This is not a sequel to Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, though of course the title was designed to make audiences think otherwise.Rather, it's the story of two American entertainers, a sister duo named the Jones Sisters, who are invited to perform their act at the Casino de Paris in that French capital. They get there only to discover that the impresario who sent for them is pretty much of a fraud. Things eventually work out, however - how is unimportant and uninteresting - and the two women, played by Jane Russell and Jean Crain, marry two young Americans, one of whom, like one of the men in GPB, is very rich.Russell and Crain had a lot of talent, but it's usually squandered here on uninspired dialogue and uninteresting original musical numbers. (There are also a few standards, like "My Funny Valentine.") It has none of the energy and charm of GPB, though that's certainly not for lack of trying. If there's any one thing that sinks this movie - and there are several contenders - it's that the original musical numbers are so completely forgettable.A curiosity for those who like its predecessor - and who doesn't? - but not a movie that stands on its own.

Okay, first let me come clean with my biases: I'm a Jane Russell fan. Even recognizing how amazing Marilyn Monroe was, etc, etc... Even in 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes', I've personally always preferred Jane Russell's 'wise-cracking dame' screen persona to Marilyn's blowsy bubble-head. But that said...While I agree that "Gentlemen Marry Brunettes" is by no means a great film, even if one lowers the bar to generic 50's musical standards. Still, I do think its greatest sin is in not being "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes". It wouldn't seem half so bad if it didn't instantly invite comparison to a classic 'relative' ("Gentlemen Prefer Blondes").Yet and still the production values are generally very high. Costumes by Travilla, additional fashions by Dior, and the period location filming in Paris and Monte Carlo alone really is (almost) worth sitting through the movie for.As an earlier commentator pointed out, I do think it was a mistake to make Jane play an 'air-head'. One of her strenghts as a performer/film personality is that her basic integrity usually shone through on screen. It's a shame to hide that.The biggest mistakes (in my opinion) are that neither Jane, nor Jeanne Crain were given a 'solo-number'. It may seem a small thing, but if one reflects on the shining moments of "Blondes", one's mind immediately goes to Marilyn's "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend" and Jane pushing the muscle men around in "Ain't There Anyone Here For Love?". It's in these two scenes where both performer's personalities (Marilyn, the 'sizzling' blonde bombshell; and Jane, the raven-haired, self-effacing flirt) really shine. No such scenes exist in "Brunettes" for either character.Further, while I like Jeanne Crain as a performer, I can't help feeling that the story needed another kind of 'contrast' to replace that dynamism between blonde Marilyn and brunette Jane in "Blondes". Playing the 'what if' game for a moment: imagine (with a slight plot shift)a young RITA MORENO as Jane Russell's Cuban 'half-sister' or 'cousin'? Just a little 'twist' like that would have added an element of thematic and visual tension that is missing in "Brunettes". OR... since the film was set in Europe, how about Gina Lolobrigida as Jane's Italian cousin, giving the movie added continental flair? Still... I say take "Brunettes" for what it is: a handsomely-mounted relic of Hollywood's last fling with pure, unadulterated fluff musicals! Put cotton in your ears and soak in the costumes and location shooting!

I saw this turkey for the first time last night. I tuned in expecting an entertaining sequel to the classic "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" starring Marylin Monroe and (as in this movie) Jane Russell.To say I was disappointed is being generous. Alan Young singing? For heaven's sake, what were these people thinking?The world would be better served if this pile of celluloid was cut up into guitar picks.

That's the tune you'll be singing after the movie's over... and not because of it's catchy chords and great lyrics, I assure you...This is the kind of movie that drives anyone to the brink of insanity... for it tries to cover all genres, and it flops in each and every one of them - it's not a good musical... the orchestrations are awkward, far from easy listening, and can manage to ruin even the most enchanting songs ever composed - 'My Funny Valentine', for instance, and 'Ain't Misbehaving', executed on a hilariously ludicrous 'cannibal african tribe' setting (!).A good comedy...? No, I don't think so... the amusing lines uttered by Jeanne Crain can't solely carry a feature film... by the by, can anyone believe that those legs actually belong to darling youth, 'Margie'...? :)A good romantic flick? Again, I doubt it... the romantic interludes are ridiculous, featuring Jane "The Girl That Can't Say No" Russell and Scott Brady, and Jeanne "Tough Gal" Crain and Alan "Filthy Rich Hiding Behind A Social Outcast Mask" Young...A good drama? Only if your notion of drama is reduced to Scott Brady's supreme could shoulders aimed towards Jane Russell... :)Well... all things considered, this is a plodding, mindless affair that has it's good moments, but is not to be compared to the classic 'Gentleman Prefer Blondes' in any way.