It's been roughly over 80 years now, and anyone who really likes to keep up with the entire history of film is still wondering how the heck did this dud ever came about. It has a lot of promising elements. It has Clark Gable and Myrna Loy, both phenomenal actors, and John M. Stahl, who's done pretty good films before. But for some reason, they weren't bringing their best to this biopic about the Irish politician Parnell. For brilliant actors, both Gable and Loy are uninvested, and their chemistry is unconvincing. If something like that's going to happen, it would have to come down to the direction of Stahl. He had no idea how to properly interpret this real-life story, which got padded down by too much fluff, inaccuracy, and a running time that leaves you bored out of your mind. And whoever did the makeup job on Gable should've been fired. Yeah, there's some cinematic intergrity to be found here, but for the most part, it was an off day for the talented people at the forefront of this movie. Eh, it happens.Score: 27/100

Spoilers. Observations. Opinions.Gable is great. He is handsome, charming and charismatic in his portrayal. The character was ill during much of the film (slow heart rate; bradycardia it looked like). He kept fainting and falling down, and medical science could do little. Heart artificial pacemakers were invented in 1899, and put into use since around 1950. Parnell could have used a pacemaker, but alas, that great invention was off in the unforeseeable future.Gable underplayed the part. As Parnell, he refused to fight certain fights, because of the gentleman who he was. For Parnell, it wasn't worth his valuable time to set himself up for more public ridicule and opposition. That would have meant more strain upon his weak heart, which he didn't need. He also may have had high blood pressure.Anyone badgered and threatened for several years by political opposition is bound to end up with health issues. It was only a matter of time before Parnell would succumb to a life-ending illness. He gave everything to his political life, and he got paid back by extreme jealousy and backstabbing. This still happens today.Edna May Oliver was a blonde here. Curly Jean Harlow? This time, Edna looked almost cute and adorable. Aunt Ben was almost nasty with the character of Billie Burke, constantly browbeating that pestering gnat.Billie Burke was adorable here, and her usually flighty, flittery character with little more than sawdust in her cabeza. This was highly calculated; who was better at this than she? Don't forget that she embarked upon her latent film career after an earlier successful stage career. This was done in order to pay off the expenses of her late husband, that wastrel Florenz Ziegfeld. Ziegfeld lost his fortune in the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and passed away in 1932, broke. The Wizard of Oz was soon to become a memorable role for Billie Burke Ziegfeld, and where would we be without that famous pink-gowned bubble-riding Good Witch of the North?Myrna Loy was excellent. Her gowns were charming and beautiful. She portrayed platonic Katie, but in real life the character had three Parnell children while married to O'Shea. It is quite different seeing Loy with Gable, instead of with William Powell in The Thin Man films. I do miss seeing the sweet little dog, however. Besides, Gable was way more gorgeous than Powell could ever have hoped to be.Remember that this film was Post-Code (ending mid-1934). Now, illegitimate children could not even be hinted at. An earlier Gable film shows him as a physician attending a girlfriend's surgery, but in the real story the woman had a botched abortion trying to end the life of the baby.

Just not good."Parnell" from 1937 stars two of MGM's greatest, Clark Gable and Myrna Loy, in the hopes, I guess, that people would go to see it. I wasn't there so I don't know if they did but I doubt it.As someone here said, the roles would have been better suited to Spencer Tracy and Maureen O'Sullivan.Parnell, who died at the age of 45, was a controversial figure with a complicated political career. And the film does show some of what he went through, including false accusations that he supported the murders of two people in power, the trial, and then suit against the newspaper. Other problems followed, but the film is most concerned with his torrid romance (well, not in this movie) between Parnell and a married woman, Katherine O'Shea. Now, in the movie, they don't get married. In real life, they did. And as far as a torrid affair, I'll say - she had three of his children while she was married. The couple wasn't married very long -- from June of 1891 and he died in October 1891 of stomach cancer. However, he also suffered from kidney failure. He is shown, not very convincingly, as ill in the film.The film is very melodramatic, with Loy relying on the melodrama to get her through her role. Gable could not have been more wrong - he did not have a great range as an actor, and this called for at least more than he had. He was a charismatic, rugged, gorgeous, charming man who radiated a lot of warmth, all of which made him perfect for many roles. Not this one.I spent time during this film dwelling on why mustaches went out of style. I decided Hitler and mens hair requirements during World War II caused them to go out of style. Gable looked great with and without one, and of course, he kept his as it was one of his trademarks.Parnell is not a good movie, and it was hard to concentrate on it.

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.