The Marriage-Go-Round

This really is dreck. What a waste of James Mason who still manages a decent performance despite having to deal with not so sophisticated sophisticated dialogue. The sript combines pop pyschology popular in the early 60s with sitcom like witticisms masking as Noel Coward level repartee. Not to mention that it's stagey and setbound with the main premise being pummelled to death. Newmar looks fantastic and was a decent enough actress but then you have Susan Hayward. A looker no doubt , but I've always thought she was a terrible actress who constantly seems to read her lines off of a greeting card. And what's with that voice ? A Joan Crawford baritone? Forget this one.

A happy middle-aged couple (Susan Hayward and James Mason) allow a Swedish girl (Julie Newmar)--a daughter of a friend--to stay in their house for a few days. While there she promptly tells Mason she wants to have a child with him because he's so intelligent! Predictable complications ensue.

Silly sex comedy. This was based on a VERY successful Broadway play. However what worked on stage does NOT translate to the screen at all (this was not a hit). The plot is pretty dumb and probably an insult to Swedish people. It has incredibly dated sexual politics (even for 1961) and a discussion on infidelity is more funny than shocking. What saves this from being totally unwatchable are the actors. Mason and Newmar are very good in their roles and Hayward is excellent in hers. Also their house is stunning to look at. But, all in all, this is a forgettable movie. I give it a 4.

I do like James Mason and what else can be said about Susan Hayward?. With the cast of capable actors, the story should be a given, and should work.

Somehow it doesn't. Is it just dated?. Is it just that romantic romps with hip chicks (Julie Newmar) and rock music have no resonance?. Despite the backdrop of Frank Lloyd Wright's house in Lakeland Florida, the story comes up banal and empty.

Perhaps it is the portrayal of Hayward and Mason as a married couple After the requisite jealousy, tantrums, and throwing around of suitcases, the couple gets back together. We still see formula like this today in recent films like "The Break Up". It just doesn't work, and leaves the viewer feeling they have witnessed somehow, another wooden version of Hollywood romance.

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.

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.