The writers must have thought the name Epiphania to be screamingly funny, which is why it is uttered so often in the first 5 minutes. But instead of having me roll over with laughter this achieved the opposite: every mention of the name annoyed me more than the previous. In comedy, often less is more... especially when the "joke" in question isn't a proper joke.
It's a typical vapid 50s/60s comedy (awful era for comedies), written with excessive longing for ultra-corny cheese, but saved somewhat from total doom by the casting of the two main protagonists. Sophia is surprisingly vivacious and good in the very stereotypical, typically exaggerated, formulaic role of a spoiled rich princess that needs a lesson in humility. She gets this lesson from socialists, of course - who are as we all know a BEACON of morality. (Because rich people are all evil, so claimed Georgie-boy, one of the writers, despite himself having been an exceedingly wealthy communist.) Sellers tried his best too... or did he? At times he appears to be bored, which nobody could blame him for. (Well, except the writers of this trash.) Whatever little he does right can't eke out much humour out of this shoddily written and conceived character. This is just one of the many awful comedies he had agreed to make because the money was good - and/or because he foolishly believed the script had potential. His choice of wives was legendarily random (and sometimes disastrous) similarly to his choice of projects.
While the idea of an Indian doctor meeting Loren is interesting and could have had potential (in skilled writing hands), the idiotic reverse logic of her pursuing him instead makes things unnecessarily unrealistic, and as a result completely unfunny. I expected a story in which Sellers would pester Loren for her affection, just as had happened in real life between the two of them, but no dice. This far more logical and funnier approach was reversed for one simple reason: the movie just had to have some underlying preachy Marxist morality about the classes, which spoils all the fun. Wealthy Loren chasing reluctant Sellers is a typical dumb male fantasy anyway, and it gets increasingly dumber as this crap plods along. In real life, there were no beautiful rich women chasing Sellers, it would have been preposterous had it been that way; he did all the chasing, and legendarily so. (I've read a great biography on Sellers, and seen several documentaries. You're much better off with those than this turkey.)
The notion that a 30something Indian doctor would be (almost) immune to the advances of voluptuous Sophia Loren is perfectly absurd, and it's a real problem. The fact that his rejection of her is based on his zealous idealism only exacerbates things further. (At this point the movie became less realistic than a 50s B-movie monster flick.) To perhaps illustrate how absurd it is (as if this needed an explanation), in real life Sellers was not only totally smitten with Loren during the shoot, he actually ended up following her to her next film set, dotting on her like a smitten stalker. Sellers actually got it into his strange head that Loren didn't act being in love but actually did fall for him.
Add the fact that Sellers makes only one brief (and the only effective) appearance in the first 25 minutes, and we've got a very slow-moving comedy that bafflingly postpones Seller's involvement for very long. Not that it matters, because Sellers doesn't deliver. Sophia does quite well in those 25 minutes though, but the same cannot be said at all of the supporting actors/characters which are dreary and unfunny. Her character is a dumb cardboard cut-out but at least she does her best, and has charisma. She has nothing i.e. nobody to work with. As a result the dialog and situations appear stiff and unreal, hence unfunny. However, this would only get worse, ironically, with Seller's second appearance.
TM could be described as a mediocre comedy in the first half-hour, but after that it's extremely unfunny, utterly dreary, and even soppy. The main reason it gets much worse is because the political propaganda and generic Hollywood sentimentality start diluting what little comedy there was to begin with. From here onward the movie is a mess. The Indian doctor's increasingly annoying/boring political/social preaching destroys what little comedy there was here to begin with; it renders him unlikable, pompous and unfunny, which goes to show what the writers' real priorities were. And it proves how utterly incompetent they were not to profit from Sellers's talent.
Small wonder though. George Bernard Shaw co-wrote the script; he is far more (in)famous for being a communist than for writing funny scripts. (That overrated bore "Pygmalion", that's his.) The other writer is Mankowitz whose film resume is a what's-what of irrelevant piffle. The director is the mediocre Asquith, who had never made a notable movie despite directing a ton of them. Hilariously enough, while this righteous left-wing script pokes fun at upper-class power and wealth, Asquith himself was a silver-spoon fed-and-bred son of a top government official - leader of the Liberal Party and home secretary! Add to that the fact that Mankowitz lived a luxurious lifestyle with several villas, not to mention Georgie-boy with his enormous wealth, and you've got a classic example of Hollywood elitists exercising their right to be huge hypocrites, for the gazillionth time. (Virtue-signaling wasn't invented in this century, you know.) On a side note, George Bernard Shaw actually visited the Soviet Union during Stalin's rule - then came back to tell the British public what a wonderfully run country it was! We know he wasn't a moron, which leaves us with only one explanation...
Suffice it to say, all communists are either liars or fools, and most of either category are shameless hypocrites who take every opportunity to snatch some wealth for themselves, then refuse to share it with their "comrades" and "droogs" as their ideology decrees. The commies involved in the making of this tripe should have left their mindless preaching for the laughable populist speeches of the Labour politicians they were chummy with, and focused instead on making these characters continually funny as opposed to almost never. It's supposed to be a COMEDY after all, not a Socialist manifesto. But such is the arrogance and fanaticism of the Far Left that they just have to grab every opportunity to hassle the public with political indoctrination. That's all they are interested in. (That and wealth.)
The incompetence of the writers is evident from the very beginning. Aside from having characters parrot the name Epiphania like zombies, the condition under which Epiphania must marry is ludicrous: her future husband must be given 500 British pounds and turn them into 15,000 by the end of the next three months. This is a dumb premise because any wealthy or clever charlatan can simply LIE to her that he made that money. Instead of investing, he can lend the 15 K from the mob (for example) to "prove" that he made a profit, then get married to her and pay off his debt (to the mob) with high interest. Or are we to believe that Epiphania's deceased capitalist father was just as stupid as the communists who wrote this garbage? Surely a successful capitalist is bound to be ten times more intelligent than the vast majority of his envious socialist detractors... just as he declares in his will. How ironic, because the will was intended to achieve the opposite impression of him.