Jean Harlow and Clark Gable provide high-wattage star power in this film filled with classic images of both. Ah, the 1930's, when you could elude the law by waltzing into a young woman's unlocked apartment, find her taking a bath, and then have her come out and not only cover for you, but iron your clothes. The pair have great chemistry and repartee, and sparks fly. Dorothy Burgess is a firecracker as Gable's old girlfriend who drinks a little too much, and Stuart Erwin is solid as his sidekick in grifting. Overall, the film has that playful, pre-Code joy to it, naughty as it is. The screenplay by Anita Loos and Howard Emmett Rogers is delightful, and the direction from Sam Wood includes some wonderful shots. The final 45 minutes drag a bit, as Harlow is sentenced to a reformatory school, though it was nice to see the shenanigans of her fellow inmates, which included the lovely Theresa Harris, and Harlow singing at the piano to them. It's interesting to see the reaction to Harlow being pregnant, which leads to some over-the-top melodrama in the form of Gable pleading for a preacher to perform marriage services. You can see the ending coming a mile away, but an entertaining film throughout.

Jean Harlow and Clark Gable star in "Hold Your Man," a film from 1933.Gable plays con man Eddie Hall who runs into the apartment of Ruby Adams (Harlow) as he races to escape from the police. She's taking a bath and isn't happy having a strange man in her apartment. But Ruby has no problem taking care of herself. Though she is dating a sturdy businessman (Stu Erwin) whom she attempts to con for her rent money, Ruby falls for Eddie. She falls for him so hard that she helps him with a con and winds up in prison. One day she gets dizzy. Well, we know what that means. But Eddie hasn't been in touch. Then, one day, she gets word of him from an unlikely person.The highlight of this film is the snappy dialogue and the wonderful Harlow who, when she's offered a look at Gable's bedroom says, "Send me a picture of it." There was criticism here that when she went into prison, her personality changed, but I disagree. It's obvious in the beginning that she's interested in Eddie, and why wouldn't a woman in love, in prison, and pregnant, show vulnerability? That was the great thing about Harlow - underneath the street-smart wise cracks, there was a sensitivity.Gable had been ascending the Hollywood ladder by leaps and bounds, and he is delightful here. Both he and Harlow play characters who put up a front, but ultimately their defenses come down.I enjoyed it.

Two of MGM's most memorable stars enjoy some snazzy scenes together in this somewhat uneven, but mostly entertaining, romantic film. Gable, a con man, has to hot-foot it from the police after a scam gone wrong and winds up in the apartment of Harlow, who's no slouch in the pilfering business herself, though she gets her dough from an array of men in her life. After an uneasy start, they become close and embark on a relationship, one that isn't above the odd con job, but, when one goes horribly wrong, Gable is on the lam again and Harlow is sent off to a reformatory for women! Here things get a little sticky as Harlow pines for Gable and he risks everything in order to see her. A gaggle of fellow inmates work overtime in order to reunite the couple as the police close in. Gable looks positively adorable here. He delivers his lines with confidence and panache, but also reveals many different shades as his character begins to regard Harlow as more than just another floozy. His big emotional scene is, perhaps, a bit beyond his range, but most of the time he's in fine form and shares sparkling chemistry with his leading lady. Harlow is equally fine. She has a boatload of one-liners and wisecracks and delivers them all with her wonderfully common and knowing persona. She doesn't skimp on the emotional aspects of her character, though. It's a strong performance with a lot of variety to it. She is filmed, however, with some astonishingly heavy soft focus for someone who was only 22 or 23! Erwin appears as one of Harlow's devoted suitors and Burgess (the real-life niece of Fay Bainter) is one of Gable's cast-offs. She and Harlow have some terrifically bitchy exchanges in the film along with some physicality. Notable for its time is the fairly prominent presence of Harris as a black inmate at the reformatory. Though she is depicted as rooming in a different area, she spends much time in Harlow's room and has a substantial role with no mention made of race. Her father in the film, played by Reed, also has a critical role, though that is one of the more saccharine bits of the storyline. A good example of how busy MGM's stable of supporting players were is Friderici as the head matron. She appeared in 15 films the year before this one and 10 this year before dying in December (and appearing in two previously-filmed 1934 films after that!) The vast difference between the lighthearted first half and the more soapy second half may disappoint some viewers, but fans of the stars will surely enjoy seeing them go through their paces regardless. It's not an overly long film and has many captivating facets to it. The quasi-happy ending would likely not be possible just a year later when the Production Code was fully functioning.

This is one of the very worst films Clark Gable made. Only PARNELL was obviously worse. It is just so painfully clichéd and the dialog is so lousy that it is something neither Gable nor Jean Harlow should have been proud of making.Gable is a heel whose illegal activities result in his girl going' to the slammer (like the gangster talk?). She holds out hope that he'll do the right thing but he just leaves her there--unknown to either of them, gosh, that she's "in the family way". Eventually, the rogue returns to do the right thing and somehow they tie this all together into a happy ending! They seemed to have forgotten about Gable's needing to take the rap and spend several years in the hoosegow. Leonard Maltin says "the stars are at their best here". By what standard? Best at producing unintended chuckles? Gimme a break!PS--after saying this, my wife thinks Leonard Maltin is going to find me and kick my butt. Hmmm. However, despite my comment, I think Mr. Maltin is the finest reviewer and human being on the planet (I hope that appeased him).UPDATE--2/2/08. Because I disliked this film so much the first time (especially the ridiculous ending), I decided to watch it once again. After all, sometimes when I watch a film again I like it much more and realize that I was a bit too harsh. While that has been the case with several films in recent months, I still disliked this film--even the second time. Most of it was not because of the first half of the film. In the first half, Harlow's character was amazingly stupid but at least it was believable. But when she was sent to prison, it was all clichés until the final ridiculous marriage scene occurred. The bottom line is that this sequence is embarrassingly dumb--it just makes no sense at all and is akin to turning the movie into some wacky fairy tale instead of a love story about two cons. I stand by my original review (despite all the "NOT HELPFULS") and think that aside from PARNELL and possibly POLLY AT THE CIRCUS, it might just be the worst Gable film.