Boys' Night Out (1962)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Please don't spend money on this.

Fantastic!

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.

Idiotic film where 4 accountants take the ideal apartment and soon loan it out to Kim Novak.With the exception of "The Eddy Duchin Story," and "Jean Eagles," Novak was never much of an actress and it is not surprising that she made an early exit from Hollywood.In this film, unknown to the guys, Novak is a sociologist whose thesis is the fantasy ideas of suburban males. I majored in sociology but this totally is a new one for me even to comprehend.The picture is just inane with a several minute fight scene between the women and Ms. Novak as the plot unravels.Not even an all-star cast can save this. William Bendix is literally wasted as a bartender and Howard Duff, as one of the guys, seems so out of place that it's literally pathetic to watch.Some laughs are provided by Jesse Royce Landis, who portrays the mom of Jim Garner here. Naturally, as Garner is the only single guy here, romantic sparks soon fly between the both of them. Nevertheless, the plot is too foolish for anything great to come out of this tedious, boring film.A complete waste of talent and energy.

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.

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?