ThiefHott Too much of everything

Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

edwagreen Let's face it- Mason and Hayward were not born to do comedy. The film should have been made years before with Irene Dunne and Cary Grant in the leads. Then, you would have seen something.Hayward seems to handle her social drinking since she had plenty of experience with that in "I'll Cry Tomorrow," and "Smash-Up."The two play college officials who are supposedly experts on marriage. In their lectures, they recount what happened when a Swedish girl, played with relish by Julie Newmar comes to visit. With her high intelligence, she tells it like it is. She comes on to Mason by telling him that she wants her him to be the father of the child.Even in comedy, Hayward's response was somewhat dramatic, and that is what was not needed here.The premise was not good here.

bkoganbing James Mason and Susan Hayward two big film names replaced Broadway stars Charles Boyer and Claudette Colbert for the film version of the play The Marriage Go Round. Mason and Hayward were both at or near the top of their careers, Hayward being just three years away from her career Oscar winning role in I Want To Live and Mason was off a big box office hit in Journey To The Center Of The Earth.The two play a pair of married professors and the film is done in the format of both of them giving a lecture on some recent trial their marriage went through. The trial came in the person of blond statuesque Swede Julie Newmar who is the daughter of a colleague that Mason knows. He knew Julie as a child, but she's all grown up now and fully developed in all the right places.Mason's considered a genius and Newmar who has an IQ to match her measurements is brutally frank in what she wants. She wants Mason, but she's not clear in why she wants him at first. Simply for breeding purposes. She wants him to father a super genius child. Today I'm sure Mason might just donate his sperm.Well whether for romance or breeding Hayward ain't having any. Such is the basis of this comedy which on Broadway had a 431 performance run for 1958-1960. It's slight and amusing and probably played better on stage on the one scene in the living room of the Mason/Hayward home. Still fans of the stars will like it.

Donna K This movie seems to plod along with innuendos between Mason, Hayward, and Newmar. There is a fun scene between Hayward and Newmar in which Hayward advises that her husband is not for "borrowing." But Newmar's response is Hayward's equal when she responds that she is bigger, stronger, prettier, and smarter and she will only listen to what he has to say. It's a great scene but about the only one in the film that worked for me. The rest is pretty much blah, blah, blah. What IS redeeming about this movie, though, is the set decorating and the costumes. In my opinion the sets in this movie could be from 20 years in the future. Sleek, classy. The costuming is perfect: muted, elegant colors on beautifully trim bodies. Mason is impeccable in his wardrobe. Of course Newmar looks like Barbie in her swimsuit. It was, however, great to get to see her in a performance before Catwoman in the Batman series.The eye candy is worth the watch in this film.

artzau Take three competent actors, James Mason, lovely Susan Hayward and Julie Newmar, and an idiot script with a lame premise and what do you get? Right. A mediocre movie. But, it's OK. Mason plays a cultural anthropologist who Newmar wants to share genes with. However, Mason's wife, Hayward, is having none of it. It goes down from there. Lamewitted writing, silly situations but always good acting and hey, Newmar was ALWAYS worth the price of a ticket. Hayward too is great but you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, the saying goes and a poor script does not a great movie make.