Cubussoli
Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!
PiraBit
if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
Hadrina
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
Neive Bellamy
Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
gridoon2018
This follow-up to the popular "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" was such a box-office flop that it was never even released on video! In some ways it is equal to the first film: it's a good-looking production, with two beautiful female leads, bland male leads, and no plot to speak of. In some ways, it is inferior: the songs are instantly forgettable, and Jane Russell is miscast in the Marilyn Monroe role - she also has a very unflattering haircut in this movie (although she does shine in a surprise role - which I won't spoil here - in the last 5 minutes). And in some ways, it is superior: unlike the first film, which was almost completely studio-bound, this one has the actors actually visiting wonderful Paris and Monte Carlo locations; it's not every day a movie takes you up on the Eiffel Tower! So I do think "Gentlemen Marry Brunettes" is worth a look - if you can find it. **1/2 out of 4.
moonspinner55
Two American showgirls, siblings following in the footsteps of their flashy mother and aunt in the 1920s, attempt to take the Paris stage by storm--but morals may have changed in the last thirty years. Weak adaptation of Anita Loos' book "But Gentlemen Marry Brunettes" coasts (deliberately) on the goodwill built up from 1953's "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" (which Loos originated on stage). Jane Russell, who stars in both, had a hand in the production this time, and to her credit the picture looks smashing. The Parisian locations are eye-popping and the outfits are predictably colorful; unfortunately, this screenplay (written by Mary Loos and director Richard Sale) is a pale imitation of "Blondes", and Russell--in the ditzy-sister role--isn't given any funny lines or a suitable romantic interest. Jeanne Crain (sporting either a wig or inappropriately darkened hair) is out of her element, and the cartoony production numbers are just silly. *1/2 from ****
wes-connors
Jane Russell proved to be a delightful musical-comedy performer in the similarly titled "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"… but, sadly, this film squanders those skills. There is a budget, and nice Paris photography, but the film just doesn't work. Ms. Russell seems to be playing Marilyn Monroe. That leaves nobody to adequately play Jane Russell. Some of the other players are WAY out of their element.There are several embarrassing scenes; most of all, be warned: there is a musical number where boneheaded African cannibals "cook" the brunettes in a pot, after Alan Young sings in a gorilla suit.This is an interesting, at times embarrassing, waste of resources. *** Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (10/29/55) Richard Sale ~ Jane Russell, Jeanne Crain, Alan Young, Scott Brady
miketv-1
This movie is growing on me, I didn't like it the first time but, it has some great parts. If you are looking for another Gentlemen Prefer Blondes it is not as good as that movie but it does have some fun numbers like "Have You Met Miss Jones" Some great scenery, and Jane is funny in this. It does have some parts that are goofy and the "I've Got Five Dollars" sounds like it was made up on the spot, just singing about any trivial thing. The "AINT MISBEHAVING" is the topper with a jungle tribe ready to feast on the girls and Alan Young in that gorilla suit doing the Marlene Dietrich Hot Voodoo bit. this may take more than one viewing to be appreciated.
