The review that is currently displayed as the most helpful, written by someone with the nom of Garthbarnes, displays the inability to experience and appreciate film as an art form framed by the culture of its time. This is typical of self-righteous ignorance.
I don't see why the reviewer bothers to watch movies from other eras at all. He would probably be happiest discounting anything produced prior to the emergence of his own personal world-view.
To those who find these comments harsh, I can only say that the reviewer has already punished himself more thoroughly than ever I could. He has embraced myopia and insularity. To my mind, this means he has failed as a human being.
I'm no fan of Doris Day; but this is a delightful sex romp from another era. Cary Grant is always delightful; and Audrey Meadows is a treat. It is also a treat to watch a young John Astin in a deliciously slimy role, which he plays well. Gig Young always strikes me as terribly pathetic, since he plays so well on the screen while his real life was such a disaster. Richard Deacon appears, too; unbilled, I think.
I don't see why the reviewer bothers to watch movies from other eras at all. He would probably be happiest discounting anything produced prior to the emergence of his own personal world-view.
To those who find these comments harsh, I can only say that the reviewer has already punished himself more thoroughly than ever I could. He has embraced myopia and insularity. To my mind, this means he has failed as a human being.
I'm no fan of Doris Day; but this is a delightful sex romp from another era. Cary Grant is always delightful; and Audrey Meadows is a treat. It is also a treat to watch a young John Astin in a deliciously slimy role, which he plays well. Gig Young always strikes me as terribly pathetic, since he plays so well on the screen while his real life was such a disaster. Richard Deacon appears, too; unbilled, I think.