Was "Can Hieronymus Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness?" an important film?

The wiki page seems to suggest it influenced the “presentational” style of American films to come, but stumbling across it in wiki was the first I have ever heard of this film.

Joan Collins as Polyester Poontang.

I’m not enough of a film historian to say. But I’ll say this is the worst movie I’ve ever seen in my life. From start to finish it’s excruciating.

Never heard of it. I’m definitely no film expert, but I’ve read a more than average number of books on film history and think I’ve at least heard of most of the important ones (especially American ones), and this is new to me. It’s also not out on DVD and has only 202 votes on IMDB (for a dismal 3.7 rating), so I’m guessing this could not have been that important a movie.

It is awful.

A 107 minute wank by Newley at his most grotesquely egotistical. Never released on video or DVD and rightly so - it deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of cinematic history. One of the films responsible for the death of the British film industry.

Give me Ken Russell any day.

It’s got the words “Merkin” and “Humppe” (read: hump-ee as in someone who is humped) in the title. I’m surprised it isn’t important to the porn industry… for how to make a porn sounding title that might just be a legit movie.

It suggests nothing of the sort. It only says without any citiation :

and at time of writing, the wiki article hadn’t been edited since Jan 3rd 2010

The name is “Mercy Humppe.” You’ve never heard the expression “mercy hump”?

I’ve heard of it, probably from the Golden Turkey Awards or some such “bad cinema” book.

I’ve heard OF it, all I remember is it was an attempt at arty-porny-sniggery stuff in the loosened up 60’s era. If memory serves. The fact that it has disappeared from public consciousness is a sure sign it isn’t, and never was, important.

I don’t see how a movie that virtually no one remembers, and that few people knew about at the time, could be important.

But, as one who had the misfortune of seeing it, I can say that it’s one of the most miserable pieces of puerile drivel I’ve ever seen.

It was savaged critically when it came out and flopped badly. It certainly wasn’t considered an important film and I’ve never seen it discussed as anything but a disaster.

Though now that people seem to think Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music is some sort of musical landmark, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone put forth the idea.

Well, Connie Kreski, who was achingly lovely looking as a Playboy centerfold and eventual 1969 Playmate of the Year, was in it …

I have heard of that expression before… I don’t know why I didn’t put that together in my head… I think I was too focused on the “e” at the end. Wow, I’m losing it!

I saw it once, years ago. I enjoyed one song* (the music was catchy, even if the song was a 6 minute dirty joke/shaggy dog story) and thought most of it was terrible, largely because Anthony Newley is a talentless hack.

That said, the basic concept is…interesting. A person dies and has to tell his life story to an angel (Who’s dressed all in white and carries an umbrella–whenever the angel tells a tacky vaudeville-style joke, someone dies) and the devil.

The basic idea–someone examining his life as seen through a lens of song and skits that illustrate the key events in his life–is an interesting one. A few years after, Kander and Ebb would do something similar (but about a billion times better) with CHICAGO (the movie, which I liked, differs dramatically from the stage musical–the stage musical is told as a series of skits, hence the subtitle “A Musical Vaudeville”).

That said, blech. It’s not worth your time, effort or energy should you have a chance to see it.
Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otry9dTltR8&feature=player_embedded

There ya go.
*“Once Upon A Time”–I think it’s on youtube. That song was the best part of the movie. If you don’t like it, you’ll loathe the rest of the movie. If you do like it, you’ll merely hate it. :wink: