"There's a Girl in My Soup" was originally a highly successful stage play before it became a film. I have never seen the theatrical version; although it ran for six years in London's West End, from 1966 to 1972, becoming what was then Britain's longest-ever running comedy, it never seems to be revived these days. The cinematic version is a mixture of the traditional romantic comedy and the sex comedy, a genre which had become popular in the sixties.In real life Peter Sellers was never, except in his own imagination, and possibly also in Britt Ekland's imagination, a major sex symbol. Here, however, he gives a surprisingly convincing impression of one. His character, Robert Danvers, is a popular and highly successful television chef. (He was apparently based on Graham Kerr, a real-life popular and highly successful television chef). The elegantly dressed, forty- something Danvers is an incorrigible womaniser; when we first meet him he is seducing an old flame on the day of her wedding. (Mind you, given that the lady's intended is a prime example of the upper-class English chinless wonder, we can probably forgive her).Danvers is not interested on love or romance; all he wants is uncomplicated, no-strings-attached sex with as many women (preferably much younger than him) as possible. He rather looks down upon his happily married friend Andrew. He meets his match, however, when he meets Marion, a nineteen-year-old American hippie living in London. (Marion is supposed to be American, but at times it sounded as though Goldie Hawn was trying to put on a British accent). She has just split up with her Neanderthal rock musician boyfriend Jimmy, who wanted a ménage a trois with her and another girl, and Danvers assumes she will be easy pickings. To his surprise, however, she initially turns him down, but he is nothing if not persistent, and eventually succeeds in getting her into bed.Anyone familiar with the conventions of the romantic comedy will know what is coming next. For the first time in his life Robert Danvers, the Don Juan of the cooking show, falls in love with someone other than himself. Marion becomes his steady girlfriend, moves in with him, and accompanies him on a trip to a wine festival France. Even though she sometimes embarrasses him with her gauche behaviour, Robert learns to treat her as a person in her own right, not merely a vehicle for his own sexual pleasure.At this point, familiarity with the conventions of the romantic comedy ceases to be a reliable guide. We all know that, according to all the rules, the film should end with the wedding of Marion and Robert, especially as a misunderstanding has led to everyone concluding that they are married already. As I said, however, this is not a pure-bred romantic comedy but the bastard offspring of a romantic comedy crossed with that ugly beast, the sex comedy. The classical romantic comedy rule book contained no prohibition against an ending in which a lovely young woman became the bride of a man old enough to be her father. Indeed, at one time such endings were positively encouraged in Hollywood, but by 1970 they were starting to look just a bit too nineteen-fifties and out of place in the brave new world of the seventies. So an ending was contrived in which Marion returns to the ghastly Jimmy while Robert slips back into his bad old ways. When we last see him he is seducing Andrew's pretty young au pair girl.There is no real logic or motivation behind Marion's decision to abandon Robert for Jimmy, who, despite being a generation younger, is even more male chauvinist in his attitudes than the older man. This was presumably done simply to make the movie look trendier; after all, in 1970 rock musicians were the wave of the future, TV cooks a blast from the past. (Today, of course, it is the other way round; celebrity chefs like Jamie Oliver and Delia Smith are among the most popular figures on British television, whereas heavy rock looks nearly as dated as ragtime or Gregorian plainchant).This bungled ending is unfortunate as in other respects this is quite a good film. There is an attractive musical score, based around Mike d'Abo's catchy theme song "Miss Me in the Morning". There is an amusing credits sequence which credits not only an "Assistant Director" but also an "Assistant to the Assistant Director" and an "Assistant to the Assistant's Assistant". (Was this inspired by a similar jest in the film "April in Paris"?) Sellers is not quite as good here as he was in, say, "Dr Strangelove" or the better entries in the "Pink Panther" franchise, but his is nevertheless a reasonable performance and Hawn is as lovable as ever. The script, written by Terence Frisby who also wrote the stage play, is a witty one and the action, until the disappointing denouement, is well handled. 6/10, a mark which would have been higher with a better ending

Ideally cast, often above-average dialog (for a comedy), some amusing moments, and unmistakable 60s cheerfulness - but also a very badly conceived story.There is hardly a plot to speak of. Usually these romantic comedies have some sort of logical structure, usually a predictable formula that has the following order: boy-meets-girl, boy-girl-don't-get-along, boy-and-girl-finally-hook-up. TAGIMS, however, has: boy-meets-girl, boy-gets-girl-fairly-quickly, boy-and-girl-fart-about-in-France, girl-leaves-boy-for-no-apparent-reason, boy-resumes-life-as-a-single-man.What I mean is man-meets-girl etc. He is twice her age.While Peter Sellers's character is nicely fleshed out and makes complete sense every step of the way, the same cannot be said at all about Hawn's quasi-hippie-chick. She is young, fickle and unpredictable, I get it, but her decisions aren't based on anything that the viewer can relate to. At first she seems to dislike Sellers, but then suddenly and inexplicably makes a 180 turn, pushes for an affair with him – and just at the time when she is left with nowhere to stay, which implies that she is just using Sellers and his considerably luxurious lifestyle. At least in the real world that would be the motive for such a move.Eventually she decides to leave Sellers. No reason is given, except that she wants to suddenly go back to her "psychedelic zombie" boyfriend, a moron who keeps posters of Che Guevara, Marx, and Picasso hanging on the walls of his run-down flat. (He has a poster of the Incredible Hulk right next to mass-murdering Che, so that puts everything in perspective nicely.) Goldie simply does what she wants, whenever she wants to, without having to explain herself, but that also means that the viewer is left in the dark as to why she dumps Sellers for the Che-loving retard. She is like a free electron, bouncing around without rhyme or reason or a plan – and yet she is supposed to be smart.I have a problem with Hawn supposedly being highly intelligent. If you combed the entire late-60s period, interviewing tens of thousands of 19 year-old American hippie girls who acted and dressed as clowns, saying "dig" and "love" every 3 seconds, you would probably not find ONE that is of above-average intelligence. In fact, you'd find very few that even hit the 100 mark. Goldie is given overly clever dialog at first, but then displays moments of high dits which in no way fits in with her earlier smart-*ss attitude. That is what is called "bad writing", but also "wanting to have your cake and eat it too" (i.e. have her engage in clever tête-à-têtes with Sellers, but also allow her to be a goofy moron who does extremely childish, immature things in order to garner laughs; you can't have it both ways, unless your character is a schizophrenic or something).

While I have enjoyed Peter Sellers in a lot of films, this one really pulled me out of the mood when you see him early in the film without a shirt---and with COPIOUS amounts of back hair. While this might not be a problem in many films (or a boon if you are in one of the "Planet of the Apes" movies), here it made no sense, as Sellers was supposed to be a Lothario who attracts women like flies. I would think many women would just yell "Ewwww!!!" when they saw him shirtless and take them completely out of the mood. Sorry about the little diatribe....but a bit of Nair would have really helped him make the role more convincing.The film finds Sellers playing an upper-class man who has become famous as a TV chef--sort of like Graham Kerr in the 1960s. However, his greatest joy is not food but women--and his needs are very, very, very compulsive. Again and again, he scores but doesn't allow any of these women to get close to him. And, women fall for his lines one after another. However, when he meets a very young Goldie Hawn, he's finally met a woman who can see right through him--and he finds this very disarming. For once, he is not in control and she seems relatively immune to his wiles--anticipating his every move. Surprisingly, he soon finds himself actually falling for this lady...something he's never let himself do in the past. And, he even contemplates marrying her! But, while she likes him a lot...marriage just isn't in her plans.Despite its adult theme and cavalier attitude towards sex, I was intrigued by this film--mostly because it defies the usual stereotypes. It has very interesting characters as well--an interesting character study indeed--even if the ending seemed a tad abrupt.By the way, as the subject of this film is pretty adult, so is the film overall. There's a decent amount of nudity and you might want to consider this before watching or showing it to your mother-in-law or priest!

Annoying, static comedy with a painfully miscast Peter Sellers as a smarmy, self-centered Casanova who always has his way with the ladies. A major blemish on Sellers' filmography, and, even worse, a film that seems to have been made solely to satisfy the ego of its star. (*)