Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater

One of my all time favorites.

good back-story, and good acting

A Masterpiece!

I enjoyed this film about a man (Frank Sinatra) who is being kept by a wealthy older woman (Rita Hayworth) despite being more interested in a young chorus girl (Kim Novak). Sinatra allows the wealth and social standing of Hayworth to lead him astray from the affections of Novak. He initially seduces Hayworth to get her to bankroll his dream nightclub--Chez Joey (corny name). Unfortunately, Hayworth ends up falling in love with Sinatra, while he still holds a torch for Novak. The crux of the story is that Sinatra ends up having to choose between his club/Hayworth (obviously dumping Hayworth and thus, dumping her money, would spell the end of Chez Joey) and his true love, Novak. I thought Hayworth was very beautiful as "the older woman" (even though she's younger than Sinatra). My only complaint about Hayworth's appearance, like my complaint about her appearance in Cover Girl, is that the makeup she has on is almost garish. She's wearing too much rouge or something, which I think aged her. Novak, on the other hand, was wearing more subtle makeup (save for the red lip) and was absolutely gorgeous as the young chorus girl. It's hard to look at anyone or anything else when Novak was on the screen. I especially loved her performance of "My Funny Valentine." Aside from 'Valentine,' many Sinatra standards were featured, like "Bewitched" ("performed" by Hayworth, dubbed by Jo Ann Greer) and "The Lady is a Tramp" (performed by Sinatra).The role of Joey Evans was pioneered by Gene Kelly on Broadway seventeen years prior on Broadway. However, for the film version, he was turned down (or perhaps not considered) for the film version and Sinatra got the role.

Joey Evans (Frank Sinatra) is charming, handsome, funny, talented, and a first class, A-number-one heel. When Joey meets the former chorus girl and now rich widow Vera Simpson (Rita Hayworth), the two lecherous souls seem made for each other.Frank Sinatra's movie career is very hit and miss. I am not, for example, a big fan of his song and dance movies with Gene Kelly. And it is not because I don't like musicals. I love Danny Kaye and such classics as "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers". I just don't think Sinatra fits in.Here he plays something of a sleazy night life character. And although it is an act he plays up, he plays it up well. Rita Hayworth also does good, and it is Kim Novak's chance to shine. For those who love Sinatra, this is well worth seeking out and deserves to be better known.

I never liked Frank Sinatra. Oh, sure, he's great to listen to when he sings. But, IMHO, his singing talent never could make up for the fact that, even in a tux, he was a skinny, unattractive and terribly common-looking little man ("half-pint imitation" describes him to a T). As a woman I never understood why beautiful women like Ava Gardner, etc., fell over like ninepins around him.OK, that's a bit off my chest.Now to the film. I usually like musicals and vintage Hollywood. But this one I had a hard time getting through. I always say that judging films (or anything else) made over 60 years ago by today's standards is stupid, bigoted and pointless. Things were different then and that's all there is to it. If you can't stand it, well, stick to Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston ... er, "comedies"? Having said that, this film is ruined by, among other things, some of the corniest, most cringe-worthy, Ugh!-inducing lines I have ever heard. Even for 1950s Hollywood.Apparently, the original Broadway show was duly sanitized when they converted it to the screen, which proves - once again - that censorship is NEVER a good idea, whether it's on moral or politically correct grounds. So we ended up with a film that can't quite make up its mind whether it wants to be a sleazy comedy with a romantic twist, or a romantic comedy with a sleazy twist. Kim Novak is absolutely gorgeous, but she's just not convincing as an ingénue. Someone here said that Rita Hayworth's role should have been more Norma Desmond-like and I really could not agree more. And I already said what I think of "Sinatra as Mr. Irresistible."All in all, unless you're a Frank Sinatra die-hard, just skip it. There are much better "classics" out there.

I hadn't seen this movie for decades. But it was remembered (pretty vaguely) with affection. However, I recently purchased the DVD, and whilst even a large-screen television doesn't really do justice to some of the more expansive older movies, I confess to being a tad disappointed even so.The songs were great, pretty much as I remembered them. Frank Sinatra was on top-drawer sparkling form. Hayworth and Novak were all you could expect from the so-called screen-goddesses of the 1950's. Yet something was missing. There were shortfalls in between songs, during story development, that seemed to cause the whole plot to languish briefly. I confess to finding myself bored. It didn't happen very often. But it happened. Maybe the director imagined that the three leads, and the great songs would be enough to carry the production and so it wasn't necessary to try too hard with anything else. I don't really know.'Pal Joey' isn't remembered half so well as some other 1950's musicals. And perhaps there's a reason for that. I suspect it needed a couple more songs - good songs - and maybe a bit more excitement to the story-line. Fans of 'ol blue eyes will still be enchanted, but without him and the songs this would have been a complete non-event.