The film received mixed reviews, with critics praising individual performances while questioning its overall coherence and thematic focus. Several reviewers appreciated the film's ambitious scope and star performances. Richard Schickel wrote positively in
Life magazine: "The people responsible for this movie have taken a big chance, deliberately blowing their cool in the hope that they can overpower ours. For me, the gamble worked."
Leonard Maltin's
2008 Movie Guide described the film as an "excellent comedy drama". However, many critics found the film's execution lacking despite its potential.
The Monthly Film Bulletin offered a mixed assessment, noting that while "this tragi-comedy is bursting with brightness and ideas," these elements were "on the whole too confused to add up to very much." The review particularly praised
Orson Welles' performance as the advertising tycoon and
Otto Heller's Technicolor photography, suggesting the film had "a distinction that probably goes beyond its deserts." Other critics were more dismissive of the film's 1960s sensibilities.
Leslie Halliwell described it as a "vivid yet muddled tragi-comedy of the sixties, with splashes of sex and violence in trendy settings, a hero one really doesn't believe in, and a title which seems to have no meaning whatsoever." ''
VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever'' (2007) suggested that "to some tastes, this overwrought and long-unseen comedy from the swinging '60s will be completely dated with characters whose mindsets are totally alien." A contemporaneous review in
The Kentucky Kernel summarized the film's central problem, writing that it "came off as a pessimistic reiteration of the existing war between traditions and society, and individuality and the arts. It sparked here and there and was just about to catch fire when something would inevitably happen to drag it back into the groove it had started for itself." ==Controversy==