Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

disgusting, overrated, pointless

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

A mainstream movie with sex in the title, even pre code didn't do that. I could only find two films which precede Sex and the Single Girl; Sex (1920) and The Opposite Sex (1956). Although I imagine after this a movie having with "Sex" in a movie's title wasn't such a big deal but here they sure take advantage of it with the animated opening which puts a lot of emphasis on the word 'SEX' in big capital letters. Perhaps the movie may have something interesting to say on its subject with Natalie Wood playing a psychologist who is a 23 old virgin (which characters in the film viewed as a compliment) or something about sleazy journalism but the movie becomes too dull to bother deciphering. From what I've seen I get the impression that Richard Quine is a lousy director. He's done a number of movies with great casts and interesting premises but are let down by flat, uninspired direction. The opening scene of Sex and the Single Girl is a gem with 1930's comedy actor Edward Everett Horton giving a speech on how proud he is of his publication becoming "the filthy rag it is today". Sadly it goes downhill from there. Even with the movie's madcap finale it is hard to care what's going on.Henry Fonda was ashamed of this movie stating in an interview that he agreed to star in the film as a comprise to do a box office picture so he could indulge in doing movies which interested him such as 12 Angry Men and The Ox Bow Incident. There are worse movies you can do but why did he hate it so much? I doubt he would have an issue with appearing in a sex comedy as he himself starred in the sexually charged comedy The Lady Eve years earlier or is it because of the movie's sleaze factor? Who knows...Although I would be lying if I didn't say I still got some superficial enjoyment out of the film. I am a sucker for the 60's aesthetic with the bright, colourful sets (the stocking factory is very amusing) and the cool, breezy music by Neal Hefti. Likewise I do like the contrast between two generations present between Tony Curtis & Natalie Wood and Henry Fonda & Lauren Bacall. Sex and the Single Girl could have been a neo-screwball gem. In the end it's a movie which looks appealing from the outside but is hollow on the inside.

Really, what's not to like? I'd watch Natalie Wood read the phone book, and this flick left me wondering why Tony Curtis wasn't a bigger star, and why Henry Fonda and Lauren Bacall were relegated to second-tier parts (though their roles were prominent).Wood plays Helen Gurley Brown, author of the hit book of the film's name, and Curtis plays a magazine editor of a successful, seedy magazine that thrives on digging up dirt on people. Curtis sets his sights on scandalizing the virgin Brown. The laughs are many and frequent, with numerous subtle and not-so-subtle puns sprinkled liberally throughout. On the not-so-subtle side,the opening scene with magazine employees meeting with the CEO in the Board Room continually plays off the concept of the magazine seeking to feed off the lowest common denominator of human indecency. Another example occurred as cars raced along the highway, a sign noted that the highway's extension would be opening in December 1960. That was struck through and replaced with dates in 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964, all struck through and ultimately replaced with something like "to be determined". I can connect with that jab even today.Watching the movie caused me to research the 1962 book. Interestingly, the movie was loosely inspired by the book. And I mean loosely. The book is somewhat of a how-to guide, whereas the movie is a fictional imagining of the life of a much-younger Helen Gurley Brown, who was 40 at the publication of the book but 23 in the movie. Likely the movie's title was largely intended to parlay off the book's popularity. Good marketing.It was also interesting and melancholy to note that the longtime delightful bit-part actress who played Emma Brand/Watson on the Andy Griffith Show, Cheerio Meredith, and had a minor role here, died on release day, 12/25/64. Burt Mustin also had a bit part. I always find it interesting to see actors such as Meredith and Mustin, who I mostly know from varying TV roles.As usual, I loved seeing the sets and 60s style. I'm fascinated with the decade and enjoy seeing society's attitudes, fashions, and ideals in that era. This film brings that to life in spades.

This film is a product of its times. In 1964, film standards and society's standards in general had changed dramatically from the so-called 'good old days'. Folks were now talking more openly about sex and the success of Helen Gurley Brown's book "Sex and the Single Girl" led to this completely fictionalized film of the same name. While Natalie Wood supposedly plays Brown, this is a movie version--one that looks gorgeous, not scary. And in this film she is a writer AND psychotherapist. Her nemesis is the editor of a sleazy rag (Tony Curtis) and he wants to get to know her better in order to write some sexy exposee. At the same time, his neighbors (Henry Fonda and Lauren Bacall) fight constantly and they give him an idea--pretend to be his neighbor and see Dr. Brown for therapy--and eventually seduce her.This film tries to be edgy and the word sex if used 1832413 times. However, if you strip away all the edginess, you are left with a bad film--with a plot that seems amazingly dated and silly. Additionally, the dialog is equally horrible--ridiculous and dated. An embarrassing film that tries to be hip but just seems dated, boorish and a bit sleazy.

The sixties sex comedy can be considered a genre into itself. This entry into that franchise holds lots of promise at the outset and includes some wonderfully ironic comedy slants and in-jokes. But the impostor/deception angle that propels the film has been done often before and much better. Soon the film seems to come off as merely a framework in which Fran Jefferies gets to warble and wiggle at predetermined intervals.It's no stretch for Tony Curtis to portray a sleazy writer for a bottom-of-the-barrel tabloid magazine; he inhabits the role well as this is familiar territory for him. Natalie Wood- who could fall face- first into a septic treatment plant and still emerge luminous- tries hard with her character. But I can't decide if this material is wrong for her, or is it the other way around. If for no other reason than perhaps they "owed someone a picture", Lauren Bacall and Henry Fonda are inexplicably present to portray the bickering long-married neighbor couple. It's hard to imagine that either of these giants would be here by choice.And nothing clears up misunderstandings and solves problems like a good old car-chase scene! There's a right way (and a right reason) to shoehorn such a spectacle into a movie, but you won't find that here. The result is a juvenile, silly, and pointless finale. A running sight gag involving pretzels is the only ingredient that makes it even slightly amusing. They're crisp and salty and satisfying...everything this movie isn't. Too bad.