How to Marry a Millionaire

source: How to Marry a Millionaire

... because Fox did the same with the "multiple girls looking for love/millionaires in a foreign country" bit. There was "Ladies In Love" (1936) set in Budapest, a long pause caused by WWII and the lack of safe countries in which to find a millionaire, then this film set in New York because the world was still a bit of a jumble, then "Three Coins in The Fountain (1954) set in Rome. In case you haven't seen the others, three girls pool their resources to rent a penthouse apartment in - this case - Manhattan with the hope of marrying millionaires. The only storyline I really care is for Marilyn Monroe and David Wayne. They make her ridiculous, Mr. Magoo-level blind, to the point where you wonder how she didn't wander into traffic or fall down a manhole five years ago, but there is a scene on the plane that is priceless involving this joke. William Powell brings quiet dignity to a non-comic role in a comedy. I would have rather seen Lauren Bacall end up with him, frankly. The bit that goes on the ENTIRE movie where we know Cameron Mitchell is loaded, and Bacall doesn't find out until the last 15 seconds, ugh. I mean, I know it's to prove that she's capable of falling in love regardless of the guy's financial status, but it's a thin joke to carry on that long. And Betty Grable's character, frankly, it's just hard to believe anyone could be THAT stupid, mistaking what Fred Clark means when he says he wants to take her to his lodge in Maine and mistaking what Rory Calhoun means when he says all that land "is mine". And I know they wanted to wow everyone with the Cinemascope shot that shows the whole orchestra at once, but opening a screwball comedy with a six-minute static shot of an orchestra playing a downbeat piece totally kills the momentum before the story even starts. In the theater, I guess this is when people were still getting popcorn. At home, it's unwatchable.

How to Marry a Millionaire (1953) A movie with a billionaire's reputation. It has some megastars to say the least (and from three different worlds--Bacall from the Bogart/crime/noir realm, Monroe from all that she already represented by the early 1950s, and Rogers from the age of classic musicals). It is very the first widescreen color flick in contemporary terms (not including Napoleon). And it has the arch qualities of a screwball comedy--improbable matchups and improbable circumstances. But for me it just wasn't funny. The writing is pretty lame (not clever, not funny, just pushing silly buttons), and the acting is quite painful (though it might be purposely not an "actor's" film, but just a vehicle). The filming, with all the possibilities of the new wide format, is pretty but surprisingly stiff and dull. Maybe it's even because of the format, though there are some other stunning widescreen films from that first year or two of the genre. I've tried to like this movie twice--I like the actors and the idea, and I love old comedies. And there are some lines that work, yes there are, it's not a complete washout. Even the overall idea works pretty well, the way Palm Beach Story might have suggested in a more pioneering and hilarious way. But it seems to ride on the laurels of its stars and on the idea of being grandiose with a sexist wink. Very sexist. No thanks, not for 2010. Call it personal taste, but go into it forewarned.

First, a warning. 'How to Marry a Millionaire' comes prefaced by an apparently random five minute orchestral performance of 'Street Scene', a Gershwin-lite piece treated with the full pomp and ceremony of, well, Gershwin. Sitting through it takes some patience. If you have the DVD, rest assured, you can skip forward. You won't miss anything. The film itself is one of the perpetual disappointments of 50's Hollywood, a movie so bolstered by major star-power, opulent mise-en-scene and perfect high-concept that failure seems inconceivable. The title alone is perfect. Generation after generation, however, are forced to ask themselves - how is this so limp? The script is an albatross about the production's neck, a dead, smelling thing that chokes everything and everyone before they can really spark to life. There are no comic situations, just isolated moments that play for laughs. Whenever an actual comedy scene threatens to develop, the movie quickly moves on to other, less interesting things. A case in point - the scene where the three leading ladies each bring a date to the same fancy restaurant. One of them, short-sighted, refuses to wear her spectacles out of vanity. One of the dates is married. A classic Hollywood farce set-up, surely, complete with mistaken identity, angry wife, and probably a pie in the face for somebody? Well, no. Instead, we cut between the three dates as the ladies react 'comically' to things their partners say. Hit the punchline, and cut to the next limp joke. If in doubt, have Marilyn walk into a wall. Where's Billy Wilder when you need him? The three stars are almost a perfect diagram of the life cycle of the classic Hollywood screen goddess. This was one of Marilyn Monroe's breakout films, and the camera just eats her up, even though the script gives her nothing to do. She's so luminescent she almost seems newly hatched. Lauren Bacall, on the other hand, had been a major star for nearly a full decade, and she knows how to dominate the screen even when in frame with Monroe. She gets the only thing passing for a real role, and delivers the few good lines with a cynical snap - given the right material, she could have brought this thing to life. She's a curiously ageless actress - when she lies about her age in the film and claims to be forty, it isn't instantly ridiculous - and far less girlish than her co-stars, giving her a convincing authority. Betty Grable was far from ageless, and had a good eight years on her co-stars, putting her near the end of her Hollywood career. There's an air of desperation about her at times, stranded on screen with nothing but a toothpaste smile and a few scraps of comic timing, unable to play her real age but fooling no-one as a contemporary of this new, sharper generation of actresses, relying on the same old schtick that had served her throughout her career (for Marilyn-doubters, seeing the two juxtaposed in this movie helps to throw Monroe's subtlety and - yes - intelligence into sharp relief). She's also lumbered with the dead wood in terms of male co-stars (although all of the men - even the great William Powell - are guilty of lazy performances); she's unable to strike any comic sparks off them. Better to have given her role to the under-utilised Monroe, who could be funny all by herself, and left Grable with the repetitive Mr. Magoo routine. That the movie is as enjoyable as it is can be put down to the luscious Hollywood production, the sort that renders even the twee likes of 'By the Light of the Silvery Moon' watchable. But somewhere, buried beneath the flabby jokes and professionalism, lies the rough outline of a sharp, cynical comedy about the business of marriage that Bacall could have made sing - and new generations of movie viewers will sit down with 'How to Marry a Millionaire' in expectation of that movie, ready to be disappointed all over again.

This entertaining film has the three girls (Pola, played by Marilyn Monroe in specs; Schatze, played by Lauren Bacall and looking rather mumsy; and Loco, played by Betty Grable with those fabulous legs) setting up shop in an apartment, ready to reel in wealthy husbands. The boys in question include David Wayne, Rory Calhoun, Cameron Mitchell, William Powell, and Alex D'Arcy. Trying to figure out the scheming girls is hard for them, especially when the girls are going all out to hide their real personalities! This glitzy fluff is enlivened by real-life in-jokes - Betty Grable doesn't recognise a Harry James record (she was married to him at the time), and Lauren Bacall says she's mad about 'that old man in The African Queen'(real-life husband Bogart of course). Bacall comes out best of the girls although Monroe is always worth watching and Grable was effective decoration even towards the end of her career, as she was here (having been on screen for over twenty years at this point - her first appearance was in her teens in 'Hold 'Em Jail', I think).

This movie is great. I don't care what people say about it, you can't deny that it is very entertaining! I really don't know what goes through peoples minds when they say Betty Grable wasn't good in this movie, or was too old for the part. I can't imagine the story without her to make it what it is. I personally thought she looked the same age as her co-stars, and not a bit older. Lauren Bacall was perfect for her role, and as always, so was Marilyn Monroe as another dumb blonde character. But I hate when most people think that just because she portrayed a ditzy girl, that it means she was like that in real life too - SHE WASN'T! Marilyn Monroe was an intelligent natural dark-brown haired brunette. Anyway, HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE is really good in my opinion, and anyone that is a Monroe, Bacall or Grable fan absolutely MUST see it! I personally am a HUGE Marilyn Monroe fan, and enjoyed this movie as much as her others. The storyline was great, and it had some very funny moments. I give this movie 9.5/10, losing a half-mark only because of the extreamly prolonged and unnecessary musical feature at the beginning, which makes you lose interest and want to fast forward 5 minutes worth of inactive classical music. An overall fabulous movie.

I just had a wonderful opportunity to catch a screening of this film on a wide screen. What a treat! Unfortunately, it wasn't the best print; lots of dust and scratches on reel changes, and the colors were quite faded, but these films simply must be seen on a wide screen with an audience to be truly appreciated. Of course, almost any movie is improved by seeing it at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco, and I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity. Lauren Bacall has always been one of my favorite actors, and she and Powell do work wonderfully together. Monroe is also, always a delight - I think that she was a much better actress than she is generally given credit for. However, though I've seen this movie close to a dozen times before, I was really struck at the wonderful performance that Grable turned in. She was perfect! I haven't seen much of her other work, but in HTMAM, she shows herself to be a wonderful comedic actress, playing a "dim blonde" who really isn't that dim. What a revelation and what a delight. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who likes old movies, but if you have a chance to catch it on a real movie screen - DO SO! You won't be disappointed.

In this film, three women, played by three huge stars, Lauren Bacall, Marilyn Monroe, and Betty Grable, move in together with the plan to each land a millionaire. They each get involved with millionaires, but men of more humble means (and at least one man pretending to be) end up winning them over in the end. It's kind of lackluster, but it's moderately entertaining. It probably should have been funnier. The only real humor comes from Monroe, who needs glasses but is afraid no man will find her attractive when she's wearing them. She stumbles around bumping into walls and mistaking people's identities. There are also a lot of great in-jokes about Bacall's marriage to Humphrey Bogart. In the film, the millionaire whom she dates is played by the great actor William Powell, who was in his early sixties when the film was made. When he tells Bacall that he's too old for her, she tells him how she adores older men. "You know that old fella from The African Queen. I love that guy!" Betty Grable is pretty forgettable, but, then again, I never found her particularly talented or attractive. She's pretty average on both fronts, as far as I'm concerned. The film is also interesting as an early example of the use of widescreen (supposedly it was the first film in that format). It was developed in 1953 so that cinemas would have an extra draw, as television was destroying the industry. I watched a cropped version, unfortunately, but I think I did a decent job reconstructing how shots were originally composed. The opening and closing scenes are the most interesting. For no other reason than to demonstrate the new format, the screen encompasses an entire orchestra. The word "Cinemascope" appears enormously both at the beginning and at end. 7/10.

This movie starts off with an orchestra playing on and on and on so long at least 10 minutes that I thought something was wrong and I started to fast forward the thing....then when the credits finally rolled I thought I had missed a key part of the beginning plot..I wondered how Bacall came to rent an expensively furnished penthouse apartment? as a sublet?? Turns out there is no detailed explanation. She rents an apartment calls Monroe who has another friend and the 3 get on with their business of finding millionaire husbands. There is no background to their friendship etc... it just happens. In 1953 when this film was made, Monroe is 26 Bacall is 29 and Grable 39. (Assuming you believe the Hollywood statistics.) Like another reviewer stated Bacall has this curiously old persona (he used the word "ageless"...one could have believed her older than Grable in fact I found myself studying her face finding it hard to believe she was under 30. She also monopolizes every scene in a bitchy way that no one could possibly find sympathetic or appealing. I guess this was to show she was the brains of the operation. One thing I noted Bacall didn't need to insure her rather hefty legs for 1 million (like Grable supposedly did.) Monroe has some innocent charm and Grable is sort of the Betty White from Golden Girls...with Bacall being the Maude. I may have smiled at a couple of Bacall's cynical lines but she is too harsh in the movie. Monroe was sort of funny in the Magoo role but most of this movie is not funny at all and you begin to tire of it towards the end wondering how long you are going to have to endure it. It also seems chopped up, the male characters become mixed up....what was the fashion show all about? If you are in to period female costume extravagance this movie will work for you. Maybe it had to do with the new color cinema-scope they were using....thinking clothing in all its colors was a great way to show off its features??? Here is an oddity that truly had to be for the wide cinemascope features...all the doors in the apartment are double wide and opened from a nob in the middle (trivia). Don't really recommend it. The characters are not likable at all. The plot is idiotic and full of holes. Humor mostly missing. Forget all romance and character development which this thing pretends to have. Brainless... The sets are almost entirely glossy set ups that prefer to look artistic rather than real. AVOID

The scope technique and the opening on screen orchestra seem to be setting viewers up for something special; but the script is absolute run-of-the-mill doggerel. Two funny jokes and three gold-diggers do not make a good followup to Gentlemen Prefer Blondes which was abundant with entertainment, great songs, and had a good script with memorable, funny lines. Not so here. Whoever thought the best use of Bacall was portraying a shrewish, castrating bitch (You're supposed to like her) has some bizarre ideas about entertainment. She's about as enjoyable as spending 2 hours with rule-flogging Dr. Laura. While Gentlemen Prefer Blondes offered a knowing satire of the gender war with something for every member of the audience to enjoy; this is a big misfire. There is no wink at the audience. Men are idiots to be taken to the cleaners, whether they're villainous (Waldo Brewster), virtuous (Freddie Denmark, Eben, JD Hanley ) or victimized (Brookman). They're just 2-dimensional cash sources here. You're not supposed to mind, although there's zero comedy to it, and little art to their gals wheedling; the movie depicts a world where men seem to enjoy bold, rude, calculating interrogations about their finances. Grable barely registers. Monroe is wasted. Successful jokes are few and far between. These chicks are boorish.