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?

Viewers who saw this film in theaters when it opened must have needed sunglasses during the opening credits! While Day sings the corny title tune (augmented by a funny echo effect at an appropriate time) the camera closes in on her and Widmark's faces while driving. Day is bright enough already, but tan Widmark smiles and out comes a huge row of startling white teeth that smear the screen with light! Maybe it's just unusual to see this actor so happy as he's definitely out of his element here. The pair play a couple who are knee-deep in plans to adopt a baby, but don't find it so easy. Eventually, through some dumb plot contrivances, Widmark thinks he has fathered a baby outside his marriage and it causes even more plot contrivances and mayhem. Widmark does the best he can in this new genre for him and Day is always interesting, but they're affected by this subpar material. Young is a breath of amusement as a carousing next door neighbor who already has a few kids and whose wife (Fraser) is continually pregnant. Amusing as he is, his attitudes are not particularly admirable. Fraser clocks a lot of screen time but has little to work with and suffers from inconsistent pregnancy pillows. (She does get to wear one show-stopping gown at a party.) Lovely Scala appears as an adoption agent, but her role is mostly decorative and at times insulting (to her.) Tedium builds and several annoying and unreal situational comedy moments ensue with only a smattering of laughs nestled in. Fortunately, the underused and always welcome Wilson shows up as another adoption agent and puts a tad more life back into the picture. One surprising thing about this movie is the level of language, subject matter and entendre present for its time. A lot of the early dialogue is pretty frank and suggestive for 1958, but these sophisticated traits are undone by leering, unfunny gags and a lot of inane character choices. The whole thing (aside from the credits) is filmed inside on a stage and it shows. Kelly does not display any mastery of the camera (there's no one dancing in front of it to hold our attention this time, Gene), nor does the story hang together in terms of character development. One minute Widmark is lovingly devoted to Day, the next he's off with another woman. Nothing in this film is ever fully proved or discussed, either. It's all a bunch of drawn conclusions. Only people who want to see Widmark in a comedy or see him smile (which he doesn't really do again after the titles roll) and devout fans of Day or Young will want to sit through this.

Maybe I'm a bit protective of my favorite actress, but I have seen one too many movies where Doris Day is intentionally deceived by the man she loves. Usually Miss Day is dooped in light-hearted fun, but I almost felt as victimized as she in "Tunnel of Love." I did not enjoy this movie one bit.

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.