Ella y sus millones

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.

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!

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.

"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

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.