User Reviews (38)

Add a Review

  • 1958 was before Ross Hunter embarked Doris Day on the fabulous career she had in the '60s, in which she would become a top box office draw - in fact, THE box office drawer for years. In "The Tunnel of Love," she plays a sweet, vivacious woman who is desperate to have a baby and can't, so she and her husband, played by Richard Widmark, plan to adopt one. When the adopted baby bears a strong resemblance to Widmark, he becomes sure that the child is the result of an evening he can't remember with the investigative social worker (Gia Scala).

    Based on a play, this kind of light, subtly sexual comedy became very popular on the dinner theater circuit in the '60s and '70s, joining the ranks of "Mary, Mary", "The Marriage Go Round," "Boeing Boeing," etc. It is not particularly well directed by Gene Kelly and sports the very strange casting of Richard Widmark as Day's confused husband. I can't agree with the comments here. Though an actor known for playing tough roles and cruel men, he does a credible job here mainly because he knows enough not to play for laughs. He creates a full character, that of a caring if foolish man who adores his wife but screws up occasionally. Gig Young plays the philandering husband next door. He's fine, but the character is very unlikable.

    There's not really much to recommend here. I suppose at the time it was considered somewhat suggestive, but it doesn't play well today.
  • In the groundbreaking romantic drama, Doris Day and Richard Widmark can't have children, and not for lack of trying. Gene Kelly directs this drama that touches on some untouched topics in 1958. In the good ol' days, there was a blackout after a wedding scene and the next shot opened on a bassinet. Now, in the last years of the Hays Code, Doris and Dick openly discuss ovulation cycles, how to track them, and what to do when it's the right time. It was very scandalous at the time.

    When the gorgeous couple get fed up with waiting for nature to give them a child, they decide to adopt-but how will they cope when the equally gorgeous Gia Scala enters their lives? While the second half of the movie gets a little silly, the first half is very fun to watch. Doris and Dick have great chemistry together, and it's always a treat to watch an old movie in which a married couple has realistic problems. It wasn't very often that classic movies mentioned adoption, surrogacy, and infertility, let alone made an entire movie about them. Plus, through a career playing bad guys and never getting the girl, it's nice that Richard Widmark is the hero of the story, and he starts out already having the girl!
  • The Tunnel of Love ran for 417 performances on Broadway for the 1957-1958 season and starred Tom Ewell and Nancy Olson. It was written by Joseph Fields and repeating their roles from the original production are Elizabeth Fraser and Elizabeth Wilson.

    The play didn't survive the journey to Hollywood, mainly because of the horrible miscasting of Richard Widmark as the husband. He and wife Doris Day are trying to either have a child or adopt one whichever comes first. After a night's indiscretion with social worker Gia Scala, Widmark thinks he's the father of her kid and when she hits him up for a loan, that seems to clinch the deal.

    Widmark was in a role that should either have gone to Dean Martin or Glenn Ford. In their screen roles I've seen aspects of Augie Poole's character that would have fit Dino or Glenn easily. But in Widmark's hands it drops like a lead bassinet.

    Best in this film is Gig Young playing one of his male lead best friend types he started perfecting around this time. It seemed for a while like you couldn't make a domestic screen comedy that either he or Tony Randall weren't in playing the same kind of parts. He took over from Darren McGavin who did the part of the wolfish playboy neighbor on Broadway whose growing family doesn't slow him down in the hanky panky department a bit.

    My guess is that Widmark was trying to expand his range a bit. The best comedy effort in his career was on the I Love Lucy Show and there he was just a foil for the movie star struck Lucy Ricardo.

    Doris was all right in her part, but she certainly did much better work with Rock Hudson who also would have been good casting as the male lead.

    Best thing about The Tunnel of Love. Doris sang and recorded the title song that's sung over the opening credits. If the rest of the film had been as good as the song.
  • I hadn't seen this film since it was first released, and had forgotten most of its content. I received a copy of it recently as a belated birthday gift (I'm between 30 and death-closer to death!) and, unlike the writer from Washington, I found this film to be a rather adult and mature approach to a sensitive topic, interspersed with moments of gentle and/or imagined calamity. I feel that there is a touch of the "film noir" here. By the way, what's wrong with a "stagy" effort? It works for this ol' English and Dramatic Arts Teacher! I feel that this was a rather good piece of work for Doris at that time, and stands well after all these years. That was one of the good things about Doris; give her a role and it became uniquely hers. I hope she will delight us all and involve herself in some new film work!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I really liked this film as long as I didn't pay that much attention to the booze and tranquilizers. Sure, this is 1957-58, but wasn't that Westport house fabulous!!! It seems that everyone was moving to Westport at the time. Think Lucy and Desi from I Love Lucy and the Lucy Desi Comedy Hour.

    I just saw this movie last night by the way of TiVo. It was adult in nature and showed that Richard Widmark could do comedy. His performance is a real gem. It shows him as an overworked husband who with Doris as his wife are trying to have a baby. So they adopt, and everyone says that the kid looks a lot like Richard. At the end, Doris is pregnant, everyone is happy, which is a fitting ending to this war between marrieds and how two people can have problems not trusting the other partner. Sure explains life today.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm going to skip the movie's plot details, most of you have already read the other reviews and/or seen the movie and know what it's about. What many of have also done is to see/take the movie completely out of context. For this you can be forgiven, unless you (a) grew up in the 1950s and/or (b) know who Peter De Vries was and/or (c) read his novel THE TUNNEL OF LOVE. De Vries was a successful writer of satire, on the staff of The New Yorker for some time, and wrote lots of satirical novels, including this one, first published in 1954, sharply poking fun at sophisticated sexual and social mores. The novel is set in Westport, Connecticut, where De Vries lived, and its depiction of sexual double standards, social life, euphemisms, booze, etc., is typical of the time period. A stage version was produced in 1957, and presumably to "water it down" a little for theater audiences, the ending was changed, which basically ruined the story. A year later the Doris Day/Richard Widmark movie version came out, using the play's watered-down feel-good ending and destroying the novel's biting satire. So if you regard this movie out of the context of its novel and its time period, you might be confused or disappointed.
  • It's hard to imagine what anyone was thinking when they made "The Tunnel of Love". After all, the film is supposed to be a comedy but it's rarely even remotely funny. It's also amazingly sleazy...but must have rubbed audiences wrong back in 1958...especially with America's sweetheart, Doris Day, in the lead! According to biographies, Day's husband at the time frankly pushed her into a lot of terrible projects and all he cared about was her money....and after his death she learned he'd pretty much spent her vast fortune.

    Isolde (Doris Day...Isolde?!) and Augie (Richard Widmark) have been married for a few years but are childless. She wants to adopt a child and he, somewhat reluctantly, agrees. But they seem like an ill- suited couple for adoption, as he seems to have a drinking problem and his best friend is a pig who seems willing to sleep with anyone other than his wife. When the worker from an adoption agency comes to their house to talk with Augie, he's a bit drunk and behaves in a very boorish manner. He spends the interview in his boxers, drinking and making suggestive comments to her. Not surprisingly, she stomps off...as any sane woman would have done that. Oddly, however, she soon comes back and then she goes with Augie out to drink some more. He wakes up in a hotel room later and thinks they slept together. Then, when the agency offers them a child about 9 months later, he thinks maybe it's HIS baby he fathered with this nutty social worker! Hilarity is meant to ensue...but doesn't. And, oddly, by the end, Isolde is apologizing to Augie and all is forgiven.

    There is nothing funny about this nor is there anything romantic. Adultery is really NOT comedy gold nor is bad parenting...and you honestly wonder how the writing could have been worse! The actors try their best (Widmark tries a bit TOO hard) but it's all a mess of a film...something no one should have agreed to make in the first place.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    For me there's only one real reason to watch this film: a chance to see Richard Widmark in a romantic comedy. I can't say he seems totally comfortable in the role, but it works, and it is nice to see him in this.

    The plot is fairly simple: A couple (Doris Day and Widmark) want to adopt a baby, and Widmark finds himself having a sort of affair with the investigator for the adoption agency. Of course, there are plenty of misunderstandings...sort of stock and trade for most Doris Day romantic comedies.

    Day is Day. Nothing new or different from her; the usually effervescence. Gia Scala plays the voluptuous investigator. Elisabeth Fraser plays the wife of Gig Young...the next door neighbors. And speaking of Gig Young, if you don't know the story of his death, read about it on Wikipedia, and then consider how shallow most of his screen appearances were in this era. Each film role seemed a mere carbon copy of the last one. And his major talent seemed to be pouring a drink. Too bad; he really was quite a good actor.

    So, what's wrong with the film? Nothing much except that it's sort of...well, I was going to say dumb, but that would be wrong/ Stereotypical might be a better word.

    I've often wondered what Richard Widmark was like in real life.

    While I'm not particularly impressed with this film, it's "okay" as such films go. A weak "7".
  • Painful farce, adapted from Peter De Vries' novel which then became the kind of play dinner-theaters specialized in. It features Richard Widmark in a humiliating 'comedic' role as a man whose wife can't get pregnant, leading him into a drunken excursion with a sexy adoption agent, whom he later believes he has knocked up. Widmark is not suited to this material, which should be played nimbly and without force. Director Gene Kelly, of all people, is likewise not suited to guide an intense actor like Widmark through the rigors of light comedy (which can be more precarious than a gangster drama). Doris Day is the put-upon wife, and I felt for her. Even with a feeble script and dim handling, Day manages a ray of sunshine or two. Gig Young, in the patented Gig Young/friendly neighbor role, helps out a little bit, but "The Tunnel Of Love" is a frigid affair. *1/2 from ****
  • If you flash back to the old "A" and "B" movie classifications, this is Definitely a B movie, made better than the script by the cast.

    This is a sad attempted farce about idealic upper-class suburban life. Just look at the opening: Augie and Isolda live in a barn and have never-ending mice, and other, problems. Unfortunately, the concept of a couple having difficulty having or adopting a baby is not good comedic material. Gene Kelly made the right choice in NOT going for guffaws. However, it does have it's moments.

    The cast gave everything they could, making it difficult to picture anyone else in the parts. Doris Day adds her usual upbeat, energetic presence and believability of a woman who is silly-in-love with her husband. Poor Richard Widmark was saddled with the weak, failure, straight-man role. (He does have the second funniest line when reviewing the real estate listings!) Elisabeth Fraser does a magnificent job balancing the sweet but wiser wife and friend. Gig Young brings his characteristic charm, with out which this womanizing, horrible father would inspire absolute revulsion. (He has the best line in the film, when his wife asks him if he misses the kids, who are away at camp. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would have THOUGHT that, but would dare not say it!) Buried under too much subtlety is the reasons for Gia Scala's actions. (She's actually using her job with the adoption agency to do research for her doctorate. Think about it - what was she doing in New Guinea?!)

    Unfortunately, that time romanticized drinking. (Remember the 3 martini business lunches?) Sadly, both Gig Young and Gia Scala lost their contracts with studios for undependability because of drinking and drug problems. But this time in history will probably be known for lack of accurate information and tastelessness. (Gia Scala did commit suicide, but not until 1972 - not something to make a cheap joke about, as in the "OH my my" review.)

    If you want some light entertainment, give this film a try. But bear in mind that it started life as a low-end B film farce with a weak script, was shot in less than 10 weeks, but had big stars for much needed shine. And Doris Day fans, remember that this is NOT her typical vehicle.
  • I saw this movie on TV when I was young, about ten or eleven. I thought then it was funny and adult in the sense of being a bit dirty and knowing. I saw it again yesterday. I am now between thirty and death too. "The Tunnel of Love" is a time capsule, but a bemusing one. The humour is degrading to the female characters, especially the wife trying to get pregnant, the constantly pregnant wife next door, and the adoption agency investigator who is immediately judged by her looks. I felt with the investigator when she complained to the husband that Gig Young's character made a pass at her five minutes after meeting her. Almost as bad as the nudge nudge pinch pinch attitude of the neighbor and his advice that his happily married friend should bag a babe is the total lack of common sense in the characters' actions. Why does the insulted investigator drive back to make her own pass at the husband? Why does the husband conclude that he has fathered the investigator's baby when it turns out that she is married? (And before this is revealed at the end, the audience and the husband haven't got a clue that the investigator has a husband herself.)Why does the husband give her a check for a thousand dollars without asking her more questions- like how he can be be so certain that he's the one who got her pregnant? Why is the wife next door constantly getting "off to the races" if the husband's sole contribution to parenthood is telling their kids to shut up before he ships them off to boarding school? If you're fascinated by 50s attitudes toward sex, "The Tunnel of Love" is a revealing portrait of the sort of humour that the artist character might highlight in a cartoon to sell to Playboy or one of the more downmarket men's magazines of the era. Behind the winking and the flirting of the actress in the party scene there's a stream of melancholy, especially in the story of the West Point student in his second year whose family has decided that he will marry his pregnant girlfriend: as Gig Young snaps, he'll have bars on his shoulders and a toddler in his lap. All those martinis and double whiskies and Young's box of tranquilizers that he pops like popcorn point at the terror and sadness behind the whoopie. The husband's dinner with the investigator says it all: he has a bottle of ale and a lamb chop from the children's menu. All of the characters are children themselves. Thank God times have changed.
  • One of Webster's definitions of humor describes it as being ludicrous or absurdly incongruous. So, people who decry this movie as such might themselves be without a sense of humor. As for claims of miscasting of Richard Widmark, I think that shows how we become so set in our views that we stereotype actors.

    I don't ever recall having seen this film in the theater when I was in high school, or on TV in later years. It is part of the Doris Day DVD collection I recently bought. And these 50 plus years later, I found this to be a very entertaining and well-acted movie. The script is a very good general portrayal of the times and how people felt about children, family, fidelity, etc. Gig Young's part might be a rare exception in real life, but his straying character is important for the movie where Widmark's character plays off of him.

    Young's Dick Pepper is an inconsiderate, boozing, neighbor with a family that he seems hardly to care about. He has wandering eyes and is very much a sleezy character. Widmark's Augie Poole loves and dotes on his wife. While tolerating his crass neighbor, he feels and shows a sense of guilt and betrayal of Isolde, played by Doris Day. Augie had taken too many pills for his nerves and passed out when he had a dinner date with Estelle Novick, a social worker. He doesn't remember what happened that night, but thinks the worst when the adoption home gives them a baby that very closely resembles him.

    I think Widmark was exceptionally good in his role. Like most other reviewers, I probably had a notion of Widmark as a gangster, tough guy or bad guy, with an occasional Army or Navy hero thrown in. But here he gives a great performance - out of his usual character - of any man, and how he might have felt and thought and behaved like in such a situation in the 1950s. I think the consternation, anxiety and angst that Widmark shows at different times makes him so real. The stereotypical actors we might normally think of for this role would not have given it that real human touch. Theirs would have been the light treatment where everyone has a good laugh in the film. This was a masterful job, in my view, of humor with pathos. Only a very good actor could pull that off, and I think Widmark did it very well.

    To be fair with moviegoers, I must say that I think I probably would not have enjoyed this film as much when it was made. Again, mostly because of my idea of what Widmark should play. We also had different ideas back then of Doris Day and the roles she should play. And that's probably why this movie didn't do well at the box office.

    But today, I'm glad I can enjoy this film as a very good example of acting by the entire cast in a rather sophisticated comedy. The comedy comes mostly from innuendo and misunderstandings among the characters. Although, there are some funny lines spread throughout the film - mostly between August and Dick.

    As for the plot - I like to remember that Hollywood puts out fiction even with its most adept efforts for accuracy in biographical and historical films. But for comedy, some of the very best films of all time have been those with the most unlikely plots. About the only thing in this movie that doesn't make sense is its title with accompanying song. But then, that's in the congruity of Hollywood humor. Or did I miss something in that too?

    Here are some of the best funny - or poignant lines from this film.

    Augie Pool, "If Van Gogh had been married to a woman like you, he'd still have both his ears."

    Dick Pepper, "Oh, what a lovely thing. Just to look at her sends the blood coursing through my veins." Augie Poole, "In contrast to the usual route it takes."

    Augie Poole, "What's another moose head over the fireplace in your life?"

    Augie Poole, "You know, Miss Novick, uh.... It's hard to think of you as a woman of science." Estelle Novick, "I run into that all the time". Augie, "I'll bet."

    Alice Pepper, "It wouldn't hurt you to play with your children once in a while." Dick Pepper, "We have nothing in common. They bore me. Being a parent is just feeding the mouth that bites you."

    Augie Poole, "Oh, stop patronizing me, you Madison Avenue extrovert."

    Alice Pepper, "Just remember, you're the host." Dick Pepper, "Okay, okay. I promise not to enjoy myself."

    Alice Pepper, "Boy, if Dick ever waited on me, I'd either have him committed or have him watched."

    Augie Poole, "Oh, I, I was never cut out to lead a double life. I can't even have a single life."

    Dick Pepper, "Maybe it is best to come clean and tell her everything. Confession is good for the soul." Augie Poole, "Only in the sense that a tweed coat is good for dandruff."

    Dick Pepper, "You go to the Bible for inspiration. Let me remind you of something. When Daniel got out of the lion's den, he didn't go back for his hat."
  • Odd movie with the normally marvelous Widmark miscast. Ugly black and white nothing like the beautiful black and white films of the era. Fake looking sets and Gig Young running around in a silly supporting role. Too bad. Could have been so much better.
  • This film has an astonishingly ludicrous, unbelievable plot. Doris Day and Richard Widmark are unable to conceive while ol' reliable neighbor Gig Young (as Dick Pepper) has kid after kid, despite having (arguably) the biggest substance abuse problem on the block. With all the single beds and double shots, it's a wonder.

    Anyway, an adoption agency finds a baby for the childless Day/Widmark pair. Mr. Widmark is convinced he actually fathered the child they find, during a drunken one-night-stand... It gets worse. Ms. Day recognizes the newly adopted baby as Mr. Widmark's, and storms out on her bicycle! The movie makes absolutely no sense. Day and Widmark are terrible parents. Widmark also sings, by the way, at a cocktail party and to the baby. Be warned! Won't reveal the film's climax, but it should be easy to guess…

    ** The Tunnel of Love (11/21/58) Gene Kelly ~ Doris Day, Richard Widmark, Gig Young, Gia Scala
  • How about the actress Elisabeth Fraser who played Alice Pepper -- any fans out there? She went on the fame as the long-suffering Sgt. Hogan -- girlfriend to television's Sgt. Bilko. Has written a hilarious journal on "life on location" during the filming of the Western "The Way West" with Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum, Richard Widmark, and a teenaged Sally Field.
  • Doris Day and Richard Widmark!, yes Richard Widmark, are a married couple who move to the country to leave the city life behind them. They are also in the middle of adopting, because "they say" when you adopt a child, you have one of your own, which is what they really want. That basically is the plot, without complications. The last time I saw this was on the last weekend of August in 1997, so I have a mental connection with this movie and a tragedy in the news. I didn't really have good memories of it, but, upon seeing it recently, I found it surprisingly funny near the beginning. But most of its jokes comes with innuendos of a particular sort, part of it being about having babies (I did enjoy the line, about "exhausting" every possible means in having a baby.) The movie seemed to enjoy making fun of Gig Young's proclivities, who is a next-door neighbor whose wife knows nothing about his extra-curricular activities. Directed by Gene Kelly, this should have been made in color and maybe with a more comedic actor. I mean, really, Richard Widmark! He's a great actor in westerns and rough 'n' tough movies, but here he seems out of his element. Despite the amusing situations and inevitable complications from the presence of the investigator from the baby agency, which seems a bit confusing to the viewer, this still feels like it's missing something. It simply doesn't come off very well. It's not your usual brisk Doris Day fare, and that is probably why it bombed at the time it came out. If you're a die hard Doris day fan, you may want to see this once, but then you can find Pillow Talk for some real baby making.
  • I always liked Richard Widmark. I feel terrible for him, stuck in this bomb about a couple trying to adopt. The plot is dopey, and Widmark is horribly miscast as a befuddled husband. Doris Day is...Doris Day. By the way, there's an easy cure for their infertility: ditch the twin beds. The set looks recycled from Lucy and Ricky's move to Connecticut.
  • "The Tunnel of Love" is one of the most silly, unfunny and sordid comedies ever made. The filthy story has a sleazy character, Dick Pepper, performed by Gig Young, and two stupid and shallow characters, Isolde Poole and Alice Pepper, performed by Doris Day and Elisabeth Fraser.

    From this cast, you may expect something like that. But the saddest surprise is the role of the great Richard Widmark, August "Augie" Poole, a messed-up character capable to be silly, liar, sleazy, an authentic scumbag and dumping his wonderful filmography in the garbage. My vote is three.

    Title (Brazil): "O Túnel do Amor" ("The Tunnel of Love")
  • ryancm26 September 2009
    While DORIS DAY has made a few lame movies in her 20 year movie career, this may not be the lamest, but it certainly comes close. Based on a stage play, and it shows, this stupid comedy makes no sense what so ever. The characters are card board cut outs, especially Gig Young's character. He is terrible in this role and the role itself is horrific. A skirt chaser, a heavy drinker, an unloving father and husband and a pill popper to boot. What a disaster of a man. The writers should be ashamed of themselves. The Gia Scala character makes no sense at all. The actress committed suicide a few years after this fiasco. She must have seen the film. As for Doris, she is regulated to a stupid supporting role. She isn't even in 70% of the run time. Mr. Young has more footage than she. And what she does toward the end makes for a very mixed-up character, which she doesn't display earlier. And poor Richard Widmark. He tries, oh he does, but to no avail. Too bad, because he's in every minute of this movie. Based on what I had to say maybe this IS the lamest film Miss Day has appeared in. Another grip is that the Gig Young/Elizabeth Frazer couple have four kids. They are NEVER seen. Liz has a baby during the film and no one takes care of it? Both men are in a scene at the Widmark/Day residence and the women are out bike riding. Where are the kids and baby? During the party, where are the kids? In the party scene given for Widmark/Day, no one talks to them nor do they talk to anyone but Young and Frazer, just like no one is around. Both couples have twin beds yet. OK, this was made in the 50's, but still....And the direction by Gene Kelly....THERE IS NONE... One of many stupid lines....HE: Let's get to the party. SHE: We don't want to be the first ones there...They are looking out the window and see the party in progress with DOZENS OF PEOPLE!! How inane is that? See this one at your own risk. Poor Doris!! .
  • mossgrymk1 April 2021
    Gene Kelly, who had the reputation of being a butthole, confirmed it by blaming Richard Widmark for the commercial failure of this, Kelly's first non musical as a director, when the culpability should have fallen squarely on the shoulders of the ol song and dance man for helming a movie with all the cinematic quality of a mid level episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show. Solid C.

    PS...I'm noticing that this piece of mediocrity is starting to creep up the TCM Frequent Showing scale. Not quite at "Wait Until Dark" levels but getting there. Let's watch it, all you guys in the programming shop.
  • Tunnel of Love, The (1958)

    ** 1/2 (out of 4)

    "Comedy" about a happy couple (Richard Widmark, Doris Day) who are struggling to have a kid on their own but their attempts at adoption isn't going any better. Things take a turn for the worse when the husband thinks he might have had an affair and got that woman pregnant. This is a very strange film that never seems to know what it wants to do. I've heard that Day and her husband/manager would often try to force their way on pictures but I have no idea if that's what happened here. She pretty much plays a supporting role here but her character is so strange, as is the story and some of the casting, that you can understand why this thing didn't do too well at the box office. A lot of the reviews I read bash the casting of Widmark in a "comedy" when he's best at playing "dark gangsters" and that sort. I think that is far from the truth and I think it's the offbeat casting that actually keeps the film watchable. Widmark is certainly best known for his tough guy roles but I thought he was rather fun here simply because we don't get the chance to see him as a pushover and someone who actually has a lot of fears. The early scene with him coming home exhausted and fearing his wife and her need for sex (for the baby) was very funny and I thought Widmark played it well. Sure, it was a little forced seeing him playing such a weak person but I found it to be funny and charming. Day, on the other hand, appears to be going through the motions as she never really gets going in the picture. She doesn't come off very funny and her character at times, especially at the end, becomes quite annoying. Gia Scala is very good in her role of woman Widmark fears he has pregnant. Gig Young is also very delightful in the role of Widmark's friend who has all the kids and plenty of girlfriends on the side. The screenplay is all over the place but I found it's look at sexuality and moral issues pretty frank for 1958 and maybe this was another reason it didn't go over too well. The film isn't a classic and it's not even a good one but I think fans of Widmark will at least get some smile out of seeing him playing a character like this.
  • Maybe I'm a bit protective of my favorite actress, but I have seen one too many movies where Doris Day is intentionally deceived by the man she loves. Usually Miss Day is dooped in light-hearted fun, but I almost felt as victimized as she in "Tunnel of Love." I did not enjoy this movie one bit.
  • This movie is a dud from start to finish. The few jokes are dull, the script flat, the characters never developed, and mostly unlikable. The official trailer presents this as a laugh-a-minute comedy, which it is not, one that deals with taboo sexual issues - i.e., ones that weren't being discussed on television at the time - which is true but uninteresting.

    My only question is: how different is this from the play of the same name on which it was based, and which ran for 417 performances on Broadway, where it was produced by the esteemed Theater Guild, no less? (The male lead was taken by Johnny Carson late in its run.) I suppose I could track down a copy of the play and find out, but I'd hate to put more time into this.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Claustrophobic and dull, this film version of a forgotten Broadway play is nearly a disaster for all concerned: leads Doris Day and Richard Widmark have absolutely no chemistry, and director Gene Kelly adds no oomph to an absurd premise. As a married couple trying to have a baby, Widmark and Day are endlessly cheerful, often frantic, and excessively cutsie pie. They decide after failed attempts in her getting pregnant (she does everything but order him to make love to her) to try adoption, and in comes the sultry adoption agent Gia Scala who detests Widmark and his neighbor pal Gig Young from their first meeting, yet shows up nowhere out of the blue to announce that she's attracted to Widmark.

    I've always been of the belief that just because the written word in on the page as dialog doesn't mean that it's true. The film is presented as light and fluffy, but other than a few incidental lines is completely unfunny. Besides the forgettable title song (which has the same beat as the same year's theme from "The Blob"), there's the headache inducing "Run Away, Skidaddle, Skidoo", which had me cringing from the moment that Day began singing it while dancing with Widmark at an extremely boring cocktail party. For a film to be truly enjoyable, you have to be interested in the characters you're watching, and the only emotion I had from watching them was the desire to reach through a screen and put muzzles on all of them. This film makes the sound of nails on chalkboards preferable. Unlike other bad movies, this isn't even campy, just cringing.
  • This film lacks it all. Slow pace, poor script, Doris Day going through the motions and Richard Widmark doing what he does worst. Gene Kelly must have slept through half the filming. The only high spot -- we get to look at Gia Scala. Not much to offer.
An error has occured. Please try again.