the audience applauded

Simply Perfect

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

As Good As It Gets

For me there's only one real reason to watch this film: a chance to see Richard Widmark in a romantic comedy. I can't say he seems totally comfortable in the role, but it works, and it is nice to see him in this.The plot is fairly simple: A couple (Doris Day and Widmark) want to adopt a baby, and Widmark finds himself having a sort of affair with the investigator for the adoption agency. Of course, there are plenty of misunderstandings...sort of stock and trade for most Doris Day romantic comedies.Day is Day. Nothing new or different from her; the usually effervescence. Gia Scala plays the voluptuous investigator. Elisabeth Fraser plays the wife of Gig Young...the next door neighbors. And speaking of Gig Young, if you don't know the story of his death, read about it on Wikipedia, and then consider how shallow most of his screen appearances were in this era. Each film role seemed a mere carbon copy of the last one. And his major talent seemed to be pouring a drink. Too bad; he really was quite a good actor.So, what's wrong with the film? Nothing much except that it's sort of...well, I was going to say dumb, but that would be wrong/ Stereotypical might be a better word.I've often wondered what Richard Widmark was like in real life.While I'm not particularly impressed with this film, it's "okay" as such films go. A weak "7".

Doris Day and Richard Widmark!, yes Richard Widmark, are a married couple who move to the country to leave the city life behind them. They are also in the middle of adopting, because "they say" when you adopt a child, you have one of your own, which is what they really want. That basically is the plot, without complications. The last time I saw this was on the last weekend of August in 1997, so I have a mental connection with this movie and a tragedy in the news. I didn't really have good memories of it, but, upon seeing it recently, I found it surprisingly funny near the beginning. But most of its jokes comes with innuendos of a particular sort, part of it being about having babies (I did enjoy the line, about "exhausting" every possible means in having a baby.) The movie seemed to enjoy making fun of Gig Young's proclivities, who is a next-door neighbor whose wife knows nothing about his extra-curricular activities. Directed by Gene Kelly, this should have been made in color and maybe with a more comedic actor. I mean, really, Richard Widmark! He's a great actor in westerns and rough 'n' tough movies, but here he seems out of his element. Despite the amusing situations and inevitable complications from the presence of the investigator from the baby agency, which seems a bit confusing to the viewer, this still feels like it's missing something. It simply doesn't come off very well. It's not your usual brisk Doris Day fare, and that is probably why it bombed at the time it came out. If you're a die hard Doris day fan, you may want to see this once, but then you can find Pillow Talk for some real baby making.

It is entirely possible that at the time of its initial release this picture was considered "mature" and "daring" because of its suggestiveness concerning sex (primarily of the procreative kind). It may even have caused a few very innocent souls to blush from time to time. Making allowances for the foregoing, there is nevertheless nothing of interest for today's viewer in such an insipid, painfully unfunny situation comedy - the kind which (minus the sex) used to fill prime time on weeknights. The characters are 100% genuine cardboard: real persons don't talk or act or strike poses like the types seen here. Sheepish smiles, double-takes, gulps and smirks may come to the fore occasionally in real life, but not constantly. Apparently, they are intended to amuse us - like the characteristic gesture of pouring a stiff drink when an awkward moment seems to be approaching. I can only wonder whose idea it was to cast Richard Widmark in this entirely inappropriate role. Was it intended to demonstrate his versatility as an actor? He fails badly, and conspicuously. Doris Day and Gig Young play characteristic roles without any measure of distinction. Many episodes of 1950s TV situation comedies produced better results than this. Someone should have warned the paying customers to stay home.

Painful farce, adapted from Peter De Vries' novel which then became the kind of play dinner-theaters specialized in. It features Richard Widmark in a humiliating 'comedic' role as a man whose wife can't get pregnant, leading him into a drunken excursion with a sexy adoption agent, whom he later believes he has knocked up. Widmark is not suited to this material, which should be played nimbly and without force. Director Gene Kelly, of all people, is likewise not suited to guide an intense actor like Widmark through the rigors of light comedy (which can be more precarious than a gangster drama). Doris Day is the put-upon wife, and I felt for her. Even with a feeble script and dim handling, Day manages a ray of sunshine or two. Gig Young, in the patented Gig Young/friendly neighbor role, helps out a little bit, but "The Tunnel Of Love" is a frigid affair. *1/2 from ****