Alicia I love this movie so much

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

urthpainter As I've gotten older, I've begun to realize that the saying, 'not like it used to be' is a fallacy with regard to music and visual media. The truth is there has always been a ton of bad work, it's just that the lens of history whittles out the chaff. What's left? The great, the good, and at times the really really bad. One has to really look for the average to just below average films - generally to fill out some niche of fanaticism regarding an actor or director.Why watch this movie? The Jonny Carson scene is amazing. First, he plays himself, but actually acts and performs - and that youthful look! This scene should be a clinic on how you direct a talk show host. This scene is generally butchered in more recent films.The film stock - my goodness these colors! I will never understand why this saturated film look is lost. The astonishing primary colors and shining eyes of the performers - this movie has a absolute visual glow.Acting is awful. And some of the casting - listening to these shrieking voices will make you scramble for the volume remote just to end the pain. And yet...The numbers (music performances) are pretty good, certainly entertaining - and back to my original point; this isn't a good movie, but it so much better than contemporary bad films. Films that actually bring nothing to the table. Wow, maybe they don't make them like they used to?intentionally over rated 6/10

arsportsltd There were two popular "Connie's" in the 1960's: Warner Bros. had Connie Stevens and would showcase the lovely star in a series of films and across town MGM had Connie Francis and Leo the Lion showcased the songstress in a series of light, fluffy comedies that do no harm but are not so great either: Follow The Boys, When The Boys Meet The Girls and a true classic Where The Boys Are that featured Paula Prentiss, Jim Hutton, Yvette Mimieux and Dolores Hart ( who would leave showbiz to be a cloistered Catholic Nun). Looking For Love reprises the cast of Where The Boys Are- Prentiss , Mimieux, Hamilton who by the time this film was made had become major stars and co starred Connie Francis with Jim Hutton who had been on a lengthy suspension at MGM and did this film as his release valve from a ironclad MGM contract. Funny to see tall Jim Hutton in romantic clinches with the petite Ms. Francis.Note MGM had two other stars under contract George Peppard and Richard Chamberlain, both immensely famous and likely escaped being cast in this film due to their respective standings at MGMDavid Barra

Ripshin This film plays like a cross between a 40s MGM musical and a 60s sitcom, combining the worst of both worlds. And, not being a Francis fan, even the many musical interludes don't pacify me. Seeing that the director and scriptwriter were from TV, I shouldn't be surprised at the result. I guess MGM didn't think poor Connie deserved first-rate attention. But, then again, Elvis suffered the same fate.Connie's character is an idiot, and Jim Hutton's a jack#@@. We are supposed to believe that "Libby" pines after "Paul," a man who blatantly shows a hatred towards women? There is no chemistry between either of the two couples, in any combination.Paula Prentiss must have established a friendship with Francis after making "Where the Boys Are" four years earlier; otherwise, why would she have agreed to a 30 second cameo, during which she speaks one short sentence, and is promptly bopped on the head?And, please, the Lady Valet? Perhaps the writer didn't realize that such a "contraption," in some form or another, has existed for hundreds of years. One doubts the lame version presented in the film could ever secure its creator a slot on The Tonight Show (but it is great to see Johnny).The movie does display a reasonable budget, as many of the sets have a more- than-sitcom feel. I wonder how many times they had to shoot that grocery store scene? However, notice that after the girls become rich, and live in a HUGE mansion, they still share a bedroom? (It's not surprising that scriptwriter Flippen did some work on "The Brady Bunch.")If you plan on sampling one of the four 60s Francis flicks, stick with the first, "Where the Boys Are."

Kat Miss O.K. I'll be honest. I wasn't expecting much when I decided to watch "Looking for Love" on Turner Classic Movies' "not on video" festival last July. After all, Maltin gave the film a BOMB rating and "Rose Marie" was a grand disappointment. But TCM was on a solid streak with three great films in a row; "Penelope", "The Money Trap" and "Your Cheatin Heart". So I decided to give it a chance.I'm sure glad I did! "Looking for Love" is not a great film, but it has energy and charm and a wonderful lead performance by Connie Francis. You just can't help smiling as I did lot during the regretably brief running time (81 minutes). Surely, they could have added another 10 minutes of songs!The plot is unimportant; it's merely an excuse to hang some truly inventive musical numbers and sight gags (which needs to be seen in Panavision to truly appreciate; TCM letterboxed the print). I hope that MGM will release the film on video and DVD as a "Vintage Classic" or "MGM Musical" so that an audience can appreciate this. This won't appeal to those looking for acting. But if you're looking for a good time, you could do a lot worse than this. It's no masterpiece, but it's infectious and charming. and you will be smiling a lot.*** out of 4 stars