What a beautiful movie!

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Claustrophobic and dull, this film version of a forgotten Broadway play is nearly a disaster for all concerned: leads Doris Day and Richard Widmark have absolutely no chemistry, and director Gene Kelly adds no oomph to an absurd premise. As a married couple trying to have a baby, Widmark and Day are endlessly cheerful, often frantic, and excessively cutsie pie. They decide after failed attempts in her getting pregnant (she does everything but order him to make love to her) to try adoption, and in comes the sultry adoption agent Gia Scala who detests Widmark and his neighbor pal Gig Young from their first meeting, yet shows up nowhere out of the blue to announce that she's attracted to Widmark. I've always been of the belief that just because the written word in on the page as dialog doesn't mean that it's true. The film is presented as light and fluffy, but other than a few incidental lines is completely unfunny. Besides the forgettable title song (which has the same beat as the same year's theme from "The Blob"), there's the headache inducing "Run Away, Skidaddle, Skidoo", which had me cringing from the moment that Day began singing it while dancing with Widmark at an extremely boring cocktail party. For a film to be truly enjoyable, you have to be interested in the characters you're watching, and the only emotion I had from watching them was the desire to reach through a screen and put muzzles on all of them. This film makes the sound of nails on chalkboards preferable. Unlike other bad movies, this isn't even campy, just cringing.

One of Webster's definitions of humor describes it as being ludicrous or absurdly incongruous. So, people who decry this movie as such might themselves be without a sense of humor. As for claims of miscasting of Richard Widmark, I think that shows how we become so set in our views that we stereotype actors. I don't ever recall having seen this film in the theater when I was in high school, or on TV in later years. It is part of the Doris Day DVD collection I recently bought. And these 50 plus years later, I found this to be a very entertaining and well-acted movie. The script is a very good general portrayal of the times and how people felt about children, family, fidelity, etc. Gig Young's part might be a rare exception in real life, but his straying character is important for the movie where Widmark's character plays off of him. I think Widmark was exceptionally good in his role. Like most other reviewers, I probably had a notion of Widmark as a gangster, tough guy or bad guy, with an occasional Army or Navy hero thrown in. But here he gives a great performance – out of his usual character – of any man, and how he might have felt and thought and behaved like in such a situation in the 1950s. I think the consternation, anxiety and angst that Widmark shows at different times makes him so real. The stereotypical actors we might normally think of for this role would not have given it that real human touch. Theirs would have been the light treatment where everyone has a good laugh in the film. This was a masterful job, in my view, of humor with pathos. Only a very good actor could pull that off, and I think Widmark did it very well. To be fair with moviegoers, I must say that I think I probably would not have enjoyed this film as much when it was made. Again, mostly because of my idea of what Widmark should play. We also had different ideas back then of Doris Day and the roles she should play. And that's probably why this movie didn't do well at the box office. But today, I'm glad I can enjoy this film as a very good example of acting by the entire cast in a rather sophisticated comedy. The comedy comes mostly from innuendo and misunderstandings among the characters. As for the plot – I like to remember that Hollywood puts out fiction even with its most adept efforts for accuracy in biographical and historical films. But for comedy, some of the very best films of all time have been those with the most unlikely plots. About the only thing in this movie that doesn't make sense is its title with accompanying song. But then, that's in the congruity of Hollywood humor. Or did I miss something in that too?

This film has an astonishingly ludicrous, unbelievable plot. Doris Day and Richard Widmark are unable to conceive while ol' reliable neighbor Gig Young (as Dick Pepper) has kid after kid, despite having (arguably) the biggest substance abuse problem on the block. With all the single beds and double shots, it's a wonder.Anyway, an adoption agency finds a baby for the childless Day/Widmark pair. Mr. Widmark is convinced he actually fathered the child they find, during a drunken one-night-stand... It gets worse. Ms. Day recognizes the newly adopted baby as Mr. Widmark's, and storms out on her bicycle! The movie makes absolutely no sense. Day and Widmark are terrible parents. Widmark also sings, by the way, at a cocktail party and to the baby. Be warned! Won't reveal the film's climax, but it should be easy to guess… ** The Tunnel of Love (11/21/58) Gene Kelly ~ Doris Day, Richard Widmark, Gig Young, Gia Scala

How about the actress Elisabeth Fraser who played Alice Pepper -- any fans out there? She went on the fame as the long-suffering Sgt. Hogan -- girlfriend to television's Sgt. Bilko. Has written a hilarious journal on "life on location" during the filming of the Western "The Way West" with Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum, Richard Widmark, and a teenaged Sally Field.