dbdumonteil Some people are going to dismiss "No room for the groom" because it 's not Sirkesque,that is to say it's not the flamboyant melodrama they are used to.However,if you read between the lines ,you'll notice how Sirk is present even in the funny scenes (although the chicken pox is a bad idea,unworthy of him).His attack against selfish people whose materialism knows no bounds is the same we find in "all that Heaven allows" (1956).His hero portrayed by Tony Curtis is a distant relative of the gardener in "Heaven" ;both are afraid of "modern" life ,both are misfits ,the former in his bride's family,the latter in the bunch of snobs at Sarah's cocktail party.Sometimes the lines turn dramatic as Alvah says to the over possessive mother that he too cares for his country and he may die for them :had Sirk made this movie five years later,it could have been a darkly humorous spoof on "a time to love and a time to die" (1958) Alvah is a Capraesque character:he is a generous gent,and generous gentle naive people are preys for evil people who love to pretend they are mad to satisfy their dirty deeds.The mom-in-law dreams of a rich marriage for her only daughter,a subject which will be also present in Sirk's follow-up ," has anybody seen my gal?" .Both movies display Capra's influence and both prove that money can't buy happiness ...or love.Piper Laurie and Tony Curtis are good-looking newly-weds longing for an impossible honeymoon.A great Sirk?Certainly not!But not the dud lots of people talk about either!

tentender The wartime comedy of frustration -- wherein a young couple is thwarted from consummating their marriage through a series of mishaps -- is carried to new lengths in this almost pathologically frustrating film. The comedy, unfortunately, is very thinly written, and depends largely on a huge cast of characters all having moved into young husband and soldier Tony Curtis's home while he is away, fighting in World War II. (Curious to note that this film was made about seven years after this subject might have been topical.) What really lets us down is that the couple has no backbone, constantly caving in to the whim of mother-in-law Spring Byington, who wants the marriage annulled so that bride Piper Laurie can marry rich Don DeFore. The worst of it is that our bride is truly under Mama's thumb for nine-tenths of the picture, and that we are so far ahead of her. Particularly galling, as well, is the child Donovan, who seems omnipresent and has no redeeming qualities (and is very noisy to boot). Curtis, fortunately, looks great (especially in a tight T-shirt) and does what he can with this woeful material. An hour and a half that feels like three.

silverscreen888 I first discovered this film when it was released in 1952. It has to rank as one of the most intelligent comedies of the period. It stars attractive young Tony Curtis, lovely Piper Laurie and has a script by Darwin Teilheit and Joseph Hoffman that manages to deal with ideas, characters and some hilarious goings-on without generating one boring second. SAnyone who can't relate to this plot may well be dead. The storyline is simple enough; it's the old one about the soldier who marries his girl and then can't consummate the marriage--measles being the culprit. She ends up living in his house, waiting for him to return; but by the time he arrives, ready to take up viniculture and run the Delicio winery and settle down, she has moved more than a dozen relatives into the house, headed by her mother. And the town of Siutterville--harking to Johann Sutter's being done out of the great gold strike of 1849--has become a war profiteering price-gouging Sutterville Squirrels--mink coats--as common as cloth ones. Ohers in the able cast include delightful Don Defore as Tony's rival, Spring Byington masterfully playing Piper's control-freak schemer of a mother, and other film stalwarts including Fess Parker, Lillian Brson and Frank Sully. Tony finds out what's going on from his friend, nice-guy Jack Kelley, and solves his problem satisfactorily making for one of the most deservedly popular comedies of the 1950s. Credit also needs to go to Frank Skinner for his music. I can't recommend this delightful and memorable little film too highly.

graham clarke Douglas Sirk's reputation lies solely on his expertise within the melodrama genre. But as a director under contract he was afforded the opportunity of directing a wide range of movie genres. His success with these (which included a western, a sword and sandal saga and light musical comedies) was notably unremarkable. They remain watchable, but mainly of interest not for their intrinsic qualities but rather as stepping stones toward Sirk's major contribution to the movies.In his later years Sirk gave an in depth interview to Jon Halliday which was then turned into the book "Sirk on Sirk". In it he discusses in some detail his works from his pre-Hollywood days until the untimely end of his career at the end of the fifties. While he speaks much about his acknowledged successes, he has little to say about the weaker films. "No Room for the Groom" is given but one sentence in the entire book. Sirk says, "I think I had to do it as a tryout for Tony Curtis…… I don't remember anything about it at all". Since he remembers much about movies made long before this, one can only surmise he has blotted this one out from his memory. It's a wise move, since this is simply the worst film Sirk ever put his name to."No Room for the Groom" is a screwball comedy, something Sirk was woefully unequipped for. But its doubtful that even a master of the genre could have pulled it off since the dialog is to put it bluntly, atrocious. The situations which are intended to be humorous are downright irritating. A young Tony Curtis desperate to prove himself in the "tryout", acquits himself valiantly. But its truly a terrible mess of a movie. Other than for Sirk completests, this is one to steer clear of.