Ellos y ellas

I'm intrigued by the strong sense of favour towards (or sympathy for!) Sinatra in the other reviews here. I've read elsewhere that Sinatra never seems to have forgiven anyone for *not* being cast as Sky Masterson.

OK, so who wouldn't want to be cast as Sky Masterson? – it's a great part: the charismatic successful gambler who makes a grave mistake when he allows himself to be suckered into a bet, in which he must take Salvation Army Sargeant Sarah Brown on a date to Cuba, or lose. It's not the money – it's the pride, but he and she meet their match. Meanwhile Nathan Detroit must juggle his long-suffering fiancée Adelaide with trying to find a spot for a craps game which will make him rich if it doesn't alienate his fiancée forever first.

The film started life as a series of short stories by Damon Runyon: that's his unique dialogue you hear, and those are his great character names, and that's his horse-racing/nightclub/late night gambling world. Then it became a musical, and you can't help but feel that in film form it never really left the stage. The camera is unusually static and the sets remarkably – and not pleasingly – flat and childlike. Fortunately the music is so great, I don't care that much.

My absolute favourite thing about this film, though, is the singing and acting of the two non-singers, Brando (as Sky) and Jean Simmons (as Sargeant Sarah Brown). Of course, putting pro singers into these roles would have produced better music; but what surely gets forgotten is that two such excellent actors brought something else to the party instead: what they lacked in vocal talent they more than made up for in gusto, acting ability, and pathos, pathos, pathos. You're with Sky as he argues with Sarah against reason, steadiness, pipes and safety. You enjoy Sarah's loosening up under the influence of Cuban "milk". You feel completely the suddenness and passion of their scene in the courtyard with bells ringing and an hour to go before the plane takes them home. As Sky rightly says, it's "chemistry". Pro singers – be they Broadway belters or smooth crooners – can't necessarily be relied on to make this happen. (And they certainly didn't.) I read somewhere that Brando criticised Sinatra for not putting all of himself into his role of Nathan Detroit. Sinatra in turn was infuriated by Brando's four-take acting method. As a Brando fan (does it show?!) I'm bound to take the other side, but I can't imagine that this film would have been the much-adored classic it is today if Brando and Simmons hadn't been in it with their wonderful chemistry; Brando's unpredictability; Simmons' face, all pink cheeks and brown hair, drunk and ashamed in a Cuban bar. Beautiful. I'll always want a copy of this film lying around in case I need to feel good again. You'll forgive me if give some of the Nathan (sleep)talking parts the 100% brush-off though, won't you? You won't? Oh, be quiet and have some more of Mindy's cheesecake!

I love this movie. I never realized all of the songs I recognized and sang in school were from this movie. A fantastic mix of singing, dancing and acting. Rich characters that you love from beginning to end. Of course there are better singers than Brando but Brando did hold his own with every tune, and he was the best one for the part with his usual magnificent acting and likability.

Frank Sinatra is in top form and I always love watching the great and stunning actress Jean Simmons. You are in for a great time with this enriching musical. Fun for everyone. Will leave you falling in love with musicals all over again. A Must see!

"Guys and Dolls" is a thoroughly enjoyable example of musical comedy at its very best. The acting is impeccable, and what's more, almost believable (for a musical at least), the singing is pretty decent (well, Marlon Brando is another story, but I'll get to that) and the whole thing is just so amusing and entertaining that you'll be singing the tunes and quoting the lines long after you've finished watching it. Critics and viewers seem to sometimes have a difficult time with taking the film too seriously, by this I mean that a) Marlon Brando was not cast because of his singing voice (which was admittedly not good, but bearable), I like to think it was because he had irresistible charm, b) the whole premise is so unbelievable, to which I say, "name me a musical that IS wholly believable", and c) the movie moves too slowly, which is patently absurd, unless one does not have a taste for the slower pace of old movies and long, well articulated dance numbers, and romantic love scenes. This film pre-dates my existence by some 3 decades, but it still manages to rank among my very favorite pieces of movie-making and is an absolute must-see for musical and non-musical fans alike. 10/10

The opening says it all. Or rather, shows it. A beautifully choreographed piece sets the tone of the film, the city, and the characters. As we follow a watch being stolen numerous times, it shows us the petty crime, and the fun and exuberant dances show us the whimsical nature. Sinatra is great as Nathan Detroit, and Brando shows us a completely new side to himself. Sure, his singing may have been cut and pasted from multiple takes, but cinema is all abut creating illusions. The film may be gentle and obvious, but none can deny the sheer excellence of routines, such as the sewer craps game. Making good use of color, movement, humor, and songs, this is a classically addictive film.

Damon Runyon's world of Times Square, in New York, prior to its Disneyfication, is the basis for this musical. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, a man who knew about movies, directed this nostalgic tribute to the "crossroads of the world" that show us that underside of New York of the past. Frank Loesser's music sounds great. We watch a magnificent cast of characters that were typical of the area. People at the edges of society tended to gravitate toward that area because of the lights, the action, the possibilities in that part of town. This underbelly of the city made a living out of the street life that was so intense.

Some of the songs from the original production were not included in the film. We don't know whether this makes sense, but this is not unusual for a Hollywood musical to change and alter what worked on the stage. That original cast included the wonderful Vivian Blaine and Stubby Kaye, and we wonder about the decision of not letting Robert Alda, Sam Levene, Isabel Bigley repeat their original roles. These were distinguished actors that could have made an amazing contribution.

The film, visually, is amazing. The look follows closely the fashions of the times. As far as the casting of Marlon Brando, otherwise not known for his singing abilities, Frank Sinatra and Jean Simmons, seem to work in the film. Sky Masterson is, after all, a man's man, who would look otherwise sissy if he presented a different 'look'. Frank Sinatra is good as Nathan Detroit. Jean Simmons, as Sarah Brown, does a nice job portraying the woman from the Salvation Army who suddenly finds fulfillment with the same kind of man she is trying to save.

Vivian Blaine is a delight. She never ceases to amaze as Miss Adelaide, a woman with a heart of gold who's Nathan Detroit's love interest. Ms. Blaine makes a fantastic impression as the show girl who is wiser than she lets out to be. Stubby Kaye makes a wonderful job out of reprising his Nicely Nicely Johnson.

The wonderful production owes a lot to the talented Abe Burrows, who made the adaptation to the screen. The costumes by Irene Sharaff set the right tone.