BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Madilyn Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

mike48128 It's an excellent film in spite of the facts that they disliked each other but were professionals on camera. A legendary pairing up of 2 screen icons. Funniest "gags" included: Their meeting on the train and fake marriage. Mae West as a schoolteacher teaching "good little boys how to be real good". The "marriage" is never "consumated" and she puts a goat in the bed! (Not as risqué as it sounds.) Many plot ideas used here were recycled in several newer comic westerns, including "Paleface", "The Harvey Girls" and "The Shakiest Gun in the West". Main plot: Mae West has to marry the no-good gambler (Fields) so she can become respectable and not get run out of town by Margret Hamilton. There is also a masked "kissing bandit" and gun-play. (Mae West picks off "them Indians" like she's in a shootin' gallery.) Both stars were well past their prime and most noticeably W.C. Fields. Stunt doubles used throughout. Her best film was actually "I'm No Angel" and his best was either "It's a Gift" or "The Bank Dick", depending on your personal taste. A very clever exchange of signature "lines" at the very end of the movie between Mae West and W.C. Fields. "Drat"!

Lawson The selling point for this movie is Mae West meets W.C. Fields but I'm not a fan of the latter. The only other movie of his I've seen is The Bank Dick, which I apparently thought was okay but I don't recall a thing about now. Fields was probably more famous back then for his vaudeville work and I don't think he created any movies for the ages like his fellow vaudevillians The Marx Brothers did.But this movie is still very much a Mae West movie and I enjoyed it like I do all her work. There are plenty of one-liners delivered by both West and Fields but no one can zing like the former can. Ergo, my main criticism about this movie is that she had to share too much screen time with Fields!

DKosty123 Mae West & W C Fields collaborated on the script. In real life they hated each other. Other than 1 scene, they do not appear together. So why does this work?It works because both of these actors could write & Mae could sing a little. Actually, for its day, the movie gets a mature rating. There is one scene where West sets up Fields in a hotel room in bed with a goat. This happens in spite of tight censorship. Margaret Hamilton makes one of her many film appearances in support of these two stars. That is a good example of how odd this film is. It creates odd problems with its 2 stars as they did not get along. Thing is in spite of the hate between them, they could do a film This film is solid, and some of West's & Fields best work.

kga58 It's a shame that West and Fields had such a dislike for each other. In their few scenes together you can see how incredible this film could've been. Their introduction on the train is a delight, with him slurping all over her "symmetrical digits" and she crooning "you're compromisin' me". Field's disguising himself as her lover the Masked Bandit and getting some lip action under false pretenses is hilarious. If only they could've spent so much more screen time with each other instead of focusing on their separate routines, this would be a major classic. As it is it is still great fun. And Fields' asides to Margaret Hamilton are priceless! "I hope she don't get too violent--I haven't strength enough to knock her down!"