dougdoepke
Prosperous comic-strip artist Jack Lemmon marries party girl Lisi with surprising results that put him on trial for murder.Spotty film that wrings a few laughs out of its performers, especially Mayehoff. I agree with those who find the final cut too long. The scenes with Lisi's kissy-face are repetitious long after we've gotten the idea. This is not one of Lemmon's showcases since the laughs are mainly tossed to Mayehoff and Terry-Thomas. Looks also like director Quine was uninspired by a poorly edited screenplay that doesn't catch fire until the last. (For contrast, catch his bouncy Operation Mad Ball {1957} with Lemmon and Ernie Kovacs.)Critics lambaste this film for what they see as a misogynistic subtext. After all, the all-male jury responds heartily to Lemmon's disappear-your-wife appeal. But more closely considered, Lemmon's is not an appeal against women; it's an appeal against the constraints of marriage, particularly for prosperous men who can afford bachelor desires. Besides the staging is much too silly to take seriously. That jury segment is more like a pipe dream that conveniently omits those ties that sustain most marriages. On the other hand, the possible gay part with Terry-Thomas is sneakily present, even if papered over at the last moment with Lemmon's "man". After all, this was the repressed part of the 1960's, an extension of the strait-jacketed 1950's. So, it's not surprising that monogamy and, more covertly, homosexuality would surface in a transitional year like 1965.Overall, the film's more like a period piece than an enduring chuckle-fest, and not one of Lemmon's comedy standouts.
gavin6942
A man who has set up the perfect lifestyle for himself (Jack Lemmon) makes the mistake of marrying while drunk... and his fantasies of murder are used against him.Jack Lemmon in a leading role without a co-lead? I think it certainly works in this particular film, where he plays a popular cartoonist with a big of an imagination. And with his sinister, cynical butler (Terry-Thomas) encouraging his worst whims? Even better! The movie is fun, funny and interesting. It takes some odd turns and relies on legal nonsense for the plot to function. Apparently, he cannot get divorced without grounds... but somehow they overlook that he was drunk when the marriage license was signed, which should invalidate it. And the trial scene later on... wow.A lot could also be said about male and female interaction, and how women are portrayed here. It is not often in the most positive light. How seriously do we take that message?
Steven Ramirez
'How to Murder Your Wife' is an absolute gem from the early 1960s. It's also a time capsule since most people today cannot relate to the mores of that time. The premise of this story is that women are beautiful and conniving while men are "feeble-minded idiots." Consequently women can only be happy in marriage while men can only be happy being single.To me, this was a perfect vehicle for Jack Lemmon who in the character of Stanley Ford is surprisingly physical. Also it's a great companion to 'Lover Come Back,' 'A Guide for the Married Man' and the darker 'The Apartment'—also starring Jack Lemmon.I highly recommend this movie. After almost half a century it still holds up.
rixrex
A fine-looking period film that's got all the trappings of a miserable chauvinistic viewpoint of 100 years earlier. Even for the 1960s (and I do recall the 1960s), the social view of this film is out-of-touch, and worse, it's presented as comedy, so some viewers say it shouldn't be criticized. That's bull.I felt embarrassed while watching this that such fodder would make it out to the public even in 1965 and star the great Jack Lemmon too. After all, the idea of murdering your wife because she crimps your style is ludicrous, but for a comedy, and as presented here, it can be acceptable. However the courtroom antics are beyond the pale even for a comedy, and then the later message of happily married bliss is still presented in an outdated view of society, and I mean of 1960s society, not modern society.Apparently the writers of this so-called comedy-satire never left Jr High, that is, of the year 1890.
AD
