How to Marry a Millionaire
How to Marry a Millionaire
| 29 October 1953 (USA)
How to Marry a Millionaire Trailers

Three women set out to find eligible millionaires to marry, but find true love in the process.

Reviews
greenheart

A movie that just oozes Hollywood class and quite frankly, it needs nothing more. A very odd beginning with a guy conducting a full orchestra for well over 5 minutes. But this is all about the three leading ladies. Bacall is smokin'! Monroe is ditzie, seductive and shows some glorious comic timing and business with her glasses. Grable is just plain delightful. To repeat myself, this is Hollywood all over but with a lovely light touch.

... View More
seeingbystarlight

Marrying a millionaire is not as easy as it sounds.As Marylin Monroe's character puts it:"Men are getting nervous these days, especially the loaded ones."But jaded Schautzey Paige (Lauren Bacall), and her two savvy lady friends, the kind hearted Loco Dempsey (Betty Grable), and the naive Paula Debevoise (Marylin Monroe) have a plan:Rent an expensive apartment in upscale New York, and after selling the furniture off piece by piece to pay for restaurant like Stork and 21 "trap a really fat one".On the day of their arrival at the place, Loco (who's awfully clever with a quarter) shows up with a man named Tom Brookman (Cameron Mitchell), having just conned him into paying for her groceries.Tom Brookman (though clearly interested in Schautzey) looks like a gas pump jockey, and that's exactly what Schautzey pegs him for as she hurries him out the door, promising that he can call sometime, and ignoring his protests: ("But I don't know your number!...But I don't know your last name!").After outlining her plan to her roommates, Schautzey waits for a fish to bite...it doesn't.Four months pass, and having sold all their furniture, Paula, and Schautzey are forced to sit in folding chairs in the living room, waiting for Loco to return with from the drugstore with more aspirin and shower caps, she's tricked a guy into buying.Schautzey is in despair."Four months, and we're not even engaged."Paula says she could've have gotten engaged last week if she'd wanted to.When Schautzey asks to whom, Paula says:"To that tall English fellow that borrowed five dollars from me.""That's exactly my point!" Schautzey snaps.It's just then when the door bell rings, and a moment later Loco comes through the door...The other two women crowd around, for at her heels is not some greasy gas pump jockey, but a clearly wealthy man named J.D. Hanley (William Powell) his arms full of expensive packages.And after some pleasentries during which Schautzey apologies for the furniture ("We just sent everything out to be cleaned!"), the three women get invited to a social gathering to meet some of Hanley's fellow oil men."Only oil men?" Loco asks "Well no...some bankers too, I believe."After he leaves, the women are in a daze."This is it kids." Schautzey says "A room full of rich entrepreneurs...and us." Of course, things don't go that smoothly.The only relationship that goes on wheels is Schautzey, and J.D's (the only fly in the ointment being that Tom Brookman won't stop calling to try and get her to go out with him, in spite of the fact that she "never wants to see him again!").Loco ends up in a lodge in Maine she thinks is a convention, and after petulantly bemoaning her fate, ends up contracting the measels.As for Paula, she has snagged a one eyed pirate with everything but a T-shirt that reads "Con Artist", and is naively heading to Atlantic City to marry him.But unbenounced to all three women, Freddy Denmark (the man who actually owns the apartment) has been breaking in for a mysterious reason having to do with his being on the lamb from the IRS.This turns out to be the catalyst for one of the nicest twists ever conceived in a romantic comedy (and there are several in this one).The true message of this movie is really captured in it's funniest scene:Loco's married companion thinks he's got the art of concealing an affair all figured out, and is about to learn he's wrong when he gets his picture on the front page of every New York newspaper in acknowledgement for his being the fifty thousandth car to drive across a certain bridge.To quote him as he's driving across, (right before the police sirens start blasting):"Man is master of his fate. And king of his destiny."Well, that's what you think."Gentlemen...to our wives."Originally, Review #9Posted On: May 3, 2009

... View More
jimbo-53-186511

Three "socialities" set up camp in a New York apartment determined to find Mr Right, but complications ensue when the 3 women seemingly find their perfect soulmates...Despite having a fun set-up there is precious little to care about in this rather flimsy premise; all 3 women are go getting socialites (which is probably the kindest and most politically correct way to describe these women) as they go about ensnaring unsuspecting male victims. There's no depth to the script as we continuously witness our 3 broads shallowly picking off the unsuspecting male victims. The film continues on in this vein with perhaps the only warm exchange existing between Marilyn Monroe and the sappy passenger who she meets on the plane - not only was this a warm exchange, but it meant we also got to see a rare moment where Monroe 'geeked' out - she was a gorgeous looking woman no questions, but this is perhaps the only role I've seen her in where she wasn't apparently the' hot one' on the face of it which was a near impossible feat in retrospect.Despite Marilyn's wonderful curves and Lauren Bacall's sprightly performance I didn't much care for this film; I found it rather shallow and the whole concept is horribly dated and doesn't exactly paint women in a positive light (though this is perhaps down to the era that the film was made). Some of the production values are also quite poor with some of the sets looking quite tacky - although the film is over 60 years old so perhaps this is to be expected. The three leads do OK with what they have to work with, but the basic story isn't easy to become invested in and I did feel myself not really giving a damn about who ended up with who or what happened to anyone towards the end.Despite the star power of Monroe and Bacall (and despite Bacall's best efforts) this is a pretty crappy film that is best forgotten.

... View More
mmallon4

How To Marry a Millionaire was the first movie filmed in Cinemascope (second to be released) and thus is a bit like the Avatar of 1953; a technological showcase but provides little in the way of interesting story or characters. The first five minutes of the film is comprised of composer Alfred Newman and his orchestra showcasing the visual and stereophonic capabilities of the new technology and trying to get audiences away from their televisions and into the movie theatre. TV is square and in black & white, movies are in colour and on a big wide screen. I can imagine this being quite a spectacle for audiences back in 1953 but why is it part of the movie and not a separate short? As for the visuals in the film itself, they do take advantage of the frame showing New York in full cinemascope although the use of a fish eye like lens in many shots is a little bothersome. How to Marry a Millionaire was the first film I saw William Powell in and he didn't leave any impression on me despite me later becoming a huge fan of his. As Roger Ebert put it, "William Powell is to words as Fred Astaire is to dance", but he has not killer material to work off here. The three leading ladies do have their own personalities but there is not much in the way of playing off each other nor is there any fast and witty dialogue. Overall the screwball comedy type plot isn't hugely fleshed out and there's no real sense of urgency although there are a few laughs to be had. I do particular like Betty Grable's grouchy, grumpy date played by Fred Clark. I find Marilyn Monroe however gets the most interesting dynamic in the film playing a woman who is afraid to wear glasses which feels like a statement on conformity in the 1950's.How To Marry a Millionaire is a prime example of what you would call an 'ok' film; a time passer, not terrible but not great either. Most enjoyment I do get from it is largely superficial as I do love me some 50's fluff with the colourful aesthetic and the high fashion. Plus three beauties in cinemascope, as a heterosexual male I'm not complaining.

... View More