Will be on my list of the most boring and bad acting movies I have seen.
Marilyn Monroe is beautiful, though her role is so stupid, Tom Ewell is so annoying, boring and bad acting, which totally make this movie crap!
I have to say that I found the casting of Tom Ewell in the lead male role just plain wrong. I didn't warm to his character at all and found it impossible to imagine a credible sexual attraction between him and Marilyn. His constant monologues in the opening scenes were so irritating. Admittedly, he can't be blamed for the way the film was written though - and I think the material has aged badly. Perhaps it was the fact that it was based on a stage play that helps to explain why amtoft-2 found it boring. It certainly seemed too 'stagey' to me. It probably went down a storm in front of a live 1950's theatre audience but it just doesn't adapt well to the silver screen, in my opinion. Every minute where Marilyn isn't on screen is a wasted minute.
share"Every minute where Marilyn isn't on screen is a wasted minute."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Tom Ewell played the same role on Broadway for over two years prior to the making of this film. In fact, he won the Tony Award for Best Actor in 1953 for this play.
share[deleted]
I first saw this movie in my early teens and thought it was the opposite of boring. It became one of my all time favorites. I was impressed that the screenwriter could accomplish so much in one building, with primarily two people.
her role is so stupid
Tom Ewell is so annoying, boring and bad acting, which totally make this movie crap!
The reason the film tends to falls short is because the source material was heavily censored by The Hayes Board. Sex and infidelity, which are what the play is based upon, could be the subject of a film. Or at least couldn't be dealt with in a comedic manner. It just couldn't do to have 1950s audiences getting all hot and bothered over the idea of sex! After all, that was the era in which a married couple slept in twin beds and no one had a toilet. The Hayes people and Catholic groups had far too much control of the screenplay and got rid of the infidelity part which was what made Richard act like a loon, albeit a funny one. Without that, he's just an annoying loon for no reason.
I saw this film for the first time as a teenager. I didn't like it much then, so I can understand why some people don't like it. I really didn't begin to come around until the last five or so years. It is dated and silly but I see it more as an amusing time capsule.
This movie did not "fail to go where you thought it should have gone (committing infidelity)" because of the Hayes code.
The lack of actual sex is because of the Hayes code, but the lack of implied sex is because Wilder & Axelrod knew that anticipation & desire are more interesting than fulfillment.
Actually, there was supposed to be a scene where actual sex between them was implied (a maid finds a hairpin from the bed, implicating they slept together). However, it was Darryl F. Zanuck who specifically commanded that any such hint be removed due to it being too risky for a film that was alreaady under heavy scrutiny from both the Hays Office and Catholic groups. Thus the movie stayed at only the level of expressed desires that are never actually fulfilled.
shareGo back to your video games.
shareI thought it was boring too. I hate movies in which the characters do a series of moronic things all because they can't say no. I can't relate to them and don't feel sorry for them when they get themselves into one mess after another.
Some may say he didn't get himself into anything, really, but I disagree. He should never have allowed another woman into his home in the first place. While technically nothing happened, I think he went way too far. It's clear the only reason things didn't progress is because she didn't take it any further.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
[deleted]