Watchable, faintly amusing adaptation of Daniel Defoe's novel "Moll Flanders", chronicling the sexual misadventures of an orphan-turned-servant girl in the 18th century who marries her employer's foolish son and quickly becomes a widow. Working as a maid to a titled lady, she is determined to find a wealthy husband, but instead finds herself attracted to a suave highway robber. Director Terence Young and a solid assemblage of talents can't quite breathe life into this British-made comedy, much of it seeming like a distaff "Tom Jones". There are lively moments along the way, although Kim Novak just squeaks by as Moll (a good sport rather than a star performer, she's upstaged by the randy supporting cast). The production is meant to be plush and the screenplay is meant to be bawdy, yet both are disappointing. Novak and Richard Johnson were briefly married in real life. ** from ****

This could have been a great movie--taking, as it does, a delightfully farcical approach to Defoe's novel. Moll is an innocent and relatively virtuous young woman, who finds herself in sexual jeopardy again and again--as she bounces from one depraved environment to another. Lots of self-conscious references to Tom Jones, which had been an unqualified success just a few years before. Sadly, where Tom Jones was anchored by Albert Finney, an actor of impeccable skill and astonishing range, Kim Novak is simply not up to the task. She is wholly out of her depth here; her only ability is looking pretty and being a good sport about being placed in various kinds of dishevelment. Still, despite her inability to project any complexities of character (a good woman struggling to maintain some kind of honour, and whose greatest temptation is to marry money rather than the con-man she really cares for), the movie's not bad. Lansbury, Sanders, DeSica, Palmer, Parker, Griffith, and (especially) Leo McKern are wonderful--so good the movie is still at B or B+ level, despite the relative emptiness at the top. BTW It's not surprising that Johnson and Novak didn't stay married for long. He was so far superior to her in acting ability, there must have been a slew of professional tension there...

This movie has to be one that shows off Kim Novak at her most luscious. It's too bad there wasn't enough showcasing! It's also too bad that this movie was made as a COMEDY unlike the newer PBS version. The only consolation, once again, is the luscious Kim Novak.

Does the title leave us in any doubt? This is a film in which every man in Georgian England wants to get into bed with Kim Novak. Well - I can understand that.As a matter of fact very few of the men succeed. Although Novak looks as gorgeous as ever, if you're expecting to see anything, uh, hot, you'll be disappointed. And you'll have every right to be. A film with so little else going for it really ought to make the most of its centrepiece.All the same she's sufficiently charming to make the film sort of enjoyable to watch most of the time. Moll is not so innocent as she pretends but more innocent than she thinks - she's hard not to like (and, of course, lust after). Some of the other characters are surprisingly well played. Angela Lansbury and Vittorio di Sica are rather touching as the loving but worldly couple with a tenuous toehold on the aristocracy, and Leo McKern does the rogue's sidekick schtick better than anyone else.The problem is the script. There's not enough wit or spirit to make a comedy, and it's not played seriously enough to make us care about Moll's plight - it doesn't seem important where or with whom she ends up. There's not even, to be honest, enough story to fill two hours.Still, you may just get some pleasure out of this movie, if you're in a tolerant mood. The question is thus: is Kim Novak enough to put you in a tolerant mood? For me, the answer is yes.