Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

ricbigi GO NAKED IN THE WORLD (1961) was born out of time and out of place. This property was developed into a film that has been universally panned by critics and only intermittently enjoyed by connoisseurs and admirers of melodramas. Ranald MacDougall was a talented screenwriter (MILDRED PIERCE, JUNE BRIDE, THE NAKED JUNGLE, among other titles) but had little experience as a director (QUEEN BEE being his most successful effort). GO NAKED IN THE WORLD could have been saved by a director of genius such as Frank Borzage, George Cukor or Douglas Sirk, all three capable of handling this kind of material and transforming it into exciting drama in cinematic terms. MacDougall could not handle his own material. The fact that Charles Walters worked on the film uncredited shows that the production was in trouble. Melodrama as a genre was still quite alive in the late 1950's and early 1960's (LOVE IS A MANY-SPLENDORED THING, PEYTON PLACE, IMITATION OF LIFE, BUTTERFIELD 8 and BACK STREET are proof of that), but it needed to be handled properly in order to be successful. MGM was more interested in promoting BUTTERFIELD 8 (another tragic story about an expensive call-girl being victimized by a hypocritical society), so it let GO NAKED IN THE WORLD sink in its own troubled waters. The production shows several positive qualities: cinematography, production and costume design, for instance. And not all of the acting should be deemed bad. Ernest Borgnine is very effective in his role. Anthony Franciosa was physically right for the part, but his character was poorly conceived, to start with. We cannot understand how such a mature man could let himself be controlled by his father. Perhaps George Chakiris would have given the character the kind of vulnerability it required. Gina Lollobrigida looks absolutely gorgeous, and walks through the picture without getting very involved. No doubt she felt that the film was doomed. Possibly she was given little direction. She does the best she can with her most difficult scenes (the set-up to which she falls victim at the hotel, the desperate dance sequence at the night club in Acapulco), but we sense her emotional distance from the material. Only in her suicide scene she is truly moving. According to her own account, the film was very poorly edited. No matter, I believe that GO NAKED IN THE WORLD can still be enjoyed today. The chance to see Lollobrigida in her prime is already worth my time.

JohnHowardReid Go Naked in the World (1961) is the noir movie you have when you're not expecting a noir twist in the tale. Right up to its mindless, cop-out conclusion, it behaves like an awful, incredible soap opera. We don't believe a word of it for a minute – which makes all the soapy posturing by Franciosa, Lollo and "Marty" Borgnine all the more ridiculous. Admittedly they drew handsome salaries and no doubt had themselves a great time making this soapy. And there are, I confess, a few amusing lines and mildly suspenseful situations along the way (although one of them atop a high-rise building is somewhat negated by obvious back projection). All told, however, Franciosa looks far too mature to be in any way convincing as the gormless innocent abroad. We might also well ask what Hollywood has done to Lollo, as she looks far less enticing here than in her Italian scenarios. For one thing, the photography by Milton Krasner, who has done far better work in the past, is far too harsh. (He tells me that producer Aaron Rosenberg didn't allow him sufficient time to set up the lights). In any case, Lollo's face looks too skeletal. Her clothes don't help either. They don't flatter her figure at all. She looks fat and frumpy. A similar squeeze on production values even make the Acapulco locations seem of little account. And why Rosenberg decided to shoot the movie in CinemaScope is a real mystery. The film is little more than a dull succession of slowly paced dialogue scenes, almost all framed in close-ups which make no use of the wide screen's potentials at all. Even production values seem like humble pie compared to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's usual glossy standards.

Sheila_Beers I liked this film, which struck me as "Camille" in a modern setting with beautiful scenery and wardrobe in color and expressive music in the soundtrack.The main similarity with "Camille" is the theme of "Redemption and Forgiveness" or the lack thereof with tragic results. Like Armand Duval in "Camille," the young man (portrayed by Anthony Franciosa) idealizes the exquisite young woman with whom he has fallen in love. To him, she is beautiful and innocent, and he wants a future with her. Then his father (Ernest Borgnine) reveals the ugly truth, that Giulietta is a high-priced call girl and that he and his middle-aged friends have been her clients.The young man is confused, but he wants to forgive Giulietta for her past and help her make a new start by marrying her. They go away on holiday, but former clients (who are self righteous and who have an unforgiving attitude) come out of the woodwork and refuse to let Giulietta forget her past. As in Camille, the end is tragic, leaving the male characters to consider the parts (good or bad) they played in Giulietta's life.

Chung Mo Sick at home, I chose to watch this despite having no idea what this movie was about. Never heard of it before either.First off, Bourgnine really got into the role of a domineering Greek immigrant architect. He spends quite a bit of time yelling at everyone. His scenes with Franciosa are very good and provided me with a reason to watch the whole thing. Lollobrigida is good but the scenes between her and Franciosa are gooey.The plot is interesting as Lollobrigida's character is revealed to be a high-class hooker leading to Franciosa's character's very confused response and his confkict with his father who happens to be one of her clients. It could have been interesting but the movie opts for cheap moralizing at the end. I have seen the same ending in "bad girl tries to make good" movies from the 1930s.The title is also a cheap attempt to get the male audience to think they might glimpse Lolabrigida nude at some point. Never comes close although there's a wild dissolve / montage that has an erupting champagne bottle superimposed over Lollobrigida face as she's clearly on her back. Hmmm.You can skip it if it ever shows up again.