Spoonatects
Am i the only one who thinks........Average?
Onlinewsma
Absolutely Brilliant!
Bluebell Alcock
Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies
TheLittleSongbird
Seeing 'The Tunnel of Love' as part of my Doris Day completest quest, there was a good film somewhere. Having Gene Kelly on board as director, an interesting and at the time under-addressed subject matter and a great cast promised a lot.Unfortunately, 'The Tunnel of Love' was one of those promise more than deliver films. Certainly not a calamity, it just could have been so much more (especially when you have Day, Richard Widmark and Gig Young in the cast and considering that it bases itself around a subject matter that has a lot of interest and there is some truth behind some of the points the film says) and could have done a lot more with its subject. It is one of those mixed feelings/difficult to rate films rather than either extreme of love and hate.Day is typically effervescent and charming, giving her all and attacking what she has with gusto, though there is the sense at times that she knows that the script is weak and the character tends to be strangely written.There are other bright spots in the cast, especially Gig Young, who has the film's best line and brings some fun to a real sleazebag of a character, and Elizabeth Fraser who is lovely and fun to watch. Elizabeth Wilson also makes much of relatively little.Another bright spot is the beautifully sung and pleasant title song. 'The Tunnel of Love' is nicely shot, not bad for such a rushed production. There are times where the script should be praised for its frankness and candour, there are instances where characters say something truthful that not everybody dares to say, there are parts that are amusing. The subject is a difficult and under-addressed one and there are moments where one can totally see where it's coming from.However, despite being the first time Kelly directed without him being in it, it did seem like he was ill-suited to the material and didn't know what to do with it or the cast. While Widmark deserves some credit for expanding his range and doing something different from his usual villain, tough guy and anti-hero roles, he does try too hard in a role that he plays too heavily instead of having the necessary lighter touch and seems out of his depth.He and Day lack chemistry too, and some of the characters are strangely written and don't make much sense. The script has moments but mostly it's weak, it's never hilarious (some of it is repetitive and wears well thin long before the film is over) and it's not particularly sophisticated, some of it is actually uncomfortably sleazy.Story similarly is problematic. Again there are moments but a lot of the pacing is dull, what is really interesting could have been explored with more detail, some of it is very stagy (initially it was based on a play, but not all based-on-play films have this problem, far from it) and many of the plot strands are contrived and take ridiculousness and lack of sense to a whole new level.Overall, watchable with things that do work well but for Doris Day completests 'The Tunnel of Love' is a lesser effort. 5/10 Bethany Cox
SimonJack
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?
sludgehound
Just had to add my ditto to prior comments. Maybe as a historical peek. My reason for bothering. As entertainment, zero value. As bad time capsule is about all. Catch all the 'clever' way past McCarthy era chatter about "you mean we might be investigated" over the adoption setup. Or "double think" line. So hip. Not. Seemed not worthy of colorizing. Just annoying as hell. Stay in CT and out of the old Village. But of course today's Greenwich Village takes a 1958 Westport income at the very least. UNIVAC, where art tho? Poor rich stressed out commuter. Shoulda stayed in Village and become a Pop Artist over time. Cute chick social worker tho. Not so with the sad MM player.
moonspinner55
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 ****
