Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

dish55 Surely Fox had intended this one for Raquel Welch but dusted it off when Doris needed to complete her three picture deal with the studio. She had saved their necks at Christmas time in 1963 with MOVE OVER, DARLING (the re-tooled SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE), but two years later she was rewarded with DO NOT DISTURB, a second-rate farce based on a third rate play. Then along came this attempt to turn Doris into a go-go mod spy with BATMAN trimmings. Well, Doris is always watchable and there are a few funny and/or exciting set pieces, and the photography is gorgeous, but really, I am shocked that a major MAJOR talent like Doris Day settled for this feeble outdated-the-minute-it-was-released effort. There isn't even a decent ending! The way films were being made and watched and reviewed and studied was changing rapidly (mostly for the good) in 1967, and it is a shame that an iconic performer like Miss Day could not ride the wave to a nice third act to her movie career. Still, this does have the makings of a cult film, and perhaps when viewed in context of the time it was made and released (Spring of 1967) future audiences will appreciate it for what it is rather than what it is not. Watch anyway!

oliverpenn Someone mentioned that Doris Day looked every bit of 42 in this picture ("Caprice"). So, what's wrong with being 42 and looking great? How many ordinary women can look as great as movie goddess Doris and have THAT BODY besides Miss Day (who owned the BEST figure in Hollywood)?If you look at some of her later TV episodes where Doris wears tight-fitting jeans and pants, women all over the world would give anything to have a figure like her's. She's built like a brick sh**house! Ladies, don't be jealous! I understand from good sources that now in her 80s, her figure is STILL better than anything you'll see on the modern screen.

jotix100 "Caprice" is a film that supposedly, even its star, Doris Day, wasn't too pleased with the finished product. This is clearly evident in what Frank Tashlin, its director, and also one of its writers, created as a vehicle for Ms. Day. In fact, it was one of the last movies in which this luminous star appeared. Who can blame her?The plot is the worst thing going for the movie. We don't believe for a moment all that is happening. Mr. Tashlin doesn't even get the charismatic Ms. Day to turn her charm as she always did in her films before. Then there is the problem of the way the star is made to look. Doris Day, who was forty five at the time, still had her lovely figure, but some of the costumes she is made to wear are just plain hideous! And what about those ugly hats? At that time most women all over the world, even those in business, had tossed their hats aside and wouldn't get caught dead with one of those worn by Ms. Day in the movie.One can't blame Doris Day for the finished product. Richard Harris looks clear out of his element, after all, he wasn't notorious for playing comedy. Ray Walston, Jack Krushen, Edward Mulhare and Lilia Skala play supporting roles.This film is only for hard core Doris Day fans only.

JoeytheBrit This late Doris Day effort is a truly awful film ,a fact which is initially disguised by an excellently filmed pre-credits sequence in which a skier in white is chased down mountainous slopes by a sinister black-clad skier wearing a reflective visor and toting a high-powered rifle. Much of this sequence, and a second that appears near the end of the film, is shot with a hand-held camera. In fact it looks as if the cameraman was skiing down the mountain himself as he took the footage. It's a terrific piece of filming that immediately immerses the viewer in the action – but after this superlative opening and a cleverly designed credits sequence, the film falls flat with a resounding thud.Doris Day was about 42-years-old when she made this flick and, thanks to some ill-conceived make-up and atrociously synthetic looking wigs, she looks every day of those 42 years. Already at least fifteen years too old for the part, she's made to wear the type of outfits that shouldn't be seen on a woman over twenty-five, and doesn't look like she's having a good time at all. It's a shame, because she was still a good-looking woman at the time, as can be seen in WITH SIX YOU GET EGG ROLL, which she made the following year. No wonder she doesn't like to talk about this film anymore.Her co-star is Richard Harris, who is also woefully miscast as a light leading man. Whoever convinced Harris he was suited to comedy roles was either inept or pandering to Harris's ego. Either way, all concerned made a big mistake when he signed up for this film. There's no chemistry whatsoever between him and Day, they never look like people who would be attracted to each other, and the manner in which their relationship develops is both poorly conceived and ineptly handled.Director Frank Tashlin's career was in irreversible decline when he made this film (which can have only accelerated the slide) and he made only one more feature after this. He manages a couple of decent scenes, but the light touch he brought to a number of minor classics in the fifties just isn't there anymore. To be fair, the script doesn't give him much to work with – for a comedy it is remarkably unfunny – and the unnecessarily convoluted plot doesn't seem to know where it is going before eventually descending into absurdity, which is a shame because it contains the nugget of a good idea. Day didn't like this one, Harris didn't like it and, in all probability, neither will you.