Sadly Over-hyped

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Great Film overall

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

1953 was Marilyn Monroe's breakout year, costarring in 3 very popular films. The prior "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" had featured a pair of gold diggers working together. In the present farce, this is increased to 3. It's supposed to be a very light comedy-drama. Marilyn provides most of the few laughs, mainly relating to her extremely poor vision combined with her spectaclephobia, she believing that being seen wearing thick glasses would cause most prospects to overlook her. Part of the comedy is the irony that all three(including Betty Bacall, and Betty Grable) thought they had married a relatively poor man they could truly love rather than a wealthy man they didn't love. Marilyn picks Freddie, in a last minute switch, because, like her, he has very poor vision and is not put off by her thick glasses. But, thanks to a crooked accountant, he's in trouble with the IRS. Her alternative was a phony Arab tycoon. Betty G. would windup with the most handsome man, a forest ranger(Eben), but I'm not sure this city girl is going to be happy living in a forest. Betty B., in a last minute switch from a decades older wealthy man to a supposedly ordinary man(Tom), comes out the only one to marry a real millionaire. Ironically, Tom had played poor, because he didn't want to be pestered by gold diggers. William Powell played the rejected millionaire from Texas, while Roy Calhoun played the forest ranger, David Wayne played Freddie, and Cameron Mitchel played Tom.The script is pretty lame, as I will shortly detail. The best reasons to watch this is to experience the stars, and the lush Technicolor, this being the first movie completed using the new wide angle CinemaScope technology. Some of the problems with the script I see include: 1) Why was there a long orchestral number before the beginning of the credits, and again after the ending. This unmemorable music doesn't relate to the screenplay. Perhaps it was supposed to provide time for latecomers to get to their seats? 2) Why did the women sell Freddie's expensive piano and furniture without his permission, then these turn up again later? 3) How could Marilyn have gotten on the wrong plane, unless the ticket checker was negligent? Also, it's just too much coincidence that Freddie got on the same plane and happened to sit next to her. 4)Why did Betty G. agree to accompany a grouchy married man to an isolated lodge in Maine in winter?. She hoped to meet some wealthy single men at a (non-existent) conference, but there were plenty of conventions in NYC, where she was. 5)Why does Betty G. go back to NYC from Maine with unfriendly Waldo, then turn right around and go back to Maine, to try to extend her fragile romance with Eben? 6)Why does Eben, a forest ranger, drive Betty G. and Waldo all the way to Portland? 7)While in Maine, Betty G. supposedly comes down with measles(very unlikely), but in the next shot, she's skiing down a slope with Eben? Meanwhile, Waldo has gotten the measles, again delaying their departure from Maine. 8)Why was the fashion show included, and how did the 3 get involved? Also, why didn't this tell them that Tom must be more than a presumed gas station attendant. 9)Why would Tom even consider marrying Betty B. after she repeatedly said she didn't want to see him again? Why didn't he choose Betty G., since she was pleasant to him, and thought he was cute? Too many implausible or coincidental happenings tend to downgrade your impression of a film.I noticed that Betty B. made reference to her actual husband, Humphry Bogart, as that old fellow in "The African Queen" who married a much younger girl, as an example of a successful marriage between people of quite different ages.I also noticed that Betty G. noted that it was Harry James(her husband) playing trumpet with his rendition of the popular "You'll Never Know", on the radio....... Actually, this is a reworking of "Three Little Girls in Blue('46), which was a reworking of "Moon Over Miami"(41), which was a reworking of "Three Blind Mice"('38), which was a reworking of "Ladies in Love" ('36) , in which 3 poor, but beautiful, women also joined forces and rented an upscale apartment in hopes of bettering their prospects in finding their ideal husband.

The usually smart, clever and calm Lauren Bacall plays quite a different character in "How to Marry a Millionaire." She is very tongue-in-cheek funny as the know-it-all gold digger. But she has it all wrong. And that's one of the very funny undertones of the plot for this comedy romance. Bacall is Schatze Page, one of a threesome of females who are on the prowl in New York to snag wealthy husbands. That may seem a strange theme to modern day audiences, but it was something of a reality of American culture in the mid-20th century. Probably few women actually made such pursuits, but it was something that the culture talked about back then. I remember hearing women joke about moving to New York to find a rich husband. So, that made for a funny and entertaining movie. Bacall didn't have top billing for this film, either. That went to Marilyn Monroe, followed by Betty Grable. Monroe plays Pola Debevoise and Grable plays Loco Dempsey. One may see the humor in those names, as well. Both of them play ditzy blonds, but Grable out-ditzies Monroe. Her character is by far the funniest. One expected Monroe to play such roles – it was her film persona and, somewhat, her real life persona. But, for Grable, this was an excellent portrayal. Of course, there are men in the story and the lives of these women. All of the cast perform well. William Powell has a nice supporting role that is very unusual. His is the only one that isn't comedy. But the part fits beautifully in the plot, and I can think of no one better to have the role of J.D. Hanley. Powell was 61 years old when this film came out. He made only one more film, "Mr. Roberts" in 1955, before retiring. Powell is one of the classy great performers who never won an Oscar, although he was nominated three times. And, unlike many stars, he retired while his star still shown bright for quality films. He lived another 29 years until age 91 in 1984. The humorous situations in this film are punctuated with occasional witty lines. Some catch one by surprise and lead to bursts of laughter. Here's my favorite. Loco and Pola have been gone for days and Schatze is worried about being stuck with the monthly rent for their expensive Fifth Avenue flat. She is lamenting her problem with Tom Brookman, played by Cameron Mitchell. Tom says, "Haven't they even written to you?" Schatze replies, "How can they? They're illiterate."

For me this film has soured quite a lot over the years, as I re-encounter the sexist messages that abounded during my formative years. The film presents a lot to enjoy, but the bitter kernel is that it fundamentally endorses attitudes it pretends to send up.Three girls follow a mission to find wealthy husbands, as no other object in life is worth considering. What they are interested in is wealth, clothes and jewellery. It appears that their only way of making money is as part-time models, and this is so inadequate in terms of paying rent and buying food that they sell off furniture that doesn't belong to them to make ends meet. They are bright and witty girls who these days could follow a range of different careers, but here they are never shown doing anything you could respect. They are just decorative parasites.The message to women is that your role in life is to be good looking and well-dressed, pretend to be better off than you are, and then you will trap a husband. The only amendment the story provides is that it might not turn out that your man is wealthy. With that small amendment, the life plan is unchanged.Young women do search for life partners, but hopefully these days a partner is just a partner and not a substitute for a career.I'd like to see a remake of this film where one girl is a lawyer, one a doctor and one a banker – and none of them planning to retire on marriage! Other than that, this is a good looking film in a 50s sort of way (even with the disadvantage of a small screen) and the personalities of the girls are lively and engaging.

HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIREOK guys... I watched this with my 12 year old daughter... and once the film finished, she asked me if she could write the review for a change. I think she has done a great job with it too... This is her opinion. Sammy... take it away!"It wasn't a bad movie, I did enjoy it.The story is about three models, Loco (Betty Grable), Pola (Marilyn Monroe) and Schatze (Lauren Bacall), who want to marry a millionaire. They rent an apartment in New York and sell all the furniture to get money. They spend a lot of time with rich men, but none of them are really their type. They persuade themselves that they are and end up falling in love with them anyway. But when Loco finds a man to bring her shopping home, he falls in love with Schatze. Knowing she is a model, he asks to see them in a private show. If Schatze knew he was a millionaire, he would look like a completely different person to her.I have never seen a storyline like this before, so I think is was original and creative. I can't say I didn't laugh when Marilyn walked into the wall, as she was playing a girl blind as a bat. She had glasses, but never wore them as she thought they made her look unattractive. Her mind was changed by one special man's opinion.One thing I didn't understand, is the guy with the eye-patch. He always had this patch over his left eye, but when he was examining a plane schedule, he lifted his eye-patch to get a better look. Surely, if you wear an eye-patch, it's cover up a missing eye, or something like that. But if he needs to take it of to read a schedule, why wear it at all? I don't get it...I do love my retro movies, which most people wouldn't expect from a twelve year-old girl, but it's true. This is a very old movie (to me, anyway) and this always means terrible effects, but why would you add the backgrounds as an effect, when they were just walking around a real set with the same background. They looked so fake it was unbelievable. Why not just film them in the set instead of recreating it with graphics? They confuse me.Overall, I think this movie is slightly amusing and generally enjoyable. I'm going to give this movie a 6 out of 10. I don't know why, it's just my gut instinct."Why marry a poor when you can find a rich man just as easy?"Good work honey. I agree with Sammy mostly... I expected the effects to be terrible... the film was made in 1953. I also had never seen a Marilyn Monroe film, and she did a great job in this. She was very funny as a blind lady. She did make me laugh quite a lot throughout. The acting was good apart from Betty Grable. I thought she let the film down. She could have done better. The story was OK, but I thought it could have had a bit more happen, although I found it amusing how she rented out an apartment and sold the landlord furniture. You couldn't get away with that these days.I agree with Sammy and will give it 6 out of 10.For more reviews, please check out my Facebook page:https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl