How to Marry a Millionaire (1953)

How To Marry a Millionaire was the first movie filmed in Cinemascope (second to be released) and thus is a bit like the Avatar of 1953; a technological showcase but provides little in the way of interesting story or characters. The first five minutes of the film is comprised of composer Alfred Newman and his orchestra showcasing the visual and stereophonic capabilities of the new technology and trying to get audiences away from their televisions and into the movie theatre. TV is square and in black & white, movies are in colour and on a big wide screen. I can imagine this being quite a spectacle for audiences back in 1953 but why is it part of the movie and not a separate short? As for the visuals in the film itself, they do take advantage of the frame showing New York in full cinemascope although the use of a fish eye like lens in many shots is a little bothersome. How to Marry a Millionaire was the first film I saw William Powell in and he didn't leave any impression on me despite me later becoming a huge fan of his. As Roger Ebert put it, "William Powell is to words as Fred Astaire is to dance", but he has not killer material to work off here. The three leading ladies do have their own personalities but there is not much in the way of playing off each other nor is there any fast and witty dialogue. Overall the screwball comedy type plot isn't hugely fleshed out and there's no real sense of urgency although there are a few laughs to be had. I do particular like Betty Grable's grouchy, grumpy date played by Fred Clark. I find Marilyn Monroe however gets the most interesting dynamic in the film playing a woman who is afraid to wear glasses which feels like a statement on conformity in the 1950's.How To Marry a Millionaire is a prime example of what you would call an 'ok' film; a time passer, not terrible but not great either. Most enjoyment I do get from it is largely superficial as I do love me some 50's fluff with the colourful aesthetic and the high fashion. Plus three beauties in cinemascope, as a heterosexual male I'm not complaining.

How to Marry a Millionaire is a very 1950s movie. A glossy technicolor cinemascope flick that starts with a remarkably long and tedious overture, the movie is slickly made and stars three Hollywood legends, Marilyn Monroe, Betty Grable, and Lauren Bacall, as three golddiggers on the make. It's a story that was made several times in the 30s and 40s but doesn't age well. Bacall seems smart and capable, yet instead of starting a business, which is what someone like her would do nowadays, she says the ultimate goal of any woman is to be married and she decides she'll take money over love. She also seems too smart to fail to second-guess her instincts about the guy she doesn't know is rich.Monroe has a reputation for playing the dumb blonde, but here she's really more of the insecure blonde whose refusal to wear her glasses in public has her bumping into walls. The actual dumb blonde is Betty Grable, who is amusingly earthy as a genial idiot who is stupider than a typical 13-year-old.Monroe and Grable are pretty amusing, and Monroe has her typical radiance, but they fail to elevate the predictable story and the bland comedy. There are occasional bright moments, as when Bacall says she likes older men like "that old guy from the African Queen," but most of the movie is stupid and rather witless.The movie's portrayal of women is also pretty awful. Not only is their plot to catch millionaires creepy, but they rent someone's apartment and then sell all their furniture, which is played for laughs even though its criminal behavior. All of the women and most of the men are actually pretty awful people, and it's weird how the movie doesn't seem to even recognize that. I read an interesting critique that portrayed this movie as anti-feminist propaganda determined to show women that their proper place was as pleasure objects for men, and it's a reasonable theory (it did come out just a few years after The Second Sex was published). It's certainly a movie that has aged poorly, especially when it trots out one of the most common terrible features of 1950s movies - the endless fashion show, and a movie that feels like a low blow in the war between the sexes.Not really worth watching except for the stars, who put their all into this terrible thing.

Well what do you say about an obvious vehicle to showcase a select group of stars who are stuck with one of Nunnally Johnson's worst scripts? You talk about the cinematography, that's what! I'll let others discuss the storyline and failings of this celluloid crapper.Joe MacDonald's camera-work is glorious, and could be in fact the best part of the film.The shots of New York City are especially memorable.But other settings in the film are equally as good.This is a great example of the relatively new process (at that time) of Cinemascope.It is worth putting the mute on and just watching the scenery (besides Marilyn, Betty and Lauren) go by.

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