.

    Carroll Baker's portrayal is poor at best. She seems to spend the 2+ hours strutting about the screen speaking Harlow's dialog in a shrilling voice that seems more akin to the parts Harlow played in her early acting years rather than the actual Harlow who has been described as a shy, tomboy.
  • 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
  • frank-4320 October 1998
    It would be hard to imagine a more ineffective, uninteresting result from such potentially fascinating subject matter.

    Given its impressive cast and important budget, Hollywood has rarely come up with so little.
  • Harlow (1965)

    * 1/2 (out of 4)

    One of two films from 1965 to be named HARLOW and dealing with the blonde bombshell of 1930's Hollywood. Carroll Baker plays Harlow as we watch her slow slip into the doors of Hollywood and her quick rise to the top while having to deal with all sorts of personal issues. This version was Paramount was filmed in color whereas the other version, released just over a month earlier, was in B&W but I really don't think that matters. HARLOW is a really bad and at times really embarrassing picture that really doesn't make too much sense. Much like THE BUSTER KEATON STORY, it seems that the producers didn't know who Jean Harlow was and just made up any story because they were too lazy to come up with a research team. All bio films have things altered and changed and I've never been bothered by this. I am somewhat bothered by a film that's 95% fiction because for the life of me I'm not sure why they even tried to connect it to a real person. We can't even get the film to tell us actual studio names and film names because these too are made up. MGM is called Majestic and the person running it, obviously modeled after Louis B. Mayer, is on display but he too is called a fictional name. With so much fiction going on I'm just shocked that the studio would want to do a Jean Harlow movie. I mean, if you're going to go so far from the truth what's the point? The suicide of Harlow's husband pretty much sets up the embarrassing final thirty-minutes, which includes an incredibly bizarre sequence where Harlow runs wild and into the beds of many men. Just watch how this sequence is put together and you'll be rolling your eyes. Even worse is the big death scene, which is so badly done that it's almost laughable. The performances are another mixed bag. Leslie Nielson, Peter Lawford and Martin Balsam are all good in their "based on true people but names changed" roles. Raf Vallone and Angela Lansbury are both good as Harlow's stepfather and mother. Red Buttons steals the film as the agent. The biggest problem with the cast is Baker as Harlow. Not for a second did I believe her in the role and she was never able to capture the spirit of the actress. HARLOW is a complete embarrassment that manages to be not only silly but also boring.
  • A "bottle blonde" biop - nothing in this film really reflects the true shade of Harlow. But worth the watch, for these laughable moments:

    (1) The way "Harlow" tears into a chicken breast, then flings a piece of gristle onto the ground with the aplomb of Henry the VIII while lamenting (with her mouth full) to "Arthur Landeau," that she can't get the parts 'cause she doesn't put out on the casting couch. (Could be...but I really wonder if her table manners had something to do with it?) (2) The bedroom scene with future "Naked Gunner" Leslie Nielsen as the "Richard Manley" - (Howard Hughes) - who tries to bang her, but gets "shot down" when she throws the proverbial drink in his face and calls him a "dirty, rotten animal." I tend to agree...after all, they actually had dinner first!

    There are a few more, but I'll have to rewatch the movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is completely historically in accurate. A huge chunk of the plot revolves around Jean trying to get a break in the movie business but she is held back because of her high morals and does not want give it up on the casting couch. It portrays her as an innocent virgin, whereas she had already been married for two years before any of the movie stuff started. And there is a dreadful scene where she is supposedly beaten up by her first husband (who in reality is her second husband) who then commits suicide because he is supposed to be impotent (or I guess the innuendo is he was gay). Anyway she goes blathering on about waiting her whole life to give up her virginity to her one true love... but how can this be true, when it is her second marriage??? The whole thing is a banal fantasy and looks more like a bad play...
  • 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.
  • I watched this movie because I was interested in Harlow's story, but that is not what the movie attempts to show. Caroll Baker had no magnetism, and seems a creature of the 50s not 30s. It focussed on her virginity at the time of her marriage to Paul Bern and the marriage ruined her because of her sacred ideas of sex and the marriage vows. It completely ignored that she had been married previously. And it gave no insight on her death.
An error has occured. Please try again.