JohnHowardReid Make that 7.5! As might be expected of a Jerry Lewis vehicle, "The Ladies Man" (sic, no apostrophe) is a very broad, slapstick farce. What is not expected, however, is the movie's gorgeous settings and its exquisite color photography. In fact, as might be anticipated, the photography and the sets are far more pleasing than the "comedy". True, the Lewis film starts well with a good (if none too well-timed) gag borrowed from W.C. Fields, and then moves to a well- timed graduation ceremony with Lewis delightfully exploding through the serried ranks of be-gowned graduates. After this delightful intro, we have to wait for near the end of the movie when Lewis arrives in Hollywood to wreck havoc on the brilliant $500,000 set for which the art directors should have won an Academy Award. Incredibly, they were not even nominated! I regard it as the best single set ever created for a motion picture. Also on hand are no less than 31 gorgeously attired ladies, including former child star, Gloria Jean. Needless to say, the dress designer wasn't nominated for an award either. Never mind, at least Gloria and Miss Traubel do get to sing a couple of songs. Like "The Bellboy", this film is episodic and disjointed, but it does have some splendid interludes with George Raft and Harry James (playing themselves). Lewis' direction is much more sure and competent than his previous essays behind the camera. Sure there are still mediocre scenes that he allows to run too long. And worse still, there are scenes so nauseating that they should have been left on the cutting-room floor! Needless to say, as often happens with movies that offer a mixed bag that varies from the sublime to the pits, box-office takings of $3.1 million were somewhat less than the negative cost, and Lewis was never again given a budget of this size to play around with.

daviddaphneredding I am being beneficient and/or munificent to give this movie a three-star rating. While as a boy I started seeing some of his first movies (e.g.-Jumping Jacks and Scared Stiff) and almost never missed a one of his movies all through my teen years, and was always taken with his patented laugh and very amusing antics, this movie was, I felt, a disappointment and a anomaly to most of his movies. While I did like seeing and hearing Harry James and His Orchestra, and while I liked seeing George Raft, the movie was basically a letdown. It was boring: it virtually had no plot and the acting was not of any great quality. If boredom is ever recommendable, this movie would singularly qualify for that. Again, I always liked Jerry Lewis', but this movie is, again, for many reasons, one of his worst.

Gary This is one of the worst comedies I have ever seen. (How in the world could anyone rave about this thing???) I like some Jerry Lewis comedies. Not having seen this one I looked forward to it. My family and I sat and starred at the screen and, I think, chuckled maybe three times.Spectacular sets, surreal scenes, and Jerry's exaggerated facial expressions do not a funny movie make. The opening scene in which Jerry graduates from junior college and is jilted by his supposed girl friend could have been gold in the hands of Chaplin or Keaton. Heck, even in a Martin & Lewis comedy it would have worked. But Jerry Lewis overacts beyond belief.The scenes involving "baby" are so forced and overdone that what laughs might be there are lost.

monsieurzy Sure, it's spotty with its gags (what Lewis film isn't?) but it looks fantastic and the gags that work are hilarious...good sight gags with Buddy Lester, some funny surreal stuff (the lipstick on the painting, the butterfly collection and that great white room sequence with Harry James's Band and Miss Cartilage)..Lewis's reactions to "Baby" are a scream...even the opening titles bit with LOOK magazine is funny... ..downsides...well, the ad libbing with Kathleen Freeman doesn't always work and the serious story with Pat Stanley could be excised (for the better), but who cares?...this and Nutty Professor are definitely his best