Venere in pigiama

Just watched this with Mom. We both liked this early '60s comedy about four men (three married, one divorced who lives with his mom) who sublet an apartment for themselves and a woman who secretly is studying the sexual habits of middle-aged men like them. It stars Kim Novak, James Garner, Tony Randall, Howard Morris, and Howard Duff. There are also many familiar character actors from various classic movies and TV shows. Silly and funny in spots but mostly pretty enjoyable for what it is. So we say Boys' Night Out is worth a look.

No offense to some of you, but I very seldom agree with that whole "It was a simpler time" thinking, because EVERY decade is full of people saying that about every PREVIOUS decade! (And they're probably always partly right and partly wrong.) And in a way, this movie is evidence of that - it's full of characters analyzing (and over-analyzing) subjects (like why the men want to fool around - which of course COULD BE because they just WANT TO). And of course, it's full of the whole "Men from Mars, Women from Venus" subject, and of course, "Kinsey"-type sex surveys. So as one person on the message boards (partially) says, it's a case of "The more things change...." Luckily, this movie makes light of all these things. There's a line toward the end where Jessie Royce Landis makes a reference to "the Kennedys getting elected." This always reminds me of the difference between a movie MADE in the early ' 60s and any given one SET in the early ' 60s - the latter OFTEN has Kennedy references (and many OTHER topical ones) squeezed in EDGEWISE, instead of A FEW, worked in CASUALLY, the way it's done here. Of the supporting actors, I think William Bendix had the best part, as the bartender with the friendly advice for James Garner.

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 The dresses she wears in this movie are terribly outdated, but I recommend the movie for one and all.

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!

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.