User reviews

It's hard to imagine Dino Risi, a distinguished Italian director and writer being involved in this silly little comedy. "Montecarlo" was a product of the late 1950s era where it was inexpensive to shoot a film in Europe for little money. All that was required was a fabulous backdrop in which to set the action. Sam Taylor, its director, didn't bring anything new to the genre.

An icy Marlene Dietrich plays a woman with a lot of class, but no money to satisfy her taste for the best things in life. She is dazzled by Count Della Fiabe, who is also trying to recuperate his debts at the gambling tables of the famous casino. In order for him to attract the woman, who he thinks is his meal ticket, the poor Italian noble man enlist the help of the same people he owes money to.

The best thing comes toward the end when Marlene Dietrich sings "Back Home in Indiana" in a seedy bistro for the enjoyment of Homer Hinckley, who she feels will be the man to make her rich. All this takes place in the glorious French Riviera in all its splendor.

Vittorio DeSica, a marvelous actor/director, does what he can with a role that didn't have much for him. Marlene Dietrich is dressed to the nines by Jean Louis that showed her elegant figure well. Arthur O'Connell, a good character actor is the millionaire from Indiana. Jane Rose also appears in a small role.

A continental dream team of Marlene Dietrich and Vittorio DeSica team up for Montecarlo a place that was big news in 1957 because of a wedding that took place there. It was a natural that someone would have done some kind of Monaco based story because of the wedding of their reigning Prince Rainer to American film star Grace Kelly.

There was however little chemistry between Dietrich and DeSica. I think both of them did the film because of the opportunity to spend time on the Riviera. That's as good a reason as any I've ever heard.

The two stars are a pair of fortune hunters. Both have lost heavily at the gaming tables and each spies the other as a possible mark. When the horrible truth sinks in that they've only combined their debts they decide to team up and get richer respective partners. They decide on a father and daughter duo of millionaires.

Highlight of the film is Marlene Dietrich trying to seduce her mark Arthur O'Connell with a vamp version of Back Home In Indiana. Bet you never thought of that as a torch song. But when Marlene does it in her inimitable style it has possibilities.

But what I can't figure out is why DeSica was given 18 year old Natalie Trundy to go after. I mean the writers couldn't have had him trying to work O'Connell's sister instead of a daughter? He really comes across as a dirty old man. It's the main weakness of the film.

Among the supporting players is Italian comedian Renato Rascel who would co-star with Mario Lanza in The Seven Hills Of Rome the following year. He plays a pawnbroker who wants his tickets redeemed or Marlene's jewelry. Seems as though she had an agreement with Rascel's brother to allow her to wear the jewels for the casinos. Rascel wants an end to that practice and he and Dietrich have some great scenes together.

The wide screen color cinematography of Monaco and the Riviera are absolutely breathtaking. I'm glad color was used for this beautiful spot on the planet.

According to a recent biography of Marlene Dietrich, Vittorio DeSica had two great passions, pursuit of young girls in real life like Natalie Trundy and the gaming tables. He was a candidate for Gamblers Anonymous, DeSica when he won financed his films that way. Many a day's shoot was held up because of DeSica's late night hobbies.

Still Dietrich's legion of fans world wide will like the film and enjoy a glimpse of Montecarlo at the beginning of the Princess Grace story.

All the ingredients are here: glorious Technirama, Cote d'Azur setting and two charismatic leads. What on earth has gone awry?

The screenplay is by Samuel A. Taylor, an accomplished Broadway playwright who adapted his 'Sabrina Fair' and 'Avanti' for film as well as contributing to the screenplay for 'Vertigo'. Unfortunately he cannot direct. The film has neither sparkle nor momentum and there is some decidedly dodgy dubbing. There are admittedly a few good scenes and the production values are great but the film disappoints. The anticipated chemistry between Marlene Dietrich and Vittorio de Sica as two inveterate gamblers down on their luck is alas, lacking. De Sica is immaculate but Dietrich somehow misfires.

What a pity that neither Dino Risi, who wrote the original story nor Billy Wilder who brought Taylor's 'Sabrina Fair' and 'Avanti' to the screen were not on hand to work their particular magic. Ironically Wilder was to direct Dietrich's next film 'Witness for the Prosecution'.

One of the best lines in the film goes to de Sica who says that the gambler's most precious commodity is 'Hope'. A sentiment that might easily apply to actors! This superlative actor/director was known to be frequently short of funds because of his addictive gambling. He must have felt very much at home here!

granted, this whole movie was a low point for Marlene and for Vittorio daSica as well. There is one great line in it, however: when asked by confidence man daSica why she never wears any jewelry (which she has hocked to pay for her stay in Monte Carlo) La Dietrich purrs, "Should I?" to which daDica responds, "Most women do." Dietrich points out, "Most women NEED to." Touche' -- The other high point for me in this mess is when Dietrich sings "Back Home Again in Indiana" -- as unlikely a possibility as there ever could be!

Act One: Marlene Dietrich and Vittorio De Sica have lost their sizable fortunes and more in the Casino. Now they are adventurers, putting up a front and looking for a rich spouse. They find each other, fall in love, and discover they are both broke.

Act Two: Retired American rich man Arthur O'Connell and daughter Natalie Trundy sail into the harbor on their new-bought three-masted ship. They set their caps at Miss Dietrich and De Sica.

Writer-director Samuel Taylor has written himself a problem play: how to make these four unlikable types appealing to the audience. The Europeans are selfish and lazy. The Americans are brash and boorish. What saves all of them in the audience's eye is their ultimate honesty and Giusepppi Rotunno's dazzling views of the harbor.. But it's a close thing. With Jane Rose, Mischa Auer, and Carlo Rizzo.

The whole film lacks sparkle and pace. Dietrich and De Sica look elegantly frozen in time as they mouth a dialogue stuffed full of half-baked innuendos. There is absolutely no chemistry between them at all. Dietrich looks as though she had been on a starvation diet and wiggles her way across the screen in some extremely tight dresses without the slightest hint of sex appeal. Even when the film was made it must have seemed old-fashioned. Now it looks as though dinosaurs still roamed the land. Just about watchable for the locations and as a curiosity for Dietrich fans. Technically, the film is interesting as being one of the first to use the Technirama process, which rivalled Cinemascope but used a larger frame size, so the picture is much clearer. Whether this benefited the actors is debatable but the scenery is pretty good. The whole film is available on YouTube but of course the quality is nothing like the original.

Impossible to believe formula fluff garbage with aging stars. Marlena Dietrich at 56 has to decide between two suitors a broke Italian aristocrat (like herself) or an unsophisticated American millionaire. Vittoria De Sica (56) turns down an 18 year old millionaires daughter to be with Dietrich. Give me a break.

Then there is the feel good old sophisticated Europe versus the brash hick nouveau riche United States element.

The color and filming is well done in this complete fairy tale.

Watch only if you are fans of these aging stars.

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Vittorio de Sica is a lost and ruined gambler who comes to Monte Carlo in an effort for maybe a final gamble. He meets Marlene Dietrich who is supposed to be a rich widow with a vast inheritance. He courts her, they become friends, she is intrigued by the fact that he is of a noble Napolitan family and supposes him to be outrageously rich. The fact is that she is also ruined. By chance, some American greenhorns run into them, the captain running into de Sica's boat and causing some damage, and he is charmed by Marlene. De Sica and Marlene agree to try to make something of the situation, so they pretend to be brother and sister, and while Marlene is courted by the Californian millionaire, his daughter shows some interest for de Sica. Here is an opportunity for both adventurers to make their fortune, but things don't quite turn out according to their schemes. Among the other actors there is Mischa Auer as the chief waiter and head of the gang of comedians or rogues, that is friends of de Sica. It's a friendly and beautiful film with quite a few comic turns, and a splendid entertainment for those who can relish the Mediterranean beauty of the sea and Monte Carlo. It was made the year after Hitchcock's "To Catch a Thief" and of the same colourful lustre, a feast for the eyes and an enjoyable comedy, which not even the Americans succeed in spoiling.,

I have to reluctantly agree to just about everything I've read in the reviews attached to this movie. Just as the characters They are portraying, Miss Dietrich and Mr. DiSica must have needed the money they could earn from this. And like a lot of other performers there was probably a bit of 'what else am I going to do -stay home?' At least they got to go to Monaco and probably stay in first class hotels. I was not in the least bit disappointed in the job done by Jean-Louis in regards to Miss Dietrichs wardrobe. Fortunately for me I will watch a film just to see the gowns. But I really read all of the reviews out of curiosity to see if anyone noticed what I think is true about this movie and that is as best as I can remember there's not a single close-up of Miss D. Well known for being almost fanatical about her image I propose that this was her own doing as a way of protecting herself from the usually snide and sometimes vicious critics who love to take aim at aging actresses in a way that their male counterparts usually do not have to suffer. I would watch it again and let many other aging actresses keep me company on late night television. I have seen recent films that cost 200 times more to make that still have less entertainment value.

Why on earth Marlene Dietrich got involved in this nonsense is beyond me. She must have been short of cash to have even considered appearing in this load of tosh.

The plot, such as it is, is thin involving a group of 'society gamblers' in Monte Carlo. Marlene wears some great clothes and generally glitters in contrast to de Sica who appears as dim as a Toc H lamp!

The one bright spot in this whole sorry saga is Marlene's rendition of "Back Home Again In Indiana" Not that she had any connection with the state, I bet Marlene wished she was back in Indiana!

This, along with her appearance in the 1944 version of "Kismit" just has to be Dietrich's darkest hour (or two) !

The idea sounded really interesting and sounded like my kind of film, so there was the hope that even with some silliness that it would be an amusing and charming piece of escapism. The title also appetised but what had me sold straight away and made me want to see 'The Montecarlo Story' was Marlene Dietrich. An always watchable actress and performer who made even her not particularly good efforts a little above mediocre, and at her best a sheer delight and reason enough to see any film.

For me, 'The Montecarlo Story' disappointed and ranks among Dietrich's lesser films. Not terrible and Dietrich comes off well compared to most of everything else, but 'The Montecarlo Story' felt very lacklustre and lacked spark and anything at stake. A watchable film, and to namely to be seen for anything who likes Dietrich and wants to see everything she's in (the case with me), but a very bland one that really should have been much better than it turned out to be.

Dietrich sparkles and glitters in a way that the rest of the film does not. She epitomises class and has such a charming and sparkling presence not seen with the other cast members. 'The Montecarlo Story' also looks quite gorgeous, Dietrich's costumes are knockouts and the set design is sumptuous and stylishly captured by the photography.

Agree too that "Back Home Again in Indiana" is very memorable and classic Dietrich, all the music fits beautifully but that song was one of the film's clear highlights in a film with not enough of them. There are sporadic moments of wit here and there, but sadly too far and between.

It is a shame that 'The Montecarlo Story' is a big letdown in major components even more important than the ones already mentioned as good things. The story in particular wrecks the film significantly. It is paper thin and completely lacking in energy, but even worse is how utterly nonsensical it with credibility stretched to the limit and beyond. The script is very half-baked and pedestrian, with very little wit or sophistication.

Similarly the direction is graceless and has too much of a heavy hand. All the characters are flat ciphers, while Vittorio DeSica has no presence with practically nothing to work and also no real chemistry with Dietrich (any that sparkles anyhow). The rest of the cast are completely forgettable.

Overall, one time watch-worthy but a near-misfire for Dietrich. 5/10

Saw this last night on cable TV in a hotel in Zhuhai, China, of all places. This film was released 16 days before I was born, and not knowing the name of the picture or anything else, I pegged it exactly right (1957). There were many of these Americans-gaffing-their-way-through-Europe films at this time ("Royal Wedding" comes to mind...), I suppose sparked by the Fodor-induced rush to see Europe on $5 a Day. Since this seems to have been an Italian production, it's not quite so lame as many others. I actually found this one compelling in some ways for its weird melange of actors from completely different eras all thrown together like passengers on a doomed ship. Dietrich was much too old to play her role at this point (I kept asking myself in some disbelief, Is that really her?), and regrettably she looks it, jewels or no. The Americans are uniformly cringe-inducing, with the exception of the very winsome Natalie Trundy, who could have been another Patty Duke. Post-War Monte Carlo and Homer Hinkley's gargantuan yacht steal the show. It must have been magnificent in its original vista format on the big screen.