Richard Chatten 'The Perfect Furlough' is two-thirds of the way through before it finally stops wasting our time and the romance we've been anticipating all along between real-life lovebirds Tony Curtis & Janet Leigh finally blooms; although there are still the usual irksome misunderstandings to be surmounted before the final clinch.Two decades after this film Blake Edwards returned to glossy sex farce availing himself of the far more relaxed censorship of the seventies, eighties and nineties, but with not much more stimulating results. Shot in colour & 'scope to compensate for the fact that although set in Paris, the production never leaves California; there's the usual "ooh la la" nonsense about how romantic Paris is, and plenty of talk about sex, but none actually takes place during the film's running time, and most of the narrative tension derives from the film's attempts to sound raunchy while still adhering to Eisenhower-era censorship. When one of the characters is revealed to be pregnant the audience (but not the cast), for example, is already fully aware that the young lady was already safely married at the time of conception.Although given little to do, Elaine Stritch shines in the sort of role Eve Arden would have played in the forties.

bobsmith6040 I'm a fan of Tony Curtis so obviously I am more inclined to like this movie than not. To be completely fair this movie is not his best effort and in fact it is probably one of the worst movies of this period of his acting career. That's not to say it's a bad movie because it is still a decent effort and a pretty good comedy with good performances and OK writing.It is also worth watching this movie because it is one of the films he co-starred in with his real life wife Janet Leigh. In fact Jamie Lee Curtis was born around the time of this movie so that's an interesting piece of trivia for film buffs I guess.All in all it's a pretty forgettable film and not one of the greats but if you can get your hands on a copy or catch it on TV it's definitely a decent way to get a few laughs and it's worth watching as a silly comedy that holds up pretty well after all these years.

weezeralfalfa The script of this light romantic comedy has lots of problems. First, the Colonel points to the Arctic Ocean on a map when describing the location of the 104 men suffering acute depression due to the long time(7 months) since they have had any female companionship. If true, it should be a job for the navy. If the radar installation is actually on one of the nearby Canadian islands, it should be manned by the Canadian military. If it is actually in northern Alaska, then things are OK. Second, why did it take 104 men to service this radar installation. If it is on land, I would think, say, half a dozen men would be adequate. Besides, most of the men seem to have little or nothing to do. Thus, the excuse that furloughs cannot be granted, because every man is needed all the time looks phony. I suspect the cost of transporting them out and back in is the real reason! The idea of one man going on a 3 week long date with a movie star to supposedly satisfy the desires of 103 lonely bored men for female companionship is simply absurd, and that is the basis for the rest of the film.Why would a married Sandra(Linda Crystal) or her husband agree to this arrangement? Sandra tries to come up with an excuse not to do it, but doesn't want to reveal, even to her agent, that she is married. Paul(Tony Curtis) seems to be having minimal fun on his supposed perfect furlough. He complains that he is always chaperoned and hounded. He has no freedom to be alone with Sandra. At a party, she danced with other men, but not him, even though her initial impression of him was very positive. They have spent little time in each other's company. Then, after several weeks, she tells him she's married.When the doctor was called to investigate Sandra's apparent cold or flu, he announces that her problem actually is that she is pregnant. Why would a doctor called to investigate a cold think to look for a pregnancy? How could he definitively determine this in 1958 just by a cursory examination, unless the pregnancy was well along, in which case, Paul couldn't possibly be the father. Vicki(Janet Leigh) is the victim of a false rumor that she also is pregnant, possibly also by Paul. Well, if so, this must have happened within the last couple of weeks, with Paul heavily guarded. Instead of denying the rumor, she agrees with it, in hopes that playboy Paul will agree to marry her, using this pregnancy as an excuse for the benefit of others. Of course, Paul will know it's phony and she will have to give up her career in the army.There is occasional humor here and there, but not enough to justify sitting through this.

richard-1787 This isn't a perfect movie. It's unlikely to end up on anyone's ten best list in any category. But it's a perfectly enjoyable way to wile away 90 minutes.Briefly, it's the story of an oversexed serviceman, Curtis, who manages to win a three-week furlough in Paris with an Argentine bombshell-movie "actress". That's the first part of the movie, and it's pretty obvious.In the second half, Curtis' character falls in love with Janet Leigh's character, an army psychologist who has been sent to Paris to keep Curtis' character from having sex with the bombshell or otherwise embarrassing the American military while on furlough in Paris. There is actual chemistry between the two - not a surprise, as they evidently married after making this movie - and the scenes between the two of them are more than just slapstick by the book.The ending is obvious, but what you would expect from a 1950s romantic comedy.Unlike a lot of other American movies set in Paris in the 1950s, this one doesn't do much with the location. But that's fine.Not a great movie, certainly, but not a bad one.