UnowPriceless hyped garbage

ShangLuda Admirable film.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

MartinHafer Back during the golden age of Hollywood, things were not always so golden when it came to casting folks in films. Since almost all the actors were contract players essentially belonging to one studio, the studios often tried to fit the actors into films instead of finding the best actor or actress for the part. So, when MGM wanted to do a film about China, they cast Walter Huston and Katharine Hepburn in it! And, the same sort of wacky casting happened somewhat regularly. While not nearly as goofy, some knucklehead at MGM thought 'Robert Taylor isn't busy with a film and he IS very popular...so let's have him star in "Personal Property"'...even though the role calls for him to be English!! He sounds about as English as Greta Garbo...and this is the same guy who starred as a brash American in "A Yank at Oxford"! Now I am not saying this is a bad film....just a badly cast film. Jean Harlow (in her last completed movie) is just fine because she plays an American fortune- hunter. And, Reginald Owen is just fine as her upper-class English fiancé...though you are expected to believe he and Taylor are brothers!When the film begins, Raymond Dabney (Taylor) has just gotten out of jail for something...though they don't say what. His brother, Claude (Owen) is upset because the sudden appearance of Raymond might scare away the fiancée, Crystal (Harlow). By a complete act of chance, Raymond sees Crystal at the opera and INSTANTLY falls head over heels for her. In 1930s films, this is kind of cute as he constantly follows her. When seen today, he seems much more like a creepy stalker! It turns out that Crystal AND Claude are both interested in marrying each other because they think the other one is rich! Claude is far from rich...and Crystal is so broke that practically everything she owns is being repossessed! So how's all this going to work out and how is Raymond going to figure into all this? See the film...find out for yourself.Overall, it's a decent film....enjoyable but also slight and easy to forget. The only outstanding portion was the dinner party sequence, as I thought it was rather funny seeing the British actors exaggerating their stuffy upper-class patter. They were so incredibly dull and awful...but funny.

edwagreen Film showed that both Harlow and Robert Taylor could be pretty adept at comedy.Of course, it seemed strange that Taylor, with his American drawl, could be part of a British family, but I guess that this just adds to this 1937 comedy which was probably of Jean Harlow's last pictures.A free-spirited Taylor out of jail lands a position to collect money owed by Harlow who is engaged to marry his brother. Fact remains that both Harlow and her fiancé are marrying each other for their supposed money when in fact, both are very much broke. The fact that Taylor is the brother to the fiancé is unknown and you can imagine when his family arrives at her home for dinner and sees him as the butler known as Ferguson.The home is filled with an array of party guests who are quite memorable.

krdement If you think this film is funny, you need to see the earlier, 1931 version, Man in Possession, starring Robert Montgomery. Made before the Hays Code, it is full of sexual tension and double entendre.Personal Property, even with its great cast, is a pale imitation. It preserves the characters (and even adds a couple), but most of the innuendo has been written out of the dialog, and a couple of very steamy scenes have been deleted. The earlier version is a spicy, sexy bedroom comedy of errors. This remake, on the other hand, is bland drawing room comedy with slapstick elements.The character, Arthur Trevelyan, transforms Personal Property into a farce - very nearly a "live" cartoon. If even one out of every three words he spoke were intelligible, Trevy might be funny. The fact that not a single word is understandable is bizarre. Even as a caricature of upper-crust British society, he is more puzzling than funny. In the context of the film, surrounded by the other perfectly understandable characters, he seems totally out of place - as if he wandered in from the Merry Melodies cartoon before the feature film!Remaking a 1931 sex comedy in 1937 after the enforcement of the Hays Code results in a completely neutered film. And Trevy is the fire hydrant for this poor dog!

bkoganbing Personal Property was the last completed film of Jean Harlow and the only one she was teamed with Robert Taylor. She's an American married to an Englishman who died and left nothing to her, but debts. She's got bill collectors beating down her door. She figures an upper class accent is a guarantee of security, but tain't so Jean. She's set to marry Reginald Owen, who's family has a title, but little else. Their business has suffered some reversals and they need some quick capital themselves.Before this double calamity takes place, along comes Robert Taylor who is a black sheep in Reginald Owen's family as his younger brother. Through an incredible comedy of errors he winds up Harlow's bill collector and later butler.It's not a bad film, Harlow is great, she was sparkling and delightful and no trace of the illness that would claim her life while filming her last picture Saratoga.Taylor is oddly miscast though. I'm sure this was a part that was originally intended for Franchot Tone and he would have had just the right upper class touch. Taylor handles the comedy well, but Tone or Cary Grant would have made the film a classic. In fact Taylor's part and some of the film premise you can also find in My Man Godfrey with William Powell without the social commentary.Film buffs should see it for a once in a lifetime pairing.