What were they thinking?Groucho, Frank Sinatra and Jane Russell had some of the most distinctive personalities in Hollywood. All three of these performers are plonked into a generic B movie which makes little to no use of their distinctive talents. Any generic "Hollywood types" could have handled these roles.Imagine Sinatra playing a meek bank teller with no hope for the future, and no sex appeal. Imagine Jane Russell playing a demure, yes demure, old maid. Imagine Groucho playing a millionaire/Italian Waiter who apparently does not notice Jane Russell's two ...greatest assets.The plot is bland, incredibly bland, and totally preposterous. By the time the mystery of the missing bank funds is discovered you really no longer care. The fact that this movie was filmed in 1948 and not even released for three years, until 1951, shows what the Studio thought of the film.There is really only one reason to see this film. If you are a fan of the three lead actors it is worth seeing. Folks who are not fans of the cast... well, there are far better B movies to watch...

I watched this film with a close friend who is also very interested in the history and art of film, and even given the usually beneficial aspect of a shared viewing, this is a film which one forgets even as they are watching it. Basically nothing of interest happens, Jane Russell is wasted, Frank Sinatra is no help, and only Groucho manages to get off a meager handful of scenes worth noting, even though the writing is sub-par at best. Jane is a particularly interesting case: a woman whose best roles are sexy and tough as nails is here reduced to a rather prim and mundane character. And even the expectation of a few good songs is not met, even though both Frank and Jane (and even Groucho) are known to deliver in this area. A film only worth watching if you're a completionist of some sort. Very lackluster

Deadly. Jane Russell, Frank Sinatra and Groucho: how anybody could assemble three such talented people and do almost nothing of value with them singly or together boggles the mind; they look as if they are waiting in a Motel 6 lobby for paychecks.Although he didn't direct this film, Howard Hughes was a force behind much of it, hence the title, which refers mainly to his lady friend Russell's well-advertised physical attributes--that's about the level of humor here, given the year 1951. The great Groucho looks tired, worn-out and put upon, and Frank sings his big number to a blank wall while lying in bed; he and Groucho have a weird musical number together that is completely forgettable, as is the tepid plot--it isn't a real stinker, but for early Frank, rent the zippy STEP LIVELY, which is really a delight, a farce full of charm and fun, and for Jane Russell at her best, rent GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES or one of the crime noir she made with Robert Mitchum.Groucho Marx is better in almost anything you can find, and was just waiting around for his quiz show "You Bet Your Life;" any five minutes of of that is better than all of this. I am usually not such a curmudgeon with early films, but this one never achieves lift-off.

Groucho Marx and Jane Russell (and Frank Sinatra)... ah what a movie this could've been. But it wasn't. I'm a huge Groucho fan and I thought Jane Russell sassed as good as Barbara Stanwyck could in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, so I had high hopes for a comedy with the two, but no, it wasn't to be. Instead, the two are featured tag-alongs in what appears to be a Frank Sinatra B-vehicle that he was probably contracted to do while still at the nadir of his career (right before his reinvigoration with his Oscar win for From Here to Eternity).So, harpooned by a poor script, the stars never really got a chance to shine, though Groucho managed a couple of good one-liners and as always, it's a joy to watch him on screen.