Some Like It Hot

Ridiculous plot, but very enjoyable nonetheless. <em>'Some Like It Hot'</em> is good, unserious fun. Tony Curtis (Joe) and Jack Lemmon (Jerry) are the stars of the show, with amusing performances from start-to-finish. Marilyn Monroe is pleasant too, this is actually the first film of Monroe's I'v ... e seen. A good'un! The pacing isn't perfect but that doesn't hamper things at all really. It's a bonkers 122 minutes, filled with entertaining shenanigans - the ending is particularly wacky. Don't think I would've liked it as well without Curtis & Lemmon, admittedly. Worth watching, without question. read more

**One of Curtis' best films... and an effective and enjoyable comedy.** For many, this movie is simply one of the greatest comedies of all time. However, I have serious doubts about that. In my personal opinion, it's a good comedy, it entertains its audience very well, and there's no doubt about ... its status as a movie classic. Starting from this reasonable basis and placing the film at the heights as the best or one of the best already seems unreasonable and exaggerated. But that's just what I think. The script is set during the Prohibition, a time when speakeasies were one of the biggest sources of financial income for mobsters. The script starts from this context and creates an interesting and reasonably well-written story, where two jazz musicians end up becoming witnesses to a massacre, in which a group of mobsters kills a rival group in Chicago. This, of course, was inspired by a true, very famous incident, the Valentine's Day Massacre. Persecuted and in life danger, they decide to dress up as two women and hide, like members of a female jazz orchestra that takes a train to the coast, to perform in a hotel. Of course, then the funniest part of the movie begins, with the characters trying to keep the cover-up amid the romantic shenanigans that unfold. In addition to a good script and good dialogue, the film has very good performances by Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon, the two great male protagonists. For me, this is one of the most interesting films of both their careers, and it's great to see the way they both played together. I also liked the works of George Raft and Joe E. Brown, which gives soul and grace to the end, very famous and funny. Pat O'Brien also does a good job, even if he doesn't follow his peers closely. But the film was probably better known to audiences thanks to the female star, Marilyn Monroe. But I don't like her work here. She was an extraordinary singer, and her best scenes are the ones where she sings... but I never thought of her as a good and talented actress (she couldn't even memorize what she had to say, and the director practically swore that would never work with her again): and, really, her performance in the film is irritating, turning the character into a sly young woman and something of an idiot. The film doesn't make a big bet on the technical aspects, but it offers us high quality sets and costumes, good effects and an effective soundtrack. From the beginning, it takes on a pleasant rhythm that allows the two hours of duration to pass without us noticing. It also features good cinematography, with a regular filming job that makes the best use of selected filming locations. read more

I really don't get the comedy here. Curtis and Lemmon dress up as showgirls to avoid the mob. That's good for a five minute sketch, but not a full length movie. And that's the problem. It is stretched out to be an ordeal. For some reason, some guy likes Lemmon as a woman, and Lemmon avoids him. A ... nd for some reason, Curtis likes a relatively plain showgirl (Marilyn Monroe was always a "woman's woman", not in the league with the beauties of Hollywood, which was her appeal, being the "girl next door" instead of "the girl you wanted next door" Dawn Welles or Raquel Welch. But who is lucky enough to get Dawn Welles next door to him? Which is why we get the more down to earth looks of Marilyn to be popular in movies. The "comedy" was "dated" even in the sixties. I'm not sure it was even funny in 1959, but it appears to have a designated target audience of people who like super dry humor disguised as slapstick, or whatever you call this vain attempt to be funny. It isn't a "terrible movie", and it isn't depressing, but it is quite dull. Not good news for a comedy. read more