Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Ricardo Daly The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

JasparLamarCrabb A feather weight comedy boasting a large cast but precious few laughs. Four men (three henpecked husbands and James Garner) rent a New York City crash pad with a plan for each of them to entertain women once a week. The apartment is sublet to student Kim Novak (as a PhD candidate?), who proceeds to study the four as part of her sociological thesis. It's a slim plot and not much happens save for actors like Tony Randall, Howard Morris and Howard Duff making fools of themselves over Novak. The film is not helped by the fact that Novak (in a role screaming out for the likes of Judy Holliday or even Doris Day) has very little chemistry with Garner. It's directed by Michael Gordon and the script was worked on by Ira Wallach, who would later co-write the very witty HOT MILLIONS. The cast also includes the likes of Patti Page, Jim Backus, Janet Blair, Oskar Homolka, Jessie Royce Landis, Anne Jeffreys and Fred Clark. There's a throwaway cameo by Zsa Zsa Gabor.

Scoval71 Just looking at the lovely Kim Novak is enough for any man (or woman). She most convincingly plays her part in this comedy romp from 1962, a very dated 1962 film at that, although the premise and, really, the events, are timeless. Who can ever tire of her beauty. James Garner was so handsome in his youth as well. We also see the delightful Anne Jeffreys. I enjoyed this comedy and recommend it. It is a rather pleasant not so over the top comedy and an enjoyable film. I repeat again, whatever Kim Novak is in a movie, she brings not only her spectacular beauty but a marvelous acting ability. The dresses she wears in this movie are terribly outdated, but I recommend the movie for one and all.

moonspinner55 Group of wolfish businessmen--only one of whom is not married--rent a bachelor-pad for fun nights away from their wives and hire Kim Novak to be their resident play-thing; she agrees, but only because she has plans of her own. Smarmy set-up, surprisingly cynical for 1962, and ultimately a laughless sex farce. The whole scenario is rather offensive, and while the film doesn't exactly push the envelope for bedroom comedies, it's full of limp pseudo-smut, poshly-furnished and yet depressingly lascivious. Kim Novak tries to overcome the situation with her heavy-lidded, low-keyed classiness, but there's not much of a character here and she ends up just being a fashion plate; she's here to be ogled. James Garner is, once again, a handsome hole in the screen. NO STARS from ****

bmacv Coy little foreshocks of the coming sexual revolution rumbled through Hollywood when Camelot was in sway. One of them, Boys' Night Out, is a fitfully amusing sex comedy in which (it's of course understood) there is no sex.Four flannel-suited soldiers of commerce commute from Connecticut to work in Manhattan; three of them – Tony Randall, Howard Duff and Howard Morris – have wives and families while the fourth, James Garner, is divorced. They stay in town every Thursday, their big night out which generally consists of their sitting around nursing beers because they can't think of anything better to do.Fast forward: They pool their allowances to share the costs of a swank bachelor pad equipped with Kim Novak (who, out of her mauve phase, looks washed out in the bold ‘60s colors she sports). They divvy up the nights of the week to play playboys. But far from the full-service playmate they expect, Novak's doing post-graduate field work in sociology. (Her thesis: `Adolescent Fantasies Among Adult Suburban Males.') She manages to keep the evenings chaste – and her research a secret – by giving the guys what they really want: a chance to bitch about the job (Randall), to potter around fixing things (Duff), to eat the foods he's deprived of at home (Morris). Only Garner wants something more, because he's fallen for her.No flies on the three wives, however, who hire a detective to find out what their husbands are really up to in town. At this point the movie devolves into full-tilt farce, pitifully lacking in laughs. But the whole thing is dispiriting. That love-nest, for instance, in all its garish bad taste, exposes a sheltered, Hugh-Hefnerish idea of luxurious decadence. And the lives that the men try to escape from, only to return to, seem bleached of any satisfaction: they get to cut loose only on the train shuttling them from their humdrum jobs to their humdrum wives (who, meanwhile, stay home dieting and drinking). Isn't it disingenuous, then, when the movie presents its neatly wrapped resolution – everybody back home in the proper bed – as if it were the happiest of endings in the happiest of all possible worlds?