isitliving 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.

edwagreen A real gem of a pill of a picture. Who wrote this? Who made this? It is simply a bomb of major proportions with Peter Sellers, as the poor Indian doctor, drawn to a wealthy Italian woman, the indomitable Sophia Loren. Loren with her money can't find happiness and falls for our Indian doctor when she attempts suicide by jumping into the river.They both have agreements that they have to abide by such as making money and in Miss Loren's case-actually working for it.All of a sudden Ms. Loren is a genius in business. This is so utterly ridiculous, inane and any other negative adjective I can think of.The film is pure torture.

MartinHafer 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.

rosyposy 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.