Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

calvinnme This was a fun Kim Novak film I had never seen. Novak stars as a graduate student who is writing a thesis on "the adolescent sexual fantasies of the adult suburban male." She ends up being hired by four men (three married, one divorced) as a "housekeeper" in an inexpensive but very opulent and large apartment in New York City. The three married men are portrayed by Howard Duff, Howard Morris and Tony Randall. James Garner plays the divorced man. These men commute to work together from Connecticut to New York on the same train. It seems that they frequent the same bar before deciding to go back home to their respective wives. At the bar, Garner witnesses his boss (Roger Addison from Mister Ed) canoodling with his mistress. According to Garner, his boss keeps an apartment in New York where he can entertain his lady before he returns home to his wife.The married commuter men, bored with their wives and each feeling that something is lacking in his respective relationship, begin to fantasize about having an apartment in the city where they can entertain their mistresses as well. As a joke, the three married men enlist Garner in locating a luxurious but cheap apartment. Garner goes to Peter Bowers (Jim Backus), a landlord who is anxious to rent an apartment in his building in which a murder took place. Garner is able to secure a decent price. Novak ends up answering the same ad. After informing her that the apartment has been rented, Garner offers Novak a position as a housekeeper. Much to his surprise, she accepts the position. Elated, the three husbands think that their infidelity dream is going to come to fruition. Garner isn't too keen on the prospect, and he's the only guy who is actually free!. Each of the three husbands tell a white lie to their respective wives that they are taking a course in New York City and as a result, will be spending the night away from home one night a week.Novak takes the opportunity to conduct her research during each evening with each husband. She gets them to reveal why they're unhappy in their relationships and their feelings in general. Each of these sessions are recorded on a tape recorder. In a form of competition, the men begin to tell each other white lies about their evenings with Novak--as a result, each man thinks that the other has slept with her. Eager to keep getting good fodder for her thesis, Novak doesn't correct them. Garner, repulsed by his friends' tall tales about Novak, refuses to visit her for "his night." He finds himself genuinely falling for her.Eventually the wives get suspicious and they seek out to find the truth behind their husbands' evenings in New York City. How does this all work out? Watch and find out.This is very much your typical 60's pseudo-sex comedy that has one foot planted in the production code era and one foot in the budding sexual revolution. Many of them don't work well and seem antiquated today, but the talent of the players involved helps this one along. I'd recommend it.

dougdoepke Too bad comedic talent Jim Garner is wasted in a straight role that a hundred lesser actors could have managed. The movie's only fitfully funny, bordering instead on the plain silly. Three bored suburban husbands get bachelor Garner to rent and stock a love nest, so each can dally one night a week away from pestering wives. Trouble is Garner stocks the snazzy apartment with curvy blonde Novak who's got her own agenda.The two hour run-time unfortunately stretches a difficult storyline that lacks the snap it needs. I suspect that's why the finale is so frenetic. Anyway, as others point out, the material reflects a time when Hollywood sex was all leering innuendo and nothing more, as Rock and Doris proved over and over. And what 50's silliness it is, keeping all the rendezvous's with the curvy Novak utterly chaste, the three husbands preferring talk, repair, and food, respectively. It may be 1962, but restrictive 50's norms still prevail. For old movie fans, it's a good chance to catch familiar faces from the 1940's—Blair, Jeffries, Page, & Duff. However, Novak comes off more as a presence than a personality, her scenes with Garner never getting beyond the contrived stage. Now, I'm ready to suspend disbelief in the interests of entertainment. But, not when contrivances are underlined rather than blended, as is the case here. Maybe snappier pacing could have finessed the bumpy parts. That seems the secret of many sex farces—keep events moving so audiences barely notice. Perhaps with a revised script and better direction-editing, this movie could have managed in Pillow Talk (1959) fashion.

Rastamon41 I saw this movie on TCM, got a copy and I can't stop viewing it. This movie is set in the earlier 1960's when sexual material/theme could be discuss in movies, not like the 1930's through the 1950's where the morality codes kept husband and wife in separate beds, and kissing was limited to six seconds. I enjoy this movie about four men approaching middle age trying to spice up their "Boys' Night Out" with a 24 year old blonde, but they are mostly talk, and the blonde (Kim Novak) realized that they are all talk and played along, except she falls in love with the only bachelor (James Garner) of the group, and he also falls madly in love with her, now the fun start. He wants out, so he can be with her and to marry her, she also want him, but the three other guy have other ideas, they don't want to lose their "24 year blonde" on "Boys' Night Out". She don't want them, she want James Garner, and he want Kim Novak, you get it? I won't spoil it for you, get this movie, you won't regret it.

patricianolan999 This movie is fun to watch. The morals, the clothing, the furniture, the suits, the hairstyles, the hats, the booze, the husbands and wives--are pure 1962. It captures, in a very exaggerated and silly way, an era in American society that will never exist again. It's a time capsule. That's what makes this film so vintage and enjoyable. It's a "sex comedy" without the sex--very popular in those days. It's amazing to think that only five years later, hippies and war protesters were making their mark on society, and films like "Easy Rider" were being created, changing the landscape of Hollywood and pop culture forever. So think of this film as a showpiece of how America was (in a highly exaggerated way) before we learned to question authority and discard many of the foolish rules and regulations we grew up with. Just enjoy it for what it is! It's fun to see Kim's apartment and her wardrobe is cool!