What makes it different from others?

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Blistering performances.

In the second of her two films under her new MGM contract Jean Harlow was cast in the title role in Red Headed Woman. Naturally her trademark platinum blonde tresses were dyed for the occasion, but the results were well worth it.In the days before Women's Liberation sex was sometimes the only way and it still is the way for some to rise to the top. Jean has no discernible talents in the workplace, but she's got the body and the appeal and she knows how to use it. And she doesn't care if the man has a wedding ring.First case in point was Chester Morris whom she steals from his wife Leila Hyams. But that doesn't gain her any respectability even with a rich husband. That doesn't deter her in the slightest, she goes out an seduces the town social leader Henry Stephenson who was working against type, he's usually the moral core of any film he's in.If we didn't know the year we'd know this was a before the Code film. Jean's a husband stealing amoral witch of a woman, but she's got a certain likability to her that makes you kind of root for her bedward march up the social scale. And seeing Stephenson of all the players in Hollywood brought low by this vixen. Lewis Stone who was also a paragon of virtue most of the time and plays Morris's father, you could believe it of Judge Hardy faster.You'll also see Charles Boyer in the small role of Stephenson's chauffeur who's a side interest for Harlow and looking to climb in the same manner. The ending of Red-Headed Woman would also never pass Code muster.See this one if you can, the cinema wouldn't get this mature for another thirty years.

Boy, don't ever show this movie to a feminist. While I don't think it qualifies as 'misogynist'- it does have two strong female characters, however wicked one of them is, the movie has a brazen sexuality which familiarity with old Hollywood films wouldn't really lead you to think would be present in a 1932 film, but then again this was pre-code. Plus, the whole movie is about a wicked seductress who preys on the natural weaknesses of men, and by the time our protagonist beats her up after she 'asks for it' any extreme feminists watching would probably be preparing banners demanding the film be erased from archives and campaign for 'womyn''s rights more fervently than ever.On the other hand, they might think Jean Harlow's character in the film is an example of a great, strong womyn. Take everything I've said so far with a grain of salt, I'm just having a bit of fun. Back to the film. It's really quite good. Not very good, not great, but quite good. It's a (very) darkly humorous movie with some fun pre-code naughtiness and a sort of sexuality American movies wouldn't really have for quite some time to come after the pre-code era.I suppose some of it is supposed to work as drama, but it's hard to feel sorry for anyone other than the male lead's wife who has her home wrecked by Harlow's character. It's pretty good comedy though, fairly well-written and while the whole movie is sleazy relative to the time period it was made in and modern audiences' preconceived notions about Hollywood films at the time (or at least those that have no experience with the pre-code films), it's all done with a sort of overall class which works in the movie's favor. It's well-directed and a good production too. I don't agree with most that Jean Harlow is even remotely attractive, nor that she's really even all that good here (some of the more comic bits she really doesn't pull off), but the film is pretty good entertainment, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in pre-code Hollywood or if it's on TCM late one night or something and you've got nothing better to do.

Now I was too young to see Miss Harlow in this riotous comedy in 1932,I was all of 4 years old.I finally did see it when I was a teen at the MOMA in NYC. I am sure I liked it, I saw it again last night as part of a double bill with Waterloo Bridge (1931). it was part of the Forbidden Hollywod collection from NETFLIX.It is still a very funny albeit very very stupid, using todays films as a guideline.This was one Jean Harlow's first films, What an comic she was, It was & still is a shame that she left us in 1937 at only 26 years old. We lost a bright comet then. She is great as a gold-digger who uses men as her playthings.Chester Morris was her co-star,He already was a veteran actor and was a much better one than many believe. When his contract at MGM was over he went to Monogram & made the Boston Blackie , private eye series of films,. They did nothing to help his career,Jack Conway directed & Anitra Loos wrote a witty screenplay based on a novel.Also appearing are Una Merkel, May Robson & Lewis Stone.Slickly produce by Irving Thalberg (no title credit)Rating: *** (out of 4) 82 POINTS (OUT OF 1) IMDb 7 (out of 10)

This one’s similar to BABY FACE (1933) in that star Jean Harlow – forsaking her traditional platinum blonde look for the titular hair color – uses sex as her ladder into high society. However, it lacks the former’s power: for one thing, because we know nothing of her character’s background (so that she comes off as more of an egotistical “home wrecker”, as her own companion Una Merkel calls her) and also because it basically treats the subject as a comedy (complete with a wink-at-the-audience fade-out). In fact, the original script submitted by F. Scott Fitzgerald(!) was subsequently reworked by Anita Loos – best-known for the play “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” (at which she even throws a dig in the film’s very opening line!).It’s interesting that the 3 titles in Warners’ Pre-Code collection all emanate from different studios: their particular style is immediately recognizable – this being an MGM production, it’s got none of the hard-hitting quality of Warners’ BABY FACE or even the stylized (yet delicate) Universal approach such as is evident in WATERLOO BRIDGE (1931). Rather it’s merely glossy, gratuitously naughty (witness Harlow’s fleeting nudity) and displays little cinematic inventiveness throughout! While the spunky Harlow is undeniably alluring, her character is so brazen and vulgar that it’s hard to believe a level-headed businessman as Chester Morris could really opt to leave his gorgeous wife (perhaps Leila Hyams’ best role) for her – even if Harlow’s clearly not one to take no for an answer! The film does descend into high-strung melodrama towards the end when Harlow, exposed for what she is, shoots Morris (but only manages to wound him).The supporting cast features established veterans May Robson (as Morris’ aunt), Lewis Stone (as his father) – both of whom are immediately suspicious of Harlow’s intentions – and Henry Stephenson (it was amusing to see him involved in undignified situations, for once, as a business associate of Stone and Morris captivated by Harlow’s wiles!). Also on hand is Charles Boyer in an early Hollywood role as Stephenson’s chauffeur: he promptly becomes Harlow’s lover, and the hilarious photo of the two kissing literally behind the back of his master/her husband is subsequently given much coverage! There’s even a delightful uncredited bit involving Henry Armetta (a much-used character actor of the day noted for playing flustered Italians) – here, he’s a complicitous waiter whom Morris bribes in order to hush up a chance meeting with Harlow in a phone booth! By the way, this had been shown on local TV several years ago but I didn’t catch it – since, back then, I was unaware of the film’s ‘risqué’ reputation; I’m glad that I was able to remedy this eventually because, while RED–HEADED WOMAN is undoubtedly the least substantial of the 3 titles in this collection, it’s easily the most enjoyable...