Reviews

The production is beautiful. So squeaky-clean. So much emphasis on a love story taking precedence over a moment of history. For all its anti-evolution talk, it never makes any valid points against it, but does bring up important issues such as eugenics. Perhaps the pseudo-Disney approach, lush music, soft-focus cameras, oh-so-traditionally old-fashioned production values are a disguise for religious propaganda. But the worst revisionism is not any attempt to derail the force of evolution and progress in education. The worst revisionism is the utterly false picture of an oh-so-happy South in which the races mixed easily and freely in social and work situations. The Black nurse shows no fear of the White clients or employers, and even speaks up to some. The female lead has mixed-race half-sister. No racial tension to speak of. That is a scurrilous portrait to paint of the oh-so-hate-filled South. If these undercurrents are associated with these very fine production values, that is the worst of all.

This is a funny movie, which is unfortunate, because the humor is used to deliver anti-Jewish and anti-Israel lies and stereotypes. While the slant is basically anti-religious on both sides, the anti-Semitis goes unchallenged, leaving a poisonous taste. It no doubt reflects the general state of mind in Britain and the Muslim community, but that is no excuse. The only good thing about it is that it gave some work to Jewish actors. It is not on the level of My Beautiful Launderette, by far. As Hanif Kureishi is mentioned in the course of the movie, it bears comparison with his fine work. It is tacky. It is a vehicle for its executive producer, to be sure, and a very good actor who plays his son. The hiring of Richard Schiff would seem to be an attempt to give it legitimacy. But by all means, watch it if you want to see a rabbi get punched, another tacky and meaningless Bar Mitzvah ceremony and other such statements.

The story goes, there was another choreographer originally, a really hot New York/Las Vegas choreographer who was known for rhythmic, sexy movement with style and real jazz technique. She was also a top teacher in New York at the time, with shows running in Las Vegas, Reno and Atlantic City, also Toronto. She had also worked on Broadway. She was signed and spent about six weeks on the movie. The producers would not give her any of the music to work with, and as a musical choreographer, this would not do. They couldn't give her even a sampling of what it would sound like. After six weeks, she was bored to tears, and quit, going back to teaching crowded classes. Her career continued as it had been, but if she had stayed, she would have been famous or infamous, but the movie would have been completely different in tone. The Beals character would have really danced like a showgirl, with class, style, and hot, hot, hot. There would have been no running in place, no aerobics, fitness class moves with no rhythm or funk. Alas, we shall never know how it would have turned out. Jennifer Beals would have still needed a dance double, though, for the moves I'm talking about. If you want to know who the choreographer I'm talking about is, ask Jennifer Grey. She knew her quite well, took her class for years.

I think this was a very good movie, well acted, written, directed. You could actually see and enjoy a lot of the choreography unlike so many dance movies. I, however, must question the release date of 1997. It says to me it is a 1980s movie, early 90s at most. Why? Look who is in it? Thomas Gibson in a tiny part as a bartender? Taylor Nichols in a minor supporting role? And the choreography looked of that time, Donald Byrd looked at least ten years younger than he does now, etc. I saw dancers I knew in classes in the 80s, they couldn't look exactly the same now. So I say, this was originally filmed around 1989, before Far and Away and Metropolitan, and was released to DVD in 1997. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

This is the first gay romantic comedy movie to truly be all three of those things. It is more truthfully romantic, more warm than Jeffrey, as touching as Torch Song Trilogy, as funny as the Carol Burnett show. Bravo to Craig Chester, who out-writes Paul Rudnick, out-acts Dan Futterman, and is cuter than either of them. Really. (Will this get me a date with him?) And how sweet to finally see Malcolm Gets in an out role, acting his heart out, and his butt off. Don't miss the gag reel. How many movies have a gag reel that is even funnier than the movie? Shortbus eat your heart out, whatever that director's name is. Now I'm just padding so they'll print this. What casting! What a treat to finally see Paul Sand again, not to mention Sally Kirkland and Julie Hagerty.

Dance, Girl, Dance, which sounds like a Joan Crawford movie, is not. It features superb dance sequences which exemplify the superior ballet technique and style of the '40s. Vivian Fay is outstanding. Lucille Ball is hot, girl, hot! Who knew our Lucy could be a burlesque queen and skillful dancer, not to mention Maureen O'Hara dancing her socks off with fine ballet technique. I don't think they used a dance double, or did they? I hope not. But who is this choreographer, hitherto unknown? What became of him? He did an excellent pastiche of Leonid Massine's ballets. Why do we have to write so many lines? Don't they know that pithy comments can say so much more? I think the movie dragged as it got soapy, but the emotion was convincing, and I could personally relate to the story of the ballet teacher very much. I had one just like her.

It is a bit shocking how ignorantly people are responding to such an intelligent, wise movie, with such a grave story. Yes, there could have been a bit more development in the beginning of the relationship between Hopkins and Kidman. Yes, he should have had a more mixed accent befitting an American from Baltimore who lived in England, and not the same old Anthony Hopkins speech. But he's always the same. Kidman was truly great in the scene where she brings out her children's ashes, especially. She is a great actress. There was nothing false about it. It was completely clear from the dialogue that the black father was only referring to the white coach as being the son's father because he was listening to the coach's advice over the father's. If the mother had a white father, it is entirely possible her son would look completely or more-or-less white. The siblings could certainly be different shades of skin color. Haven't you ever seen mixed-race families before? As they said in the movie, "people are becoming dumber and more opinionated." Never more true than here. That is the tragic message of this movie. With all the great suffering these people endured, they are brought to destruction by dumb pseudo-moral careless behavior.