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.

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!

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.