What a beautiful movie!

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.

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.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Boys Night Out (whose title now sounds like a double entendre) was one of a number of early sixties comedies that show how American culture was shifting even before the advent of the later sixties counter-culture. James Garner plays Fred Williams, a handsome and weak-willed young guy henpecked by his mother and bullied by his married buddies on the commuter train to Manhattan. Kim Novak plays Cathy (do we ever learn her last name?), a sociology grad student whose dependence on her father-figure of a professor mirrors Fred's on his mom. Fred and his married pals, who want to have affairs on the side, rent a garishly decorated apartment (vacated by a call girl) and "trick" Cathy into renting it. Cathy, whose dissertation is about the "lives of married men," takes the bait for her own reasons. All the men have problematic (and essentially infantile) relationships with women, including their wives. The wives, on the other hand, are grimly domestic and shrewdly aware of their husbands deficiencies. Looking at the film in retrospect, we can see that Women's Lib is just around the corner. It turns out that the married men simply (or not) want a woman who will listen to their self-centered monologues and Cathy adroitly manages their visits. But she and Fred fall in love and both show that they have the capacity to change, defy their parental figures, and enter into an adult relationship. Even though Fred doesn't know if Cathy's having sex with his friends or not, he wants to marry her. The other couples can only see women in the roles of wives or prostitutes, so naturally they condemn Cathy--but Fred doesn't categorize Cathy, he just loves her. Fred (and his mom, who comes around and appreciates Cathy for who she is) represent the future, where there will be a more nuanced attitude towards marriage and relationships. Cathy's an educated and urbane young woman with great clothes (designed by Novak herself)—she'll marry Fred and things won't ever be the same. As the film ends, we see that the men are forced to include the women in their forays into the city at night. They're no longer shutting their wives out (and then complaining about them). Cathy's part of their suburban group now, but she's wearing a snazzy black leather jacket and is obviously still a bit of a hip outsider. There may still be a few more bombshells she's waiting to drop. Ostensibly this film is about the "mind of the married man," but in reality it's all about what women want.

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.

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.

If your movie tastes are regulated by the PC Police, then forget this movie. On the other hand, if your sensibilities have reached the adult level, you will really like this movie.This is a story about three guys (yes, two were married) who were in a rut and thought that an affair would be just the ticket to put some juice back into their lives. They find that an affair is far more difficult than they had imagined. Really funny.I will not spoil the plot for you, but no one is harmed, and the plot is hilarious.A well done comedy and a great example of what movies were before the computer geeks started overwhelming the story lines with so called special effects.