Reviews

Loved this movie! So nice to watch a story about real people who are kind to one another.

I didn't think they made movies like this anymore. Romantic, fast paced screwball comedy reminiscent of movies in the 30s and 40s. Loved it.

I'm probably the oldest commenter who remembers this wonderful show. I was 28, married with one child and expecting another in 1962 when I was drawn into its world. I loved the characters and the stories, but most of all I loved the theme music and have been looking for it for 46 years.

All the previous comments have expressed what I felt for this show much better than I could. My question for IMDb is, why is Glenn Corbett not listed as a regular member of the cast? He was in every episode, as I recall, but even under his own entry, he is listed in only one episode.

After all these years I'm thrilled to find that so many people remember It's a Man's World, one of my all-time favorite TV shows. If it ever comes out on DVD, I'll be one of the first in line to buy it.

The real Sam Giancana was short, bald, old, and ugly. In my idealistic 20s I couldn't understand what Phyllis McGuire saw in him. If he had looked more like John Turturro, it would have made sense. Now, in my cynical 70s, I can see it was the butterscotch Cadillac convertible and probably a few other baubles, plus the seductive allure of being the mob boss's girl. Why didn't they use recordings of the real McGuire Sisters? They were pretty good singers, much better than whoever dubbed the songs in this movie. Still, the film is interesting because all these details didn't come out until long after the trio's stardom had faded.

I am a 70-year-old woman, and I have loved musicals all my life. I've been familiar with the Phantom story since seeing the Claude Rains version in the '40s. I saw Lloyd Webber's "Phantom" onstage in Phoenix (not the original cast). I've had the original cast album since it first came out.

This movie is the first screen adaptation of a stage musical I can remember in which no songs were left out, no plot was changed, and no locale was moved because somebody thought movie audiences wouldn't "get" the original, or because it was too long, or some other insulting reason. It shows what magic can be made when an artist insists on controlling the reincarnation of his work. I liked it better than the stage show because everything was bigger and opened up. There were touches of humor, badly needed. The "Masquerade" scene was brilliant, and the Phantom himself was mesmerizing. The whole spectacle (and there's nothing wrong with spectacle, despite what the critics seem to think) was incredibly romantic and thrilling, the way many movies used to be and very few are now.

This is not the sixth or seventh film version of "The Phantom of the Opera." This is "Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera," a totally different and superior animal.

I'm old enough to be your grandma, and I remember when Cole Porter's songs

were on the Hit Parade. First, let's get the good stuff out of the way. Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd were wonderful. The makeup was astonishing.

(That may be where Oscar comes in.) But... All those who already commented on the disastrous choice of today's popular

singers to perform the songs are absolutely right. But don't blame Sheryl Crow; some idiot in charge told her to sing "Begin the Beguine" that way. The musical numbers, such as they were, after the first few bars were relegated to the background. The only really good old-fashioned, pseudospontaneous

musical number that the audience was allowed to see in its entirety was "Be a Clown." And it was too short. And the "Anything Goes" number featured a chorus line on the level of that in a Las Vegas lounge show.

Another minor point that bothered me was that the songs didn't seem to be in

chronological order. I thought the song "What a Swell Party This Is" was written for the movie "HIgh Society" in 1956. Did Porter really toss that song off in 1918 and dig it out of a trunk 38 years later? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess if you want your fill of Porter, done right, you have to watch the movies one by one: "The Gay Divorcée," "Anything Goes," "Born to Dance," "Rosalie,"

"Kiss Me Kate," "High Society," "Silk Stockings," "Les Girls," "Can-Can," etc.

For getting rid of that bad-taste "Begin the Beguine," I recommend "Broadway

Melody of 1940." Check out Fred Astaire and Eleanor Powell's unbelievably

superb dance to that great song.

I was a college sophomore in 1953 when Rachmaninoff's "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini" was near the top of the charts. (Yes, believe it or not, there was a time when good music was popular!) At the time, I knew it was featured in a movie, and I probably knew the title, but I never saw it. Over the years I forgot the movie title, but "Rhapsody" was always a favorite. Occasionally I puzzled over the movie that popularized it, but I couldn't remember what it was. This morning I discovered "The Story of Three Loves" (1953) on Turner Classic Movies, and there was Moira Shearer dancing to Rachmaninoff. I didn't have time to see the movie when it was new, but at least I solved the mystery for myself, and this time I won't forget. I thought the whole thing was charming. Speaking of shades of the future, in the first scene of the aerialist segment, "Equilibrium," Pier Angeli attempted suicide but was saved by Kirk Douglas. In real life, she succeeded in killing herself with a phenobarbital overdose in 1971.

I saw a college production of Chicago in 1981. It's one of my favorite shows. After umpteen postponements of the nationwide release date, I finally got to see this movie yesterday. Even after reading about it for weeks, I thought it was better than I expected. Unlike many movie versions of stage musicals of the past, almost all the wonderful songs from the original Broadway show were included (I hear "Class" was filmed but later cut, although it will be on the DVD), and the only new one, "I Move On," was written by the same songwriters (Kander & Ebb) and played over the credits. It was pretty good, too. See, I love musicals. I love to watch tap dancing, and I don't want too much plot interfering with it. I love '20s music, although I wasn't around for it when it was new. There's plenty of drama on TV, including movies, if that's what I want. But if I'm going to shell out $5 (senior matinee), I want a good musical. The last movie I went to in a theater was Evita, a disappointment precisely because it did not follow the original show closely enough. Chicago was brilliantly staged from start to finish. Like one commentator said, I hated to blink. I've been going to musicals since before most of the other commentators here were born, and I'm having trouble thinking of another musical I enjoyed as much as this one. All the things everyone else has criticized-well, they're probably good reasons why this film is so satisfying. Flashy production design, lots of quick-cut musical numbers, and over-the-top performances of cardboard characters, with no boring, moralizing message. Read my lips: this is not Macbeth, it's a MUSICAL.

At age 14, I saw this movie in a theater when it was new in 1948, and I have never forgotten it. Yes, it's funny, but it's also very romantic at the end. I think it was the best film John Lund ever made. I would love to see it again. If anybody out there has any influence on what goes on video, please push for this wonderful cinematic gem.

...to make sense of it-but is it worth it? After several sudden shifts

between dreams and reality, I couldn't tell which was which any

more than Tom Cruise's character could.

The whole thing is tragic and depressing. I'm skeptical of both an

afterlife and the current feasibility of successful cryogenesis, so

the future for David Aames seemed bleak indeed.

Only for rabid Cruise fans.

...I hate endings that leave you hanging, wondering what

happened after The End. That device may be artistically

defensible, but unless a sequel is in the offing, it's not very

satisfying for the viewer.

Without giving away the details, let me say that I felt cheated by the

shocker ending, although I sympathized with the grieving parents.

...read the book. I just want to correct a previous commenter who

said that Elizabeth McGovern as Evelyn Nesbit was a sex symbol

of the '20s; sorry, but Nesbit would have been in her mid-30s by

that time. This movie is set in the '00s of the 20th century. The

Nesbit-White-Thaw scandal erupted in 1906, and I think most of

the events in this story unfolded around 1909. I do think McGovern is prettier than Nesbit was. Anyway, what bothered me was the final scene where Mother

takes both kids and runs off with Tateh. Granted, Mandy Patinkin is

gorgeous, especially in 1981, but I just can't believe Mother would

have been that liberated, that fast, in 1909. In the stage musical

version, Father goes down with the Lusitania, which makes it

convenient. That's why I feel a need to read the book and see how

E. L. Doctorow really wrote it. The first 40 years of 20th century

American history are truly fascinating.

Great story. Great musical. Good movie. It's a long book.

Not only am I a musical film lover, I'm old enough to remember

when The Fantasticks was a new off-Broadway musical. In 1995 I

read a news item in the Arizona Republic that the show was at last

being filmed in the Tucson area, and I eagerly awaited its

Christmas release. Nothing. Finally, last year it emerged from

oblivion, and I can't understand why it was ever shelved. It's not

West Side Story, but it's not Grease 2 either. Joel Grey is always

wonderful. I love the imaginative editing, and I think Jonathon

Morris is the real star. Where has he been? My only criticism is the deletion of the song "Plant a Radish," which

happily is included on the DVD version. This is a rare, joyous entertainment and a welcome relief from

screeching car chases and bloody machine-gun slaughter. Why

does every movie have to be aimed at 14-year-old mentalities?

Our taste has gone down the drain. As a kid I went to the movies 3

times a week. The last time was to see The Titanic (1998). Most of

today's films are garbage, and I can see that every night on TV for a

lot less money.

If this movie hadn't been shot in color, I might have mistaken it for a '40s B Western. Tell the truth: the plot was lifted from The Mark of Zorro and the names were changed, right? At least those '40s actors didn't appear to forget their lines. Or maybe no lines were written for those embarrassing scenes in Blood Red where there are painful, inexplicable gaps in both dialogue and action. This film is noteworthy only as the single film to date in which both Julia and Eric Roberts have appeared together. That's the only reason I watched it as long as I did. And what brilliant, inspired casting! They played brother and sister. My Video Movie Guide is right: this is a turkey.

I live in a small town (not quite as small as Blaine), and I've seen

all these people before. A few years ago, our local thespian group

produced A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (one

of my favorite musicals), with full piano accompaniment. They had

to literally drag someone off the street to play the lead role of

Pseudalus, and he couldn't even carry a tune. The only bright spot

was the girl who played the ingenue, obviously a natural talent and

the only one who seemed to know what the show was all about.

Sometimes you're lucky enough to have one cast member who

almost makes up for the wannabes.

That was the last home-grown production I attended.

This hilarious movie proves that there are lots of theatrical

amateurs out there in small-town America, still waiting for

Guffman.

I'm a big fan of Robert Forster and I'd watch just about anything he was in, but sticking with this turkey to the end was almost too much to ask. It starts off with a promising situation: three strangers waking up to find themselves locked in a strange house, but it never really delivers a satisfactory ending. It evokes the mood of dramas like The Twilight Zone but can't sustain it throughout, bogging down in confessional dialogue. Besides bad writing, the film suffers from bad editing. Some of the camera cuts seem accidental: The character caught on camera looks surprised and hesitates, as if waiting for a cue. There are some awkward, amateurish pauses where nobody says anything but you have the feeling someone should be saying something. Robin Mattson is good, as always, and there are some amusing elementary special effects, but on the whole I felt that I had wasted the time it took to watch it.

I am old enough to be nostalgic for the film genre that inspired this

Shakespeare update and musical spoof. I loved the '30s music

and motif, but I'm afraid the Shakespeare is still too heavy for me

(my favorite poem is Ogden Nash's "The Ice Breaker": "Candy is

dandy but liquor is quicker").

Still, I was pleased to see that the plot never really interfered with

the dancing. It was obvious that the only real dancer in the group

was Adrian Lester. Alicia Silverstone was just a bit pudgy in one of

the dance numbers.

If it weren't for the delightful Kenneth Branagh, the irrepressible

Nathan Lane, and the magnificent Natasha McElhone, the

nonmusical sequences might be hard to take. Why wasn't Irving

Berlin given musical credit for "There's No Business Like Show

Business"?

I'm sorry this film was not a box office success in its limited

theatrical distribution. We need more real musicals (as opposed

to rock garbage), with or without Shakespeare.

Sometimes the romantic subplot gets in the way of the satire, but when you see Hemingway drooling and mumbling into his scotch and hear Gertrude Stein recite one of her interminable doggerels masquerading as an unassuming philosophical gem, you know they can't be too serious. One of the greatest lines in any movie comes near the end, when Wallace Shawn says to Keith Carradine: "I ran into Maurice Ravel in the men's room. He didn't recognize me."

I love these early 20th century "period" films, and The Moderns is double the fun-no real suicides, and a hopeful, happy ending.

I don't usually have the patience for Woody Allen's whining, but I loved this movie! It takes a musical film lover to appreciate the gentle spoof of production numbers and the courage to allow non-singing, non-dancing actors to sing and dance. I also loved the satirical jibes at Eastern liberals and jet-setters. What's sad is that most of the best touches go right over the heads of today's movie audience, like the uncredited and unannounced appearance of violinist Itzhak Perlman. I realized that right now, there is no one in my life who would appreciate this film the way I do. Woody, I forgive you for all the tiresome angst

that has gone before.