Skragg 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.

Daniel Karlsson This film is quite similar to "Let's make love" by Billy Wilder starring Marilyn Monroe. Just like in that movie, the married men are so boyish one could wonder how they got married in the first place. Of course, that is part of the comedy in this "sex" farce. The contextual environment and the mentioning of the word "sex" are the only aspects that by any means are "dirty" and could have been questionable in the American cinema of the 50s. However, graphically there is nothing arousing except for a short kissing scene. Although the film starts off entertainingly and promising, it drags out way too long and the ending is nothing but corny. To that comes weak dialog without a single memorable line. I would suggest checking out the Monroe film instead, unless one is a fan of Kim Novak.

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.

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?