StrictlyConfidential
1955's "Guys and Dolls" was a big-budget musical production that cost MGM Studios $5.5 million.Yes. It was bright and flashy. Yes. It was busy and bushy-tailed. And, yes - It was also a hopelessly boring Rom/Com that ended (after 2.5 hours) on one of the most cringe-worthy bum-notes imaginable.And, speaking about actor, Marlon Brando (aka. "Mumbles") - I cannot figure out, for the life of me, why he would agree to star in this fluffy foolishness.Not only did he come across looking like an utter jackass, singing and dancing - But he was far from being at all convincing as a sweethearted lover-boy in the heat of romance.I mean - Let's face it - Brando was born a bully (of both men and women) and that's the only type of character he's at all suited for playing.Anyway - This film has an interesting behind-the-scenes story involving the strained working relationship, on the set, between Brando (it figures) and Frank Sinatra. (For further juicy details - Check it out on Wikipedia)
HotToastyRag
Guys and Dolls is my favorite musical, and since my parents owned a theater company in San Francisco, and I've written three musicals myself, that is quite a compliment. I grew up on musicals, and have probably seen or listened to every one available. I've never seen Guys and Dolls onstage and I probably never will. The movie is the one and only version of Frank Loesser's musical, as far as I'm concerned.There are exceptions, of course, but in general, I prefer the songs in a musical to help advance the story. In Guys and Dolls, all of the songs advance the plot. A couple of songs were cut out from the Broadway production, but for those who are listening for them, they can be heard playing in the background of applicable scenes. Even when the characters aren't singing, the music is advancing the plot! The plot is very simple, a classic among countless love stories through the decades. Two men make a bet that one can't get a particular girl to go out with him. You've seen that story a hundred times, but with singing and dancing, set in the 1940s, and played out in the style of old-fashioned gangsters, it's incomparable.Sometimes, in the transfer of a stage-to-screen musical, the timing of the lines feels slow, as if the actors are waiting for the audience to laugh. Director Joseph Mankiewicz created a nearly perfect film. The script, co-written by Mankiewicz, is absolutely hilarious, and is delivered with perfect timing by the actors. Damon Runyon famously wrote a collection of gangster stories, which the Broadway show was based on, so all the characters talk in a very stylized manner. But if you're used to it, or at least expecting it, you'll crack up after every line. It's so adorable.Guys and Dolls was the first Marlon Brando movie I ever saw, and it was years until I saw him in anything else, so I didn't quite understand how shocking it was for him to sing and dance in a musical. This is still my favorite of his performances; he may not have initially become famous for his musical talents, but he's absolutely charming and delightful in his ardent pursuit of the reserved Sister Sarah, played by Jean Simmons. They are so perfect together. The chemistry cracks, sizzles, and scorches, making them one of my all-time favorite screen couples.Frank Sinatra plays the second lead, but since he was given a couple of extra songs, he pretty much shares equal screen time with Marlon Brando. In the film, he's the one who bets Marlon Brando to woo Jean Simmons, and while he makes such a reckless bet, the rest of his character is hen-pecked, stressed out, tired, but still charming and adorable.If you like the famous songs that came out of Guys and Dolls, like "Luck be a Lady", "Guys and Dolls", and "Sit Down You're Rockin' the Boat", or if you like stylized period pieces where everyone speaks without contractions, or if you like Brando or Frankie, or if you like the scripts in musicals to be as entertaining as the songs, or if you want to laugh, or swoon, or sing along, or if you're looking for a new favorite musical, buy a copy of Guys and Dolls. I've seen it countless times. Once, when I was particularly blue, I watched it twice in the same week and still didn't get tired of it. It's one of the true masterpieces to come out of the 1950s.
classicsoncall
Sometimes it's the movie and sometimes it's just me. I'm not a fan of musicals but will tune into the ones with notoriety and a name cast to see what I might be missing. This one has one of my favorite actors, Marlon Brando, but he couldn't do the trick for me. Through no fault of his own either; gee, I never saw him sing before and he didn't sound too bad, so at least that was a surprise plus in the picture.I guess it's just the format with all the song numbers that drags a musical out and this one had plenty of them. If the story behind the picture were reworked into a different genre I would probably feel better about it. You can tell this one came out in an era well before the women's movement came along, because a character like Sky Masterson (Brando) gets to come out with a line stating that 'all dolls are the same'. Done today, he'd be getting a lot of hate mail.But say, I was impressed by Jean Simmons' right cross when they all got into that brawl later on in the story. That was no girly punch by any means. Her character Sarah Brown seemed to make a better match with Masterson than Vivian Blaine's Adelaide did with Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra). For some reason, Sinatra looked older to me than his actual age of forty at the time, and even though the marriage angle with Adelaide kept getting repeat assurances, I just never caught the chemistry between them.One other thing I noticed was the story's emphasis on getting twelve sinners for Sergeant Brown's mission, but by the time they had that prayer meeting, a good thirty or more gamblers showed up. I see a wager there after the fact, who would have believed that that many sinners would have come around?
jwb001
Brando completely outclasses Sinatra in this film. Perhaps credit should go to their supporting actresses: Brando plays opposite a very likable character in Sarah Brown whereas Sinatra's "doll" is naive bordering on bimbo-ish with an irritating spoken voice (despite excellent singing and dancing skills). Perhaps credit should go their roles. Brando has much more screen time; Sinatra fills a supporting role.In truth, throughout the film, Brando excels at singing to the best of his natural ability, dancing--a little stiff, but he tries--and acting. Whenever he appears in a scene, the audience knows that Brando is an actor whose legacy will live far beyond this one film.Sinatra, by contrast...only momentary glimpses of his famous crooning voice. Does he ever dance in this film? If yes, the performance was obviously not memorable. His acting lacks distinction from the other gambling thugs.WHO WON? WHO'S NEXT? YOU DECIDE (I say "Brando")
