Names like Paddy Chayefsky and Kim Stanley still carry some weight -- and, in this film, they have to. It's not a terrible movie, but it is a weird little film, not the least because Kim Stanley is so completely and utterly miscast. And yet, her performance has stirring moments and the film does have a dark energy, in its early portions, that's dispersed in many vaguely wrong directions as the film winds towards its predictable conclusion.Stanley's miscasting begins with the physical --- she was much too old for the role, even for the later parts of the film, so in the sequences where she's supposed to be a teenager it is really laughable. Sad to say, she's also simply not attractive enough to be cast as a movie star. People on this board may be comparing her to Bette Davis, but at 40 Bette still had some sexy spark. With Stanley, there's no real screen chemistry. I found myself often thinking that Betty Lou Holland, as her mother, was more attractive in her "old age" makeup than Stanley was in her "young age" makeup. There is some movie magic that can be employed in cases like this, but the producers apparently skimped.....They also forgot to cast a compelling male in the film -- Lloyd Bridges tries awful hard here and it's probably best to just leave it at that. Steven Hill is just a stick of wood, just horrible to watch in this film.The film came out just a few years before everybody saw what was so wrong with Marilyn Monroe, on whom the film is so clearly based. There's also a bit of Jane Mansfield in there too, perhaps. In the sense that this came out in the late 50s, instead of the early 60s (when Carroll Baker made a mini-career out of these kinds of roles), it's a prescient film. But it's not a powerful film, because none of the secondary characters are able to match up to Stanley's screen time. It's a confused and confusing movie -- I thought occasionally Chayefsky was reaching for dark humor, in the sense perhaps of Tennessee Williams' contemporary "Baby Doll" with the aforementioned Carroll Baker, but if he was reaching for this then he forgot to tell director John Cromwell, whose work here is just as remote and studied as it was on any of his big Fox productions with Tyrone Power and people like that.

Perhaps it was because I saw the movie on television rather than on DVD and it was interrupted by too many commercials, but it seemed to be a cheap shot at Marilyn Monroe rather than a sympathetic portrait of a person who grew up empty but was envied by all. Kim Stanley failed to capture Marilyn's charm, and she appeared haggard throughout the film - a far cry from the devastating beauty that was Monroe. Her athlete husband (obviously modeled after Joe DiMaggio) was depicted as vapid, not too bright and very needy as well. The character's incredible need to be loved was revealed poignantly in one scene with her aged mother, who had come to stay with her after she experienced a nervous breakdown, but otherwise Stanley's character seemed shallow and not very likable. All in all, a really superficial and fairly petty portrayal of Ms. Monroe.

I'm a sucker for great, enormous performances. This is the ultimate expression of that. Kim Stanley was 40 years old when she made this picture, her first. Apparently Paddy Chaeffsky, John Cromwell and a group of brilliant actors decided to put their efforts together and create this vehicle for one of the greatest actresses that ever lived. I. for one, will always be grateful to them for their generous and visionary gesture. The film cost, 5.000$ but it's worth a fortune as the surviving (immortal) document of an unrepeatable personality capable and willing to drown into another. Although Marilyn Monroe was not only alive but at the top of her game at the time. This devastatingly sad story seems to reflect Marilyn's own. Kim Stanley is glorious, glorious! If you're interested in acting as art. You can't miss this extraordinary movie.

How some people can view THE GODDESS in the aftermath of Anna Nicole Smith's tragedy is beyond me. The parallels, not only between Smith but also Marilyn (and Jayne Mansfield) are astonishing! The film is utterly moving and, contrary to other reviews, inspires much empathy for the main character!The film has a deep and profound insight into the mind of those famous starlets--and the rest of us, as well. This is NOT a Hollywood story; nor is it even the story of a famous woman. It is about suffering and insecurity. From a very early age, the girl is alone. Her mother doesn't want her and the men in her life are only looking for sex. She reaches out desperately for love, and yet she herself (possibly because she has been hurt so many times) is unable to give it back. By the end of the film, she is completely alone; not able to give or receive love from others, including her daughter, and there is that great line by her first husband: "Life is unbearable if you don't love something." Her secretary tells him, "She will go on making pictures, because that is all she can do."Hollywood. The dream factory. Places where lonely people go seeking fame--that great idea of being loved by everyone. Only it doesn't solve anything. Not for Joan. Not for Marilyn. Not for Anna.