Portnoy's Complaint

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!!

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 ****

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?

This film feels like the smarmy ramblings of an emotional 8-year-old, replete with indulgent fantasies a la Walter Mitty. The action revolves around its main character's (Richard Benjamin) perpetual, neurotic obsession with all bodily fluids and his dysfunctional family.

Richard Benjamin is perfectly cast as Portnoy, an uninteresting bundle of neuroses.

Overall, the film has as much charm as an episode of "Love American Style" written and directed by a foul-mouthed boy with a dictionary of vulgar words at his elbow. I can't imagine that anyone associated with this film was forever proud of his/her part in it.

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.