The Millionairess (1960) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
29 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
It just doesn't work.
Hermit C-29 September 1999
Chemistry can be a funny thing. This movie stars two charismatic legends of the cinema, Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers. Its script, on the surface, is intelligent and well-written, full of snappy dialog. (It's based on a play by G.B. Shaw.) They combine to make a relentlessly dull movie. Loren is a rich heiress who for some reason has to marry again to satisfy conditions of her father's will and Sellers plays an altruistic Indian doctor in London, where the movie is set, with whom she has an uninteresting love/hate relationship. I found it all but impossible to keep my attention focused on the screen as the film worked its way toward its conclusion. It made for one of the longest 90-minute movies I've ever seen.

Part of the problem I think is that characters here are not developed, they just burst out in full force the moment you see them, making a viewer feel like he or she has started watching in the middle of the film. Also, as a romance, the movie is completely flat, with zero chemistry between the leads. It's no wonder you don't hear much about this film from fans of Loren or Sellers, or Shaw for that matter.
35 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Surprisingly poor
oliver-1231 November 2007
I never saw this when it first came out, though I remember the song that went with it (but does not feature in it), and only caught up with it when the Times gave away free DVDs with its Saturday edition recently. I agree entirely with other criticisms; too little happens, the dialogue doesn't flow naturally, some of the acting is wooden and there are pointless cameos (e.g. by Alfie Bass) and weak attempts at slapstick (various persons ending up in the Thames). The setting seems to be modern, i.e. 1950s, but the East Enders the Indian doctor treats belong to an older time, the time of Shaw's own play, except that some are Indian or similar. Part of the problem seems to be the placing of some of Shaw's epigrammatic dialogue in a weaker and rather inappropriate framework; the millionairess is much more ruthless and unpleasant in the play, as I remember it. Sophia Loren is a pleasure to watch, and there seems to be genuine chemistry between her and Peter Sellers (as I believe was reported off-set), but they cannot save this, and good actors like Alastair Sim and Dennis Price are wasted.
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Remember the garter belt!
massimo194319 March 2005
Amazing that nobody commented on Sophia guepiere and garter belt!

O.K. Guys. The movie is somewhat dull and you may be sure that neither Sophia Loren or Peter Sellers could have been nominated for Oscar on this performance. But, does anybody remember the scene when Sophia undresses in Peter,s doctor cabinet and shows herself in a black guepiere , black stockings and garter belt? If you have forgotten this, you are only forgiven if you are younger than two years or older than ninety-nine And , moreover, we were back in 1960, when such scenes in movies, particularly in my native Italy, were not frequent! For the remaining part, I must agree that the story is weak, the other actors ( including an improbable Vittorio De Sica) are unnoticeable, and Sophia as a millionaire is less credible than as a Naples Pizza seller!
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Rather Dull Affair
rcraig629 August 2004
The Millionairess reminds me of why people will sit through generally stale movies sometimes instead of just packing it in, the odd glitter or chemistry between two major movie stars who one does not often get to see together. This is a flat uncompelling piece of work about a newly minted heiress (Sophia Loren) who can't find the right man to marry and a devoted Indian physician (Peter Sellers) who has no interest in money- or women.

Sellers performance is about the only thing that takes this picture above banality; he has so much integrity as an actor that he raises the level of the mostly shoddy material. He has some truly wonderful, charming moments as the doctor who resists the stunning Loren at every turn (the same could not be said off-camera; Sellers wrecked his first marriage over the obsession). Loren, is a good, but not great actress; her appeal lies heavily in her charm and good humor. Here, those qualities are muted by the character she plays: a self-obsessed bombshell who has no real love to give- only money- and doesn't understand why a man of true integrity won't respond to that. But what's wrong with the screenplay is fairly obvious. In the typical Hate At First Sight movie romance, the characters learn and grow to see the virtue of the each other's worth, then fall in love. Here, they don't. Sellers character gives no indication of wearing down, Loren's never stops being exasperating (in one scene, she fakes an illness at 4:30 AM so Sellers will come over to examine her). When they hook up at the end, it's totally implausible and not very satisfying (she fakes committing suicide to draw him to her).

That said, the movie is not quite boring, the audience may be drawn to the radiance of the stars in spite of itself, but it has no real spark and no drive. The look of it is quite nice, it's expensive without being gaudy. But it doesn't serve the actors very well; even the great Alastair Sim isn't well-used. I suspect watching The Millionairess is something like being super-rich, one gets the feeling of having too much time to kill. 2** out of 4
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sophia's beauty is worth seeing
blanche-26 June 2008
Sophia Loren is "The Millionairess" in this 1960 film also starring Peter Sellars, with director Vittorio de Sica playing a small role. The film is adapted from a play by George Bernard Shaw. I seem to remember that Garson Kanin and Katharine Hepburn had planned to do this play as a movie, but it never happened. I can't imagine why they wanted to do it, and I frankly don't know if their version would have been much better. At least in this production we got to look at Sophia and her exquisite wardrobe.

Loren plays an Italian heiress who falls for an Indian doctor (Sellars) devoted to helping the poor. She is determined to get him, even building a huge hospital for him, but nothing seems to work. Her father stipulated that if she married, she must give her husband-to-be 500 pounds, and within three months, he must have made it into 15,000 pounds. It turns out that Sellars' mother had a similar rule for a proposed wife - she must go out into the world with 35 shillings and the clothes on her back and make a living. Loren takes the bet and hands Sellars 500 pounds. She walks into a pasta-making sweatshop, cuts out the middleman, brings in modern equipment, lets the workers unionize, and makes a fortune for the owners and herself. The Sellars character leaves the money he was given on his reception desk, but no one takes any.

There is absolutely no action and no pacing in this film, and it fails to hold interest except when Sophia shows up in a new outfit. It's obvious that it's a play, and it would have to move a lot faster in order for it to have even a chance at working. Sophia is definitely one of the wonders of the world, and in 1960, she was on top of it, an absolute goddess with a voluptuous body, the kind never seen today. She's beautifully dressed by Pierre Balman. Sellars is excellent as always, but this would be at the bottom of the list as far as his early films.

Dull.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
OK, not a great movie, but the stars...
Bob Mass25 August 2000
I loved watching Alastair Sim, Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers in action. Alastair's voice is still bubbling in my head as is Peter Seller's Indian accent. And all the beautiful cheesiness of a 1960's movie. If any of that appeals to you see the movie.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A bit boring apart from one or two scenes with Sophia Loren
dmtls8 September 2005
I am a big fan of Peter Sellers and this is one of the two reasons I saw this movie.The other one was to get some of this 60s wonderful feeling. Unfortunately both my expectations drowned during movie's running time. Seller's seemed simply not to fit in the role (at least not as much as he has spoiled us to expect from him), and nothing was there from this 60s feeling (apart from some truly kitsch, and for this adorable, nostalgic retro-future building interiors). All in all this was neither a good nor a bad movie, just a boring one.I am sure everyone expected something more than a dull and a bit childish comment on common social problems.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Delightful version of George Bernard Shaw's play with Loren and Sellers are perfect as a millionairess and an impoverished doctor
ma-cortes29 July 2021
London-based Millionairess Epifania (Sophia Loren) has ended a bad marriage and feels that the only thing she still needs to fullfill her life is a good husband . Then Epifania is attracted to Indian Dr. Kabir (in the person of Peter Sellers) and she sets out to enmesh , but he is more intent on treating patients . As the wealthy heiress finds he evades her every effort to snare him . When she persists , he confides in her that he had made a commitment to his late widowed seamstress mother , as the humble doctor from India submitted to a series of conditions to marry , as his wife has to live in poor salary . She finds out that this sum is equivalent to just 35 shillings but readily accepts this challenge . She also informs him that her late father had also imposed a condition that she must wed a male who will turn £500 into £15000 within the same period. Racy Revelations of the Richest Girl in the World...And Her Wild, Wonderful Ways! The revealing revels of a very rich redhead who lives for pleasure...A beautiful babe in Balmain gowns and her wild wonderful ways...

An amusing and fun comedy about a silly premise : a millionairess and a doctor cannot marry until they meet conditions set-up by their respective parents . Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers are adequate foils for each other in their respective roles . Resulting in a charming message , as in the complex process she learns that , money can't buy everything . From a play by George Bernard Shaw , this simple and agreeable comedy is attractive and enjoyable but mediocre . Lavishly filmed with top-notch actors , gorgeous costumes but excessively stagy , containing a colorful cinematography in Technicolor by cameraman Jack Hildyard , as well as lively musical score by Georges Van Parys . Beautiful Sophia Loren in her top splendor gives a likeable acting as an incredibly rich woman , while Sellers is nice playing in his usual style as a peculiar doctor who will wed any woman who will manage to survive on just a few money , for ninety days . This great duo starring being accompanied by notorious actors giving pretty good interpretations , such as : Alastair Sim , Vittorio De Sica , Dennis Price , Gary Raymond , Alfie Bass , Graham Stark , Noel Purcell and uncredited Roy Kinnear .

This 20th Century-Fox motion picture was regular but professionally directed by Anthony Asquith , though marred by its really theatrical origin . Asquith was a good actor and filmmaker , directing films of all kinds of genres with penchant for comedy and drama , as he made the following ones : I stand condemned , Pygmalion , Cottage to let , We dive at dawn, The demi-paradise , The Winslow boy , Man of Evil , The woman in question, The Browning version , The importance of being Earnest , Carrington , The VIPSs , The Yellow Rolls-Royce , among others . Rating : 5.5/10 . Acceptable and passable but average . The flick will appeal to Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers fans.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Poorly written and unconvincing
planktonrules29 October 2009
This film starts off with Sophia Loren inheriting her father's fortune after his death. Early on, I disliked the movie as Loren's character was ridiculous--more of a caricature than a real millionairess. I'm a bit surprised I didn't turn off the movie and actually stuck with it. In so many ways, her selfish and petulant routine was almost like a burlesque of that sort of person, as it was too broad and not the least bit subtle or believable. Rarely have I ever felt this annoyed by Loren--a genuinely bad role for the otherwise talented actress. The only saving grace for this incredibly annoying creature was her solicitor, played by Alistair Sim--whose indifference to her ridiculous behavior was at least enjoyable.

After Loren proves unlucky in love, she happens to run into an Indian doctor (played by Peter Sellers). Unlike other men, he is completely indifferent to her boorish misbehaviors or ample 'charms'. And, since Loren is playing a spoiled screwball, she falls for Sellers and does almost anything to get him. Frankly, this is an interesting but utterly ridiculous idea--and certainly not enough of a basis for a movie, as there is absolutely no chemistry between them and it didn't make sense. Sellers is pretty good and realistic in this role, but it isn't comedic in the least--despite the film being a comedy! In fact, his Indian character from THE PARTY would have probably worked better with this sort of broad comedy.

Overall, a rather pointless waste of the talents of the actors. You'd think they could have done better. But, actors cannot overcome bad writing and indifferent direction. Clearly a misfire.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inexcusably undecided comedy or romance
isitliving5 September 2011
A familiar topic, the love/hate romance, is portrayed as an at times wacky comedy and at times an intense star-crossed romantic drama. Although the concept of romantic comedy has been done well many times, this is not one of them. The combining of the two genres is poorly done and inexcusable.

Bizarrely, the wackiness comes mainly from scenery and editing, not Peter Sellers. There are jump flash scenes at the end that are out of place anywhere but a Doris Day comedy. Scenes of the Millionairess' 'throne' room and board who apparently manage her fortune are equally out of place.

The film is redeemed only by a few somber lines delivered by Peter Sellers that are poignant and quotable, and the lovely Sophia Loren who is a vision in every scene.

Pieces of the story line are touching and reminiscent of 'The Gift of the Magi.' Unfortunately, sifting through the rest of the film to find these treasures is hardly worth the effort.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"A Hidden Treasure" Critique by Zach19, MD
zach1926 October 2001
I loved this film as a boy growing up in the 60s, and I love it today. In today's society in which sex is flaunted and perverted in the movies, it's nice to be able to take a trip back in time and see movies in which sex was depicted more as an "innuendo". Sophia Loren is one of the most beautiful women of all-time; and Peter Sellers was one of the funniest comics of all-time. Together they made a romantic comedy that could compete and surpass many of today's romantic comedies.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good Film
ThomasColquith11 November 2021
I liked "The Millionairess" though my enjoyment was slightly marred by the quality of the DVD release. My DVD had no subtitles and the audio was hard to understand. The picture quality was also not great, but I was able to still watch it all. Hopefully one day some of these older films get a refresh, I guess there's not much demand for it though as this is not a well-known film. (Though even "Raiders of the Lost Ark" needs fixed, my DVD was way too dark and grainy.)

Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren are great in this light-hearted film. She looks great and showcases many nice outfits trying to allure him, but to no avail at first. I liked that this script featured a man resisting a woman instead of the all too common trope of the dumb hapless man chasing the unattainable woman. Refreshingly, here we are presented with a man of morals, interests, standards, skills, priorities, and backbone. He does not blow any which way in the wind, and he does not change himself to impress this diva. He is laser-focused on his medicine practice of helping the poor and needy. And instead of accepting her challenge of making money he instead tries to give the money away. Her assistant buys his patents to allow him to meet her father's criteria, but he was quite content to lose her in order to retain his own beliefs and interests. Though fortunately in the end, he wins her anyways.

The film also has something to say about mechanization and its effect on labor and culture. There's some good jokes in here too. This is not a film to be taken too seriously. My rating 6/10, worth watching if you have the chance.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
a total waste
rupie20 September 2011
There are countless examples of movies that can't decide what they want to be, and, as other users have pointed out, this is one of them. It's personality is split three ways - a comedy, a romance, and a social commentary sermon. By not committing itself fully to any one of these, it fails at all three. As a comedy it is unquestionably the most leaden one I have ever seen. The humor is forced, and none of the dialogue has any wit or sparkle. Prepare for vast stretches of confusing pointlessness. As a romance, the interaction between the two protagonists is totally unconvincing. And as far as social commentary - the aspect we can doubtless attribute to the socialist George Bernard Shaw, upon whose play it is based - it has all the subtlety of a polo mallet upside the head. The two greats, Alastair Sim and Peter Sellers, do as best as they can with what they are given. Sellers in particular does well reprising the Indian persona he perfected on The Goon Show. But Sophia Loren seems to have been chosen purely to flaunt her sex appeal which, though considerable, poses obvious and clumsy distractions from the story, and her character is totally unbelievable as far as motivation or personality. The movie is a complete waste of the talents of the actors involved.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth... (and Sophia)
PredragReviews12 November 2016
This is a better movie than I had expected. Peter Sellers did another uncannily dead on imitation of an accent, to go with his many imitations of accents from England and America, and he got to read some actual GBS lines, which was nice. There was more language from the George Bernard Shaw play than I had expected. Dennis Price and Alistair Sim offer nice comic support. I just wish they could have used an actress less concerned with how she looked and more interested in the language of the play.

There are obvious flaws in this film. For starters, it suffers from extreme staginess. It's socialist message is not so much delivered but bludgeoned home. I give this film a pass because of the appealing performances by the film's leads, Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren. Sellers gives a terrific low-key turn as the sweet humanistic doctor. Loren is earthy yet manages to humanize the spoiled heiress she plays. As written, her character comes of as unappealing but Loren manages to engender empathy. Good supporting cast that includes Alistair Sim as Loren's barrister, Vittorio De Sica as a sweat shop owner, and Dennis Price as Loren's psychiatrist. Great film, great direction, great actors and actresses (Sofia Loren is amazingly beautiful, and no wonder why Sellers fell in love with her)!

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A wordy, plodding, pointless romantic comedy
LCShackley10 October 2008
I've never read the GBS play this is supposedly based on, but I'm sure it had to be better than this movie adaptation. Shaw's influence is evident in the emphasis on class warfare and the evils of capitalists. But the silly plot in which these ideas are presented is tedious and slow- moving.

If you read a capsule summary of THE MILLIONAIRESS, you get the impression that it's somehow about a contest between a man and a woman, trying to fulfill the terms of various wills so they can be married. But the actual contest doesn't really come into focus until the movie is more than half over. Before that, it just grinds its gears, showing us how petulant and greedy Sophia Loren's character can be, and how pure and honorable Peter Sellers' Indian doctor can be. Her interest in him doesn't make much sense, and neither does his rejection of her advances. The abrupt ending leaves you wondering if a reel or two have been left out unintentionally.

Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren (looking so young and radiant) are always fun to watch. Just imagine what a great comedy they COULD have made if a good screenwriter had developed a proper vehicle for them. Watching them work is the only thing that makes this movie bearable. Great comic actors like Alfie Bass and Alastair Sim are wasted in parts that barely allow them to stretch (although we do get a couple of Sim's trademark giggles).

Besides all this, the film looks cheap. The sets are bare-bones; some looking like painted backgrounds from a school play. The scene where they visit the new hospital and Sellers raves about the equipment is a joke in itself: would he really be impressed by a couple of lab tables with a few test tubes and what looks like a Victorian microscope?

This film is only for Sellers and/or Loren fans who insist on seeing everything they ever did. Those who are seeking entertainment should look elsewhere.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
About as funny as a two-hour speech at a TUC conference
JamesHitchcock4 April 2011
"The Millionairess", loosely based on a play by George Bernard Shaw, is a British romantic comedy about a romance between a wealthy Italian heiress and an Indian doctor. (I cannot imagine the Hollywood of the early sixties making a rom-com about that particular racial combination). The heroine is Epifania Parerga, has inherited a vast fortune from her father; the hero is Ahmed el Kabir, who runs a clinic for the poor in London's East End. The main idea is that Epifania falls hopelessly in love with Kabir even though their values are diametrically opposed; she is a ruthless capitalist, he is an unworldly and idealistic socialist. (When Shaw wrote his play in 1936, doctors who worked in the East End or other poor working-class areas generally were self-sacrificing idealists, but the film is set in the year it was made, 1960, by which time the introduction of the National Health Service meant that this was no longer the case).

To win Epifania, Kabir has to satisfy the conditions of her eccentric father's will, namely that he must turn £500 into £15,000 within a three-month period. As he has absolutely no business acumen whatever, this seems a hopeless task. To win Kabir, Epifania has to comply with an equally eccentric condition laid down by his mother; she must prove that she can survive on only 35 shillings (£1.75 in modern currency) for three months. Rather surprisingly, she proves to be more than equal to this task.

The film was a great success, both in Britain and internationally, at the time of its release, but today it is difficult to understand why. Today it comes across as horribly dated. Part of the reason is that Peter Sellers' characterisation of Kabir, complete with brown makeup and sing-song accent, seems patronising, almost borderline racist, but there is more to it than that. (At least the song Goodness Gracious Me" was omitted from the film). Quite apart from the racial aspects, this is not Sellers' greatest performance. He could be very good in parts where he had to adopt a foreign accent, notably Inspector Clouseau in the "Pink Panther" series and Dr Strangelove in the film of that name, but both Clouseau and Strangelove were, in their very different ways, inspired creations. Kabir is not. He is a wordy, tedious bore of the sort that crops up in Shaw's drama from time to time, less a rounded individual than a mouthpiece for a set of political opinions, about as funny as a two-hour speech at a TUC conference.

Sophia Loren as Epifania is better, and she puts a lot of zest and energy into her characterisation. For all his own left-wing views, Shaw often couldn't help creating right-wing characters who were more interesting than his idealistic leftists, Andrew Undershaft in "Major Barbara" being another example, and with her zeal for capitalist enterprise Epifania comes across as a sexier, more glamorous version of the young Margaret Thatcher. There is, however, little chemistry between Loren and Sellers. Legend has it that Sellers fell hopelessly in love with the beautiful Italian on the set of this movie but that she- happily married to Carlo Ponti- failed to return his affections. If the legend is true, it would explain a lot.

There are some decent performances in supporting roles from the likes of Alastair Sim, Dennis Price and Alfie Bass, but they do not compensate for the lack of interest generated by the central love story. Director Anthony Asquith had earlier directed a very good Shaw adaptation ("Pygmalion" from 1938), but "The Millionairess" is not in the same class. 5/10
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not a bad interpretation of Shaw's play
lkatona15 September 2020
Yes it could have been a better movie,but not by much. Other reviews of this movie that I've read appraise and evaluate it based more on conventional movie genre criteria. It must rather be evaluated as a work based on a Shaw play. Shaw doesn't fit neatly into conventional movie genre categories as some would like. He didn't write light romantic comedies or serious dramas, that was never his intention. Shaw created his own genre and this film and must be considered as such, since much of what defines it is the content of the script. Whatever he wrote may have been couched in drama, comedy or satire but his true underlying motive was to prick one's intellectual complacency, for those who are aware that it can be pricked, for those that don't have this awareness, it becomes light comedy,sometimes confusing ,because they missed Shaw's true intentions. Each line by each character was meant to stimulate and provoke a stream of thought and intellectual analysis and is not there merely for the purpose of propelling the film into the next scene, none of his words are filler words. Their characters don't need to be developed because they are revealed in their complexity by their words, attitudes, style and behaviours,as well as the words, attitudes and behaviours directed at them by others. Hence what may seem boring scenes to some are actually already filled with a build-up of thoughts and analysis stimulated by the character's previous lines, presented in the context of particular scenes both of which are very deliberate. Shaw's aim and thus the unavoidably the aim of the film ,since Shaw deliberately builds his aim into the script in a way which prevents it from being extricated, unless one changes the entire script and totally changes the story, is not to entertain,but to provoke thought, to cause a degree of discomfort by pricking one's complacency ,and to criticize and chastise his audience. But he knows that no audience, especially one that demands to be entertained, will tolerate such chastisement, so Shaw tricks them, by presenting his acrid criticisms in the guise of a comedy.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not for Shavians and Fabians, BUT ...
ilprofessore-120 March 2009
Yes, it's true that there is no real chemistry here between the stars: Sellers never had any and Sophia always had too much. Every once and awhile the wit of G.B. Shaw's original play sneaks through this unfortunate 1960's modernization. "Puffin" Asquith's rather fey direction doesn't help much. And yet, there are some added attractions here that go beyond the usual rules of the cinema art. For one, the young Sophia was never more luscious –-she's the blooming flower of Italia, as tasty as the mozzarella of Napoli, a veritable Mount Vesuvius overflowing with girlish charm, and, as she spends a great deal of time in this film in various stages of undress, some wet and most dry, there is much to look at here beyond Jack Hildyard's photography, Balmain's clothes and Paul Sheriff's elaborate studio sets. Not for Shavians or Fabians but definitely for connoisseurs of feminine pulchritude. Bo Derek might be a 10, but Sophia is cento per cento!
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Interesting comic character study that spawned a hit song.
BadWebDiver30 October 2004
Let me just start off by saying that George Bernard Shaw is one of my all-time favorite playwrights, and Peter Sellers is one of my all-time favorite comic actors. So naturally I think this is a pretty good movie. I admit the concept is more interesting than the actual execution. But certainly the personality of the leads does compensate. And it is a very intriguing idea.

I think the best moments are when Sophia Loren's character gets the good doctor to make a house call, the Doctor trying to give his fortune away on the street and no-one bothering to take it (Would that still be the case today?), as well as Alistair Sims excellent lawyer. And having worked in the medical profession (as a lab clerk), the dry comments on the high-tech lab equipment, and ruthless beurocracy of a large medical institution rang especially true. There are certainly some exceptional social commentary behind the human story, which is the trademark of Shaw's work.

But I like this movie especially for being the inspiration of the classic novelty song "Goodness Gracious Me!", which the two leads recorded in order to promote the movie. I actually think the song works better.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A lot of ridiculous fun - though regrettably too little
I_Ailurophile25 April 2022
Maybe it's a bit presumptuous to immediately name-drop star Peter Sellers, especially when he doesn't have a significant part in the film until one-quarter of the length has already passed. Yet I feel like his very involvement readily gives a sense of a feature's slant, with comedy built on playfulness and overblown pomposity - perhaps with slivers of sexism or other indelicacies woven in. 'The millionairess' quite fits the bill, though for all the delight of watching Sellers dexterously adopt the unique mannerisms of still another character, that sex symbol Sophia Loren takes center stage to some measure allows us to see different sides of them both. There is so much ridiculous fun to be had here - the whole picture is built for it, from production design and art direction, to the acting, to the emphatic overtones mocking and deriding classism, and capitalist tendencies, and quietly, gratifyingly advocating for socialism. The costume design overseen by Pierre Balmain and Felix Evans (especially the many dazzling outfits Loren wears throughout) is brilliant, as well as the contributions of the makeup department. The set design and decoration is frankly staggering; I can only imagine the budget must have been fairly substantial to provide the resources for it all.

All this is to say nothing of Anthony Asquith's swell, smart direction, Anthony Harvey's sharp editing, or rich, vivid cinematography from Jack Hildyard. Even the sound cues are a small joy. Of course, more broadly important than all this is the writing, and the adapted screenplay developed between Riccardo Aragno and Wolf Mankowitz is a small marvel. We've all seen titles that bore uneven writing, with some elements given less attentive care than others, but this is an instance in which the imaginative foundation of the feature was given undivided consideration. There's no component here that isn't essential, that doesn't carry the same slant and intelligence and build into the whole. Characters, dialogue, scene writing, and the narrative at large are all rife with nigh-satirical absurdities and exaggerations, welcome commentary on the deplorable structure and condition of society under the fist of capitalism, and witty conflicts between strong personalities. It all gels into fairly solid groundwork for a feature about an imperious, haughty women of considerable generational wealth becoming enamored of a poor but unflaggingly virtuous doctor and servant of the public good, and the people around them who have bearing on or will be impacted by that pursuit. Certainly, on that note, all the performances herein are pretty great. Sellers is wonderfully reliable as an actor who can slip into any variety of characters without missing a bit, and his renowned skills are well on display here. Loren shows range, nuance, and force of personality befitting the title character, and which - more to the point - illustrates that she is very capable of her own accord, and not just a pretty face. And still others in the supporting cast are notable, including Alastair Sim as Miss Parerga's beleaguered solicitor.

There are, however, two problems. The first is evident very early on, as the very concept of the picture is so far-fetched as to strain credulity. There are no elves or dwarves here, yet the romantic entanglement of Epifania Parerga and Dr. Ahmed el Kabir is nonetheless an invention of fantasy that demands so much suspension of disbelief as to somewhat draw us out of the very film we're watching. For a comedy ostensibly set in "the real world," that detachment is an issue, and holds true not least of all at the ending. And the second problem is that, frankly, 'The millionairess' loses the wind from its sails. The strength of the movie, and the brunt of the humor, is in Epifania's enchantment with the doctor, and his rejection of her and what she represents. Once the plot moves toward their respective efforts to meet the other's conditions for marriage, scenes follow in which the active entertainment tapers off until we're just left with a concoction of pretty light and meaningless sound. All the conflict, personality, grandeur, and energy that characterized roughly the first hour just goes away, and the last impression the picture has to make is sadly not much of one at all.

To be clear, there is definite value in watching 'The millionairess.' The bulk of the runtime is very enjoyable indeed, with robust silliness to provide ample amusement, to say nothing, again, of the effort put into so much of the production from behind the scenes. It's just unfortunate that this cheeky fun and broad mindfulness isn't carried all the way through to the end. This is worth checking out for most anyone, including fans of Sellers or Loren, or just any viewers who appreciate mid-century comedies. Still, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed at how the film ultimately kind of drops the ball. 'The millionairess' is worth your time if you happen to come across it, but it turns out that you don't need to go out of your way to find it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It looks good without offering anything funny or exciting...
moonspinner555 June 2008
Sophia Loren plays the only daughter of a wealthy Italian tycoon in London who dies and leaves his fortune to her; she's indifferent to the money and only wants love, but all her suitors are duds. Enter Peter Sellers as a doctor from India who treats the poor; he could use Sophia's money, but he's indifferent to her! Why the good doctor is uninterested in the woman is the weak link of the material, especially with Loren so glamorous. She even builds him his own state-of-the-art hospital, which of course he refuses. Sellers doesn't quite register as the saintly, don't-touch-me type, and his apprehension just stretches out this charade, but he is an interesting personality (especially when acting in a lower key). It's possible that Sophia's aggressive flirtations could scare doctor Peter away, but the deal they make here is a dull one, leading to a silly conclusion. Fine art direction, costumes and photography--and the leads make an intriguing movie-pair--but this George Bernard Shaw play is obviously not one of his better efforts. It collapses like a fancy but overworked soufflé. ** from ****
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A below average comedy
Sergiodave22 July 2021
Only reason I saw this was because of Peter Sellers, who I consider a comic genius (although an awful human being). Quite simply, I did not laugh once, indeed the only slightly amusing character was Alistair Sim's. Based on the George Bernard Shaw play of the same name, they changed the Egyptian Doctor to being Indian, so that Sellers could recreate his character from 'The Party', which didn't work as they are two very different movies. As For Sophie Loren, yes she's gorgeous, but very little else.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not quite the movie it could have been
rosyposy5 June 2008
The story has it all--love, money, sex, politics, religion, social ethics...however the cheesy editing and Loren's cartoonish performance distract from what could have been a really good movie. The screenplay deals with issues that I think are bigger today than they were in 1960; socialized medicine and Western-Eastern relations are both hot topics in 2008--maybe it's time for someone to remake this one? That said, Peter Sellers is brilliant as always. He plays confused so well. The movie dates itself with the dialogue and that *awful* "pulse" effect, but the questions it raises and Seller's consistent work save it from being really dreadful.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No, No, No, No, No!
massugatpegs18 June 2022
Saw the DVD in a friend's collection and read the back. I like Sophia and Peter and thought this should be a steady movie to watch!

WRONG!

IT LASTED LESS THAN 5 MINUTES.

EVERYTHING ABOUT THE MOVIE IS POOR .

DEFINITELY ONE TO GIVE A MISS.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Millionairess
CinemaSerf12 February 2023
I always struggled with Peter Sellers' brand of humour and combined with an over-the-top effort from Sophia Loren here, I will admit to squirming just a bit too often for comfort. She is the eponymous millionairess who can only marry if she meets very strict conditions set by her late father - else she loses everything. She is, however, attracted to Sellers' Delhi-born, scholarly and frankly unlikely "Dr. Kabir" whom it's safe to say, doesn't quite meet the criteria. He promised his mother that he would only marry a woman of modest means who can live, without complaint, on a mere 35 shillings for three months and she must marry a man who can turn the sum of £500 into £15,000 in the same time period. Impossible? Give up? Yes please, but no - we must persevere as the increasingly contrived humour struggles along for another hour that is as devoid of charm as it is of sophistication. Sellers has no charisma here and though Loren tries hard and looks the part, there isn't really any chemistry on display as the story sort of lurches from one unlikely scenario to another. The supporting cast - Alastair Sim and Dennis Price amongst them, are rarely on screen long enough to elevate this from a rather colourful and quickly paced farce that I couldn't really engage with. Time hasn't been especially kind to it - but I am not sure it was really any good in the first place.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed