Philip Roth's celebrated bestseller, a frank and overtly-rude novel of modern-day Jewish guilt and rage, comes to the screen somewhat neutered. Richard Benjamin plays the 33-year-old lawyer looking back on his boyhood in New Jersey, set in a stifling family house of Jewish repression, and later on his tumultuous affair with a shiksa fashion model. The themes of the book--the all-important mother figure (whose judge-and-jury persona shapes Portnoy's sex life) and the wanton craving for constant ejaculation--are touched upon here fleetingly; but Ernest Lehman, who adapted the script and directed, is too tasteful for raunch. He seems to have decided that simply satirizing Jewish conventions (in a familiar, cartoony way) would suffice instead. And so we get the standard arguments around the kitchen table, the squabbling about kosher diets, the meddling and prodding over sexual matters, and the inevitable battle between Jewish girls versus shiksas. This is all familiar territory by now, made even worse with the casting of Benjamin (didn't we cover much of this material with Benjamin in "Goodbye, Columbus"?). Karen Black gives the film's strongest performance as Portnoy's first serious girlfriend--she's flirty, sexy and scary all at once--but there's perhaps too much of her. The entire midsection of the movie is devoted to Portnoy's putting up with her moods, and Black's "Monkey" is haphazardly written (she's a child-like waif who can't spell in one scene, and a bilingual, bisexual woman of the world in the next!). However, Black's serious stab at this screenplay is commendable, and she gets some good speeches when she isn't being derogatory (the script being an equal-opportunity insulter). Lee Grant tries, too, to make something of the thinly-conceived role of Mother Portnoy, though Jack Somack as her husband is much better suited to the scenario and upstages her. Jill Clayburgh turns up in a throwaway role (she fights against being humiliated, but doesn't appear to teach Portnoy anything in the process). With all this talent on-board, one might be inclined to give the picture a break (it was savaged by the critics in 1972); alas, it is a film that doesn't come close to accomplishing what it sets out to be: a comedic film about sexual frustration, release and resolve. There are too many outré attempts at jokes without understanding the true root of the humor. ** from ****
10 Reviews
Funny at times but too much like a TV sit-com
rosebud-4228 September 1999
Overall not a terrible movie--but it drags on more than one occasion and the NY jewish schtick is cliched and overdone. Very dated and too much like a sit-com at times, but worth it to see a scorching hot Karen Black and neurotic Richard Benjamin at his peak.
Sex is Heaven, Then It's Hell!!!!!
dataconflossmoor18 June 2004
Richard Benjamin is psychologically tortured merely by being a product of his environment....He must prove something to everyone as well as himself...Once he and Karen Black are tired of great sex, their relationship takes a nosedive...Karen Black's perception of Richard Benjamin is that he cannot avoid denigrating her even if he tries. Regardless of what he might say, she is definitely not a Columbia Graduate, and she definitely does not buy her clothes at Peck and Peck... Neither one of these two people feel that their lives make sense....The plain truth is that once these two are tired of just having sex, all evidence points to the fact that they hate one another..Richard Benjamin's undetermined plight in life is a heinous source of consternation to him!!..Both major characters in this movie will be lambasted from all sides, and while they are not ready for the world, the world is also not really ready for them!!!...This movie is a compelling revelation of the side effect from the sexual revolution....When Mom and Dad told you not to play with matches, they also did not want you to play with blow torches as well!! If you don't like what's going on with your life, Change it!!..However, if all you can recognize as a common bond with the opposite gender is casual sex, then you are going out of the frying pan and into the fire!! It is the fact that people like Karen Black and Richard Benjamin cannot fully understand the concept of "We reap what we sow" that keeps the Park Ave shrinks in business!! The cogency of human errors in this film simply astounds you, the audience has no choice but to empathize yet not sympathize with the characters in the movie.. What is wrong with negative realism in a film is that a great deal of movie watchers do not perceive this as entertainment...I do!!...I was very impressed with this film, particularly when you consider the year it was made...This movie is clairvoyant enough to reach today's thoughts on casual sex!!..Furthermore, it is a proverbial case of how some things never change.. The culprit usually being that of extreme selfishness!! What is the typical reaction to messing up your emotions? Blame your environment!!...Bear in mind one thing...Recrimination without change is like French fries without Ketchup!!!...This movie is GREAT because the truth not only hurts the characters in the movie, but it also offends the audience...Sorry about that Frankie and Annette Fans!!
A misguided attempt by some very talented people who should have known better.
ags12321 January 2020
Even the esteemed screenwriter Ernest Lehman could not write a script and direct a film of "Portnoy's Complaint." Philip Roth's internalized monologue of a book defies such a transition. After more than half a century, Roth's novel still sparkles, while this film was dead on arrival in 1972 and remains best forgotten.
THIS was considered obscene?
preppy-38 August 2007
Boring, pointless movie about a neurotic man (Richard Benjamin) and his relationship with his overbearing mother (Lee Grant) and with a pretty strange woman (Karen Black).
I heard this was considered a very dirty movie back in 1972 for its language and subject matter (especially all the talk about masturbation). It's hard to believe that now--most of the material here is done on TV today with no problem! This is very much a product of its time--the sexual politics and issues dealt with here are done in a very 1970s manner. When you have John Carradine play the voice of God you KNOW you're in trouble!
I've never read the book this was based on so I can't say how faithful this is--but what remains is a pointless, boring and stupid movie. Benjamin's nonstop whining gets annoying pretty quick and he's completely miscast. Grant is (surprisingly) not that good either and is also miscast. There's a dinner table sequence that (I suppose) is supposed to be funny involving them but it comes off as being pretty sick. The only actor that is any good here is Karen Black as "Monkey". She single-handedly saves this movie from being totally unbearable. She's the only reason I give this a 3.
This is a dated, pointless 1970s movie that's rightfully forgotten. You might like it if you're into 70s movies that deal with sexual politics. I give this a 3.
I heard this was considered a very dirty movie back in 1972 for its language and subject matter (especially all the talk about masturbation). It's hard to believe that now--most of the material here is done on TV today with no problem! This is very much a product of its time--the sexual politics and issues dealt with here are done in a very 1970s manner. When you have John Carradine play the voice of God you KNOW you're in trouble!
I've never read the book this was based on so I can't say how faithful this is--but what remains is a pointless, boring and stupid movie. Benjamin's nonstop whining gets annoying pretty quick and he's completely miscast. Grant is (surprisingly) not that good either and is also miscast. There's a dinner table sequence that (I suppose) is supposed to be funny involving them but it comes off as being pretty sick. The only actor that is any good here is Karen Black as "Monkey". She single-handedly saves this movie from being totally unbearable. She's the only reason I give this a 3.
This is a dated, pointless 1970s movie that's rightfully forgotten. You might like it if you're into 70s movies that deal with sexual politics. I give this a 3.
A pile of poop
hadaska-5329027 January 2023
Constipation and diarrhea is presented as a running theme in this movie which serves to define this movie in it's entirety. Something to pass on as flushable down the toilet. What we get subjected to are the trials and tribulations of its male star attraction who heroically goes through life tasked with gratifying his sexual lust. Which for him is a daily routine as necessary for life as three meals a day. Amazing it is that the people who put this production together were able to assemble reputable actors willing to become cast members in this fiasco. Do yourself a favor and pass this one up.
Richard Benjamin, Karen Black, Lee Grant, Jill Clayburgh, what were you thinking?
Richard Benjamin, Karen Black, Lee Grant, Jill Clayburgh, what were you thinking?
It would probably be a good idea for anyone getting involved in a relationship to see this movie
lee_eisenberg8 May 2005
Whoa! I've heard of some screwed up people, but Alexander Portnoy (Richard Benjamin) belongs in a class on his own. Through a session with his psychiatrist, he tells the story of how his overbearing mother (Lee Grant) kept a little bit too tight a rein on his sexuality during his formative years, and he ended up with a mangled view of relationships. He dates a number of women, but none of them work out. As Alexander says at one point: "I'm living my life as a Jewish joke."
The sad part is, much what happens in "Portnoy's Complaint" probably really happened. Philip Roth's two most famous novels (the other one was "Goodbye, Columbus") both dealt with Jewish neurosis. Alexander's mother is truly the sort of mother whom no one wants to have (she takes a certain bizarre interest in the results of people's bodily functions). Some people may wonder why they made this into a movie, but it definitely shows a side of life that we too often forget about. And anyway, regardless of one's opinion of it, "Portnoy's Complaint" is a much more justifiable movie than "Independence Day" or Bio-Dome".
The sad part is, much what happens in "Portnoy's Complaint" probably really happened. Philip Roth's two most famous novels (the other one was "Goodbye, Columbus") both dealt with Jewish neurosis. Alexander's mother is truly the sort of mother whom no one wants to have (she takes a certain bizarre interest in the results of people's bodily functions). Some people may wonder why they made this into a movie, but it definitely shows a side of life that we too often forget about. And anyway, regardless of one's opinion of it, "Portnoy's Complaint" is a much more justifiable movie than "Independence Day" or Bio-Dome".
Still looks good!
sjbrook12 December 2004
This movie was bold for its time, especially in its use of "bad" language, and it still looks good. Some modern reviewers wrote things like this: "Amazing that anyone had the nerve to attempt to translate Philip Roth's infamous novel to the screen. The neurotic Jewish boy, who has a strange relationship with his mother and an obsession with sex, should be neutered. It's worth viewing only as a curiosity." (Mick Martin and Marsha Porter, Video Movie Guide, 2002.) But the film is much more than an historical curiosity. It also throws a revealing light on the mores of only a generation ago -- what was shocking then, is no longer so, despite hypersensitive writers like Martin and Porter.
Nevermind Portnoy's complaint. I've got a few.
fedor89 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"The Masturbation Chronicles". That's another title they could have considered for this lousy movie. Listening to Portnoy reminisce about his dull adolescent right-hand shenanigans reminded me of those "arty" Euro-trash films that deal with sex and sexual perversions and nothing more. There must be at least 10,000 French and Italian dramas that commence with the main protagonist's history of masturbation or leering at nude women through key-holes as a boy. Somehow pretentious European directors think that childhood masturbation and sexual fantasies give us vital clues and hints regarding the essence of the main character. (And it would - in a porno.) Or, and I think this is more likely, they just like to titillate both the audiences and themselves with some good-ol-fashioned smut disguised as "artistic expression". After all, what's more intellectually stimulating and philosophical than sperm flying out of the penis?
Phil Roth's trashy novel, which I haven't read and do not intend to, is just one in a long series of books belonging to post-war trash literature, written by bad writers looking for a quick buck; sex-orientated junk in the Erika Jong sense, it's all about hard-ons and tits, but with small doses of laughable fortune-cookie wisdom thrown in just for good measure to give the less intelligent book critics an excuse to over-praise them. I've always said that if you want to be that explicit then go all the way and make a decent porn film. Worse yet, Lehman and Roth tried to make this a comedy drama, which is one of the toughest genres to pull off. Far too challenging a task for two talentless dolts. The drama is dull and pointless, the humour sophomoronic. The worst bits are when we get protracted "glimpses" into Portnoy's family life as a teen. In these parts the movie almost looks like a bad sitcom, with cheap gags coming left and right: 60s-style TV humour, totally lame and predictable, based on some supposedly funny Jewish stereotypes, to which we're meant to fall off our chairs in uncontrollable laughter.
Speaking of those dull family scenes, how is it possible that Portnoy's parents do not suspect foul play when he fakes chronic diarrhea? Don't they wonder why that little toilet doesn't smell like a sewer every time Portnoy exits it? Don't his parents know that diarrhea leaves a stench behind it? Or did he grow up in a family that produced odorless excrement? One of the basic prerequisites for comedy to work is that it has to be based in reality to some extent. Or is the point here that his parents are so DUMB they can't even figure out the simplest 2+2 situation? Yeah, that's just hilarious.
Portnoy is an uninteresting and unlikable man, so why tell his story? He is continually horny, a mere sex-addict, somewhat perverse, and with a knack for picking out insane women. He can't get enough of the ol' in-out... and this is supposed to be what... deep? Fascinating? Funny? Yeah, a guy likes sex a lot: talk about a unique premise... Besides, Richard Benjamin is badly miscast. Listening to him use the "F" word, over and over, is like listening to 50 Cent recite Shakespeare. Watching Benjamin in a menage-a-trois is like Jon Bon Jovi conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra.
As for Karen Black, I guess she's solid, those weird eyes being easily suitable for playing nut-cases, but I do have a problem with her huge manly hands. Perhaps that's why she joined the Scientology sect; maybe one of their claims to fame is a cure for butch hands and fingers longer than some Yellowstone Park trees... She is supposed to be a ravishing beauty, a real catch for semi-geeky Portnoy, but somehow I don't buy it. Maybe they should have given the beautiful Jill Clayburgh that role, instead of miscasting her as that absurd Marxist Israeli woman.
One question to the makers of PC: why would you synchronize Jill - and with a 50 year-old woman's cancerous-sounding voice?? Do Marxist Jewish women all have voices too deep for Jill to sound convincing as one?
And yes, I suspect that the long-winded diatribe about the U.S. and Capitalism, that Jill (with the help of an old woman's voice) gives in the hotel room, reflects Roth's own retarded political views. No wonder they nominated him for the Nobel prize, the Pulitzer prize, and whatever other left-wing accolades there are.
Not even that enjoyable 70s feel can save the film...
Phil Roth's trashy novel, which I haven't read and do not intend to, is just one in a long series of books belonging to post-war trash literature, written by bad writers looking for a quick buck; sex-orientated junk in the Erika Jong sense, it's all about hard-ons and tits, but with small doses of laughable fortune-cookie wisdom thrown in just for good measure to give the less intelligent book critics an excuse to over-praise them. I've always said that if you want to be that explicit then go all the way and make a decent porn film. Worse yet, Lehman and Roth tried to make this a comedy drama, which is one of the toughest genres to pull off. Far too challenging a task for two talentless dolts. The drama is dull and pointless, the humour sophomoronic. The worst bits are when we get protracted "glimpses" into Portnoy's family life as a teen. In these parts the movie almost looks like a bad sitcom, with cheap gags coming left and right: 60s-style TV humour, totally lame and predictable, based on some supposedly funny Jewish stereotypes, to which we're meant to fall off our chairs in uncontrollable laughter.
Speaking of those dull family scenes, how is it possible that Portnoy's parents do not suspect foul play when he fakes chronic diarrhea? Don't they wonder why that little toilet doesn't smell like a sewer every time Portnoy exits it? Don't his parents know that diarrhea leaves a stench behind it? Or did he grow up in a family that produced odorless excrement? One of the basic prerequisites for comedy to work is that it has to be based in reality to some extent. Or is the point here that his parents are so DUMB they can't even figure out the simplest 2+2 situation? Yeah, that's just hilarious.
Portnoy is an uninteresting and unlikable man, so why tell his story? He is continually horny, a mere sex-addict, somewhat perverse, and with a knack for picking out insane women. He can't get enough of the ol' in-out... and this is supposed to be what... deep? Fascinating? Funny? Yeah, a guy likes sex a lot: talk about a unique premise... Besides, Richard Benjamin is badly miscast. Listening to him use the "F" word, over and over, is like listening to 50 Cent recite Shakespeare. Watching Benjamin in a menage-a-trois is like Jon Bon Jovi conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra.
As for Karen Black, I guess she's solid, those weird eyes being easily suitable for playing nut-cases, but I do have a problem with her huge manly hands. Perhaps that's why she joined the Scientology sect; maybe one of their claims to fame is a cure for butch hands and fingers longer than some Yellowstone Park trees... She is supposed to be a ravishing beauty, a real catch for semi-geeky Portnoy, but somehow I don't buy it. Maybe they should have given the beautiful Jill Clayburgh that role, instead of miscasting her as that absurd Marxist Israeli woman.
One question to the makers of PC: why would you synchronize Jill - and with a 50 year-old woman's cancerous-sounding voice?? Do Marxist Jewish women all have voices too deep for Jill to sound convincing as one?
And yes, I suspect that the long-winded diatribe about the U.S. and Capitalism, that Jill (with the help of an old woman's voice) gives in the hotel room, reflects Roth's own retarded political views. No wonder they nominated him for the Nobel prize, the Pulitzer prize, and whatever other left-wing accolades there are.
Not even that enjoyable 70s feel can save the film...
Good movie, bad casting
ivan-223 October 2001
I usually dislike movies based on famous novels. This one is funny, bold and deep, yet the critics think it's trash. My criticism of the movie is that it didn't go far enough. Richard Benjamin is terribly miscast. He is far too handsome, patrician and cool. He belongs in a country club, hunting foxes. They should have picked a homelier, less serene type. The action should have been less restrained and "tasteful". They should have laid it on thick, used more camp. At times the film looked like a Ross Hunter production!!! It was too nice and smooth. But despite these major insufficiencies, it is one of the better films ever made. I must read the novel. But how can I do that, given my vow never to read fiction again?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
