“A Guide for the Married Man” (1967) features a parade of comedic talents, but does it deliver genuine laughs? This review delves into the film’s concept, execution, and whether its star-studded cast can salvage a potentially flawed premise. The film employs a guest star-heavy format, reminiscent of Michael Todd’s “Around the World in 80 Days” (1956), where celebrity cameos aim to compensate for potential shortcomings in the plot or pacing.
The movie showcases a continuous stream of famous faces in minor roles, a trend perhaps epitomized by films like “Is Paris Burning?” where even the smallest parts were filled by recognizable actors. This approach reached new heights with Charles Feldman’s “Casino Royale” (1967), where even directors made cameo appearances.
The story revolves around Walter Matthau, playing a husband contemplating infidelity. His friend, Robert Morse, attempts to dissuade him by illustrating the complexities of extramarital affairs through a series of cautionary tales enacted by various guest stars. Morse advises Matthau that a married man’s duty is to protect his wife’s feelings by ensuring she never discovers the affair.
While some of these vignettes, featuring talents like Sid Caesar and Phil Silvers, offer moments of amusement, the film largely underutilizes its impressive cast. Matthau and Morse, despite their comedic prowess, are relegated to delivering exposition.
Instances like the sequence with Terry Thomas and Jayne Mansfield, or the one featuring Lucille Ball and Art Carney, provide fleeting entertainment. However, the film struggles to create a cohesive narrative. The stars appear, perform their brief comedic bits (Mansfield as a stereotypical blonde, Benny as a miser), and disappear, resulting in a disappointing waste of their collective potential. The film relies heavily on established comedic personas, offering little new or innovative.
In conclusion, “A Guide for the Married Man” suffers from an over-reliance on guest appearances at the expense of a strong, well-developed plot. While it provides occasional laughs, its scattered structure and underutilization of talent ultimately detract from its overall impact. The film may appeal to viewers interested in seeing a collection of famous comedians in brief skits, but those seeking a cohesive and engaging cinematic experience may be left wanting more. It raises the question of whether star power alone can carry a movie, or if a solid foundation of story and character development is essential for lasting success.
