ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

geordiesdad Wilder's least successful movie and VERY deservedly so. What a mess from the start. We see Dean and his Vegas stage show complete with all the corny and unfunny jokes of the time....and it looks more like a spotlight for Dean and his upcoming shows than a real start of this movie. They're right when they say you can't go back. The unknown song writers are true to their labels and the song? they present is a pathetic mess. Anything else is courtesy of the Gershwins. The 'plot' is ( no pun intended....) laughable and VERY unfunny and as I said, MAYBE more a sign of those pre-hippie uptight years of our parents than the real 60's. All in all VERY miss-able and I wish I had. Not really worth the 4 stars I gave it I had more pity than I should have had.

Benedito Dias Rodrigues Who already watched to most movie from the Master and compare with Kiss me stupid has a great disapoitment,the miscasting is around two actors Dean Martin and Ray Waslton,the first really a annoying guy,he actually think including in the movie he is best than Elvis and Beatles....a second class singer who didn't has a charm neither charism.Walston was a wrong choice to the role,but Kim Novak provides a sexy acting about Polly the Pistol....Wilder drive forces in this character who proves to be later a sole character which deserve a best review of the entire picture!!Resume: First watch: 1990 / How many: 3 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7

gavin6942 Jealous piano teacher Orville Spooner (Ray Walston) sends his beautiful wife, Zelda (Felicia Farr), away for the night while he tries to sell a song to a famous nightclub singer Dino (Dean Martin), who is stranded in town.The Catholic Legion of Decency strongly objected to the completed film and it was condemned, the second film to get such an honor -- the first being "Baby Doll" in 1956. One can easily see why, as while there is no nudity, there is plenty of humor revolving around prostitution, adultery and and Dean Martin being a "sex maniac".A. H. Weiler of the New York Times called the film "pitifully unfunny" and "obvious, plodding, short on laughs and performances and long on vulgarity." This seems unfair. While it is not among Billy Wilder's best work, even Wilder's average films are better than many other people's greatest attempts. I can only say now (roughly fifty years after the film debuted) that while it was not perfect, it had its moments and was quite bold in its own way.

winner55 I am an admirer of many of Billy Wilder's movies - Stalag 17, Days of Wine and Roses, Some Like it Hot - and other wonderful, trend-setting, sophisticated, stylish films. But this film just SUCKS!It opens well; the title sequence is basically a snapshot of Dean Martin's Las Vegas act of the time, and his twisted turn playing someone who might be himself has an undeniable fascination.Unfortunately, he is not the male lead of this film - RAY WALSTON is! Walston?! Really?! An able but second string character actor? The supporting player is the leading man? That could be interesting if Walston had been directed against type - but he isn't - he is directed to be a character actor - in a leading role? Really?! Once Walston appears on screen, the film goes straight to hell. In fact it is hell, a weird kind of wigged-out Nevada version of Andy Griffith's Mayberry - why? To provide a small enough stage to make small characters look large, I guess; doesn't work. These characters are all profoundly unpleasant and two-dimensional; except for Martin, who's rarely on screen.The film is apparently a remake of an Italian sex-farce, Wife for a Night; that in itself tells me that the whole project started off badly. (And continued - the Walston part was intended for Peter Sellers, who Wilder couldn't deal with, and Wilder himself suffered heart problems.) But the main problem is that Italian comedy is coming from a very different tradition than Wilder's (so clearly related to Lubitsch), so it's really impossible to guess why he tried what he was clearly unsuited for.Not much to add except the cinematography is good, and the music sucks. (Apparently based on material the Gershwin brothers decided needed reworking... maybe they were right?).Caused a minor scandal in its day - but it was easy to cause scandals back then. That alone is simply not enough to recommend it.