The greatest movie ever made..!

Absolutely the worst movie.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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".

One of Webster's definitions of humor describes it as being ludicrous or absurdly incongruous. So, people who decry this movie as such might themselves be without a sense of humor. As for claims of miscasting of Richard Widmark, I think that shows how we become so set in our views that we stereotype actors. I don't ever recall having seen this film in the theater when I was in high school, or on TV in later years. It is part of the Doris Day DVD collection I recently bought. And these 50 plus years later, I found this to be a very entertaining and well-acted movie. The script is a very good general portrayal of the times and how people felt about children, family, fidelity, etc. Gig Young's part might be a rare exception in real life, but his straying character is important for the movie where Widmark's character plays off of him. I think Widmark was exceptionally good in his role. Like most other reviewers, I probably had a notion of Widmark as a gangster, tough guy or bad guy, with an occasional Army or Navy hero thrown in. But here he gives a great performance – out of his usual character – of any man, and how he might have felt and thought and behaved like in such a situation in the 1950s. I think the consternation, anxiety and angst that Widmark shows at different times makes him so real. The stereotypical actors we might normally think of for this role would not have given it that real human touch. Theirs would have been the light treatment where everyone has a good laugh in the film. This was a masterful job, in my view, of humor with pathos. Only a very good actor could pull that off, and I think Widmark did it very well. To be fair with moviegoers, I must say that I think I probably would not have enjoyed this film as much when it was made. Again, mostly because of my idea of what Widmark should play. We also had different ideas back then of Doris Day and the roles she should play. And that's probably why this movie didn't do well at the box office. But today, I'm glad I can enjoy this film as a very good example of acting by the entire cast in a rather sophisticated comedy. The comedy comes mostly from innuendo and misunderstandings among the characters. As for the plot – I like to remember that Hollywood puts out fiction even with its most adept efforts for accuracy in biographical and historical films. But for comedy, some of the very best films of all time have been those with the most unlikely plots. About the only thing in this movie that doesn't make sense is its title with accompanying song. But then, that's in the congruity of Hollywood humor. Or did I miss something in that too?

Tunnel of Love, The (1958) ** 1/2 (out of 4)"Comedy" about a happy couple (Richard Widmark, Doris Day) who are struggling to have a kid on their own but their attempts at adoption isn't going any better. Things take a turn for the worse when the husband thinks he might have had an affair and got that woman pregnant. This is a very strange film that never seems to know what it wants to do. I've heard that Day and her husband/manager would often try to force their way on pictures but I have no idea if that's what happened here. She pretty much plays a supporting role here but her character is so strange, as is the story and some of the casting, that you can understand why this thing didn't do too well at the box office. A lot of the reviews I read bash the casting of Widmark in a "comedy" when he's best at playing "dark gangsters" and that sort. I think that is far from the truth and I think it's the offbeat casting that actually keeps the film watchable. Widmark is certainly best known for his tough guy roles but I thought he was rather fun here simply because we don't get the chance to see him as a pushover and someone who actually has a lot of fears. The early scene with him coming home exhausted and fearing his wife and her need for sex (for the baby) was very funny and I thought Widmark played it well. Sure, it was a little forced seeing him playing such a weak person but I found it to be funny and charming. Day, on the other hand, appears to be going through the motions as she never really gets going in the picture. She doesn't come off very funny and her character at times, especially at the end, becomes quite annoying. Gia Scala is very good in her role of woman Widmark fears he has pregnant. Gig Young is also very delightful in the role of Widmark's friend who has all the kids and plenty of girlfriends on the side. The screenplay is all over the place but I found it's look at sexuality and moral issues pretty frank for 1958 and maybe this was another reason it didn't go over too well. The film isn't a classic and it's not even a good one but I think fans of Widmark will at least get some smile out of seeing him playing a character like this.

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 ****