Reviews written by registered user
|27 reviews in total|
This movie endures as one of my favorites since the first day I saw it.
I had originally heard of it and wanted to see it because I've always
been a Cary Grant fan, but what eventually made me go out and get a
copy was after having seen Sleepless In Seattle, I was curious to see
if it was as good as they let on. It was not - it was, in fact, BETTER!
By far, it is one of the most romantic classic films I have ever seen.
It also holds special memories for me as well - my boyfriend, the
absolute love of my life, and I watched it in the first month that we
were together. To us, it will always be "our movie". I'm sure that
we're not the first, nor the last, couple (or person for that matter)
who associate this film with special moments in their life.
So for those of you who have never seen this beautiful film, go and find a copy and begin creating your own memories with it.
My family and I have been watching this movie at least once every summer since 1988 (we taped it). It's one of those movies you can watch a thousand times, have every line memorized, and still laugh at all the same jokes. One thing I noticed about this one is that they switched the characters of Schwartz and Flick. In "A Christmas Story", Schwartz is the cool, cocky one and Flick is the pathetic loser. In this installment, Flick is the cool one and Schwartz is the loser. Is this intended? Oh well, no matter what it's a great movie. The people who play the parents are excellent. Especially James Sikking, he is absolutely hilarious. I want to see this on DVD sometime soon. Everyone should see this movie. Family Channel should run it again.
This is what happens when directors, actors, etc. who know very little about
musicals try too hard to do someting they know nothing about. The only one
here with any previous musical experience is Catherine Zeta-Jones, and even
she couldn't save it. Don't get me wrong, it is a good movie, but that's it.
Good, not great. Not only did they change it from the original stage version
(always a receipe for the death of a musical), but they went too far with
the "glitz-glamour-razzle-dazzle". So far in fact, that the charm of the
portrayed era, the 1920s, was lost, and in it's place was the hollow shell
of a 90s fantasy of by-gone days. Razzle dazzle is fantastic, but too much
will kill the substance of a musical, make it too bloated, then it will die.
The story though, is still wonderful. Lots of fun, and cynical as well. The music is fantastic, probably the highlight of the movie. But Richard Gere as Billy Flynn???? What were they thinking! John Travolta was offered it, but he turned it down unfortunately. Personally, I would have loved to see Harry Connick Jr. as Billy Flynn. He's got the class, not a phoney act. He can SING, and certainly will be able to dance. He would have been a much better choice, and had he'd been in it, he would have made the movie better by adding the extra class the movie so desperately wanted but never fully achieved.
In all, I give it three stars. It's fun to see once in a while, but not what you should go for if you love a true musical. Some suggestions: anything with Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Eleanor Powell, Gene Kelly, Ann Miller, Vera-Ellen, etc. Or for those who enjoy more modern ones, should try the likes of Hair, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, A Chorus Line, or Cabaret.
This movie is quite possibly the single most passionate, intense, thrilling film I've ever seen. Even the most badly love-burned person can start to believe in love again after seeing it. Martin Hewitt and Brooke Shields are definately candidates for the cinema's most memorable lovers, at least I think so. Anyone who likes drama and/or romance, will definately love this movie. Some people say the acting in this movie is bad. It is NOT bad at all unless you're looking for Shakespeare or something. The storyline is very original, away from the old cliche that is used over and over again in romance films. How many other romantic films feature the leading man attempting to set fire to his love's house, just because he loves her so much?? What a film. That is all I can say: what an amazing film. I'm waiting patiently for the DVD. I was lucky enough to get a copy of the VHS, which is a prized possession. To everyone, ignore ALL of the bad reviews. See this movie no matter what it takes.
It's a shame that everybody knocks this movie, because it really is good. Sure, it is cheesy in parts, but hey it's a 1983 Brooke Shields movie, what do you expect? The best way to describe this movie is probably that it is very much like a Harlequin romance in many ways. Brooke Shields gives a very good performance, as does movie veteran Sir John Mills. It seems with this movie you either like it or you don't. Personally, I liked it and do recommend it. So go ahead, get some junk food, and a friend who likes romance flicks, and watch it on a rainy day.
Al Jolson is a true legend and this movie is rightfully called a milestone in film-making. The blackface number, though somewhat disturbing, is hardly something to base the movie solely on. Those of you who say that this movie would not be as popular had the blackface number not been in it, I beg to differ. In 1927, hearing people speak in films was something unheard of, and so when it eventually happened naturally everyone had to go and see it. THAT is why this movie is a milestone. Add to that the fact that the legendary Al Jolson stars and sings some of his greatest songs in it, makes this film very enjoyable.
After researching Judy Garland for the better part of 10 years, I was a little skeptical when I heard about this movie. Most bio-pics, unfortunately, stretch the truth, or leave it out , just to make a good story. So, needless to say, when I sat down to watch this movie I was on high-alert. Waiting for the first hint of bad information. I was extremely suprised! 99% of this movie is absolutely true. No fillers here. Also, I was worried that they'd get some horrible, "I'm-only-in-the-movie-cuz-my-dad-owns-the-studio" actress to play Judy. Judy Davis is amazing;and I also profoundly applaud the fact that they didn't get her to sing (except once a cappella at a party scene, which doesn't count). They dubbed in Judy's real voice! I'm so proud! ha ha. I'm a studying actress as well, so I have to admit a shred of jealously of the actress when I first heard of this movie coming out. because I've always wanted to play Judy Garland, either on film or stage. My jealousy has passed and I see that Judy Davis did an amazing job. Judy would be proud.
This movie is awesome, the casting -all the stars in this movie are great, - the pacing, script, etc. It's all perfect. Definately the best version of Little Women ever made (although the Katherine Hepburn version is not far behind).The Winona Ryder version sucks, never see it, you'll only be wasting your time. Go for this one;you won't be disappointed.
Having always been a fan of Elizabeth Taylor, I bought this movie (on DVD) without having ever seen it before. I LOVED IT!!! What a great movie! Not only are the actors wonderful, but the story is very moving and very nice.What else can I say but...beautiful.
I love this movie! But of course I am a Michael Jackson fan, so there you go. This film reminded me of the abstract films made by the Beatles in the '60's, only for MJ. It was excellent- the music, Michael, everything was great. Oh, yes, and in response to another persons review of this movie, MICHAEL DOES NOT URINATE DURING THE "COME TOGETHER" NUMBER. I don't know where he came up with this crazy idea, but I personally watched that sequence again, watching specifically for that, and does not do it. So, sir, you should not spread untrue rumors about Michael. Hasn't he been through enough? Sheesh. Anyhow, this is one special, great movie. So if you like Michael, or just want to watch something that may one day become a classic( like "Yellow Submarine" or "Help" for The Beatles), see it. You won't regret it.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |