What Every Woman Wants (1962) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Mistaken Identity!
themacleodz16 August 2017
This isn't James Fox, who early in his career was indeed known as William Fox. This William Fox (1911-2008) was a character actor who's credits included "The Lavender Hill Mob" I think a correction is in order!

A mildly amusing but rather feeble comedy that didn't produce many laughs!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
One want excitement. The other one wants respect.
mark.waltz28 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
A mother and daughter find that their marriages are unsatisfactory, the first four reasons of wanting more thrills and spontaneity and the other because she doesn't feel appreciated or respected. Hy Hazell can describe her husband's every move as he comes home every day from work, even to the point of what gift he'll bring her on a certain day. Her daughter, Elizabeth Shepherd, has the opposite issue, finding that her husband doesn't appreciate or pay enough attention to her even though they are fairly newly-married. Indeed William Fox, Hazell's husband, is rather staid and unromantic, even as he tries to be romantic and understanding. Dennis Lotis, Shepherd's husband, would rather be out after work down home with his wife. So it comes as quite a shock when Lotis takes fox out after work and gets him drunk, something that Delights his wife but makes Shepherd upset.

Amusing but calculated comedy about the issues of marriage, not at all related to the popular British play of the same name that had previously been made as a film in 1954. Everything in the film seems to be painted by numbers so the plot is developed, peaks with its conflicts and then resolves itself perfectly with atypical clinch at the end. Like the older couple's marriage, there's absolutely no danger in the place, and the audience is never hold for a minute into thinking that things won't resolve themselves in a simple way. So basically it's saying that not every woman wants the same thing, but at least it's not indicating that the wives want to change their husbands and will stand for nothing less.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Engagingly Awful Sex Farce
richardchatten16 August 2017
A game cast pitches in in this jaw-droppingly stupid but endearingly good-natured sex comedy from that vanished era between the end of the 'Chatterley' ban and the Beatles' first LP.

Playing mother and daughter, foxy Hy Hazell and elegant Elizabeth Shepherd are surrounded by an absurd collection of men wholly unworthy of either of them; and the question posed by the title is never adequately answered.

Ms Hazell's husband William Fox is a marriage guidance councillor who talks too much and whose answer to every crisis is a nice cup of tea (they sleep in twin beds, surprise, surprise). Enter Andrew Faulds (ironically later a bearded firebrand leftwing Labour M.P.) as a reporter for 'The Universal Scandal', who shamelessly lies to and manipulates the happy couple so that he can embellish the resulting friction between them to sell papers. (Happily we now have the Independent Press Standards Organisation, so our tabloids could never possibly get away with that sort of thing today.)

Even by Danzigers' standards the music score is awful; noisy, obtrusive and stupid, and thus perfectly complements the action.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
England Swings Like a Pendulum Do
boblipton15 August 2017
In the 1960s, there were a bunch of comedies about the breakdown of marriages and their saving, which edged into risqué situations. The Danziger Brothers got into the act with this movie, in which stolid, stodgy marriage counselor William Fox finally sends his wife, Hy Hazell, and his daughter fleeing for something a little more interesting... and in the end, nothing happens and things settle back into their wonted routines.

You can tell it's a comedy because of the xylophone music, but there isn't much else to it. Given the impending breakdown in postwar norms with the Swinging Sixties on its doorsteps, this one is pretty much a dud.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Lame Farce
malcolmgsw4 September 2017
This is à very lame farce which does not even live up to the double entendre in the title.It highlights matters which were in the public gave at the time,when the Sunday papers dug the dirt on prominent personalities.It fails to raise e en a titter,and id basically à waste of everybodys time and talent.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed