Well, I hate to admit to being wrong, but there actually is a worse Sullivan & Gilbert adaptation than "Gentlemen of Titipu". This one seems to pin its hopes on the presence of some delectable eye candy namely, Chris Atkins, fresh from taking his clothes off in "Blue Lagoon". This is a performance that "runs the emotional gamut from A to B" as the brilliant Dorothy Parker once snipped about the equally brilliant Katharine Hepburn.
Don't worry, friends; it goes downhill from there.
The film in question goes by the title "The Pirate Movie". The reason for the title is, apparently, that the people responsible have pirated some pieces of Sullivan's "Pirates of Penzance" just enough to make you wish they had pirated the whole operetta and jettisoned the drek they added to the maimed remains they used.
Appearing in this wanton travesty are a bunch of little- and un-knowns who couldn't have salvaged the production even if it was good. Which of course it isn't. So the whole baggage sinks under its own dead, dead, dead, boring weight. Well, it wasn't their fault, really; it was a job for a lot of people who, judging by their credits on the IMDb, didn't get many. The names are withheld to protect the presumed innocent.
The story of "The Pirate Movie" follows the general and well-known outline of "Pirates of Penzance" (which is easy enough to look up if you don't know it) although with a number of rather stupid changes that sap it of its original vitality. To substitute for this vapidity, a composer was hired to write some "up" music. His talent, if any, is scarcely on display. What we get meager quotations from some of Sullivan's "Penzance" tunes although not always readily recognizable and usually not in the spirit of the original. Then there is a lot of stuff in a two-bit modern idiom that is also wholly out of touch with Sullivan's originality and wittiness.
This film is so awful on so many levels it's hard to find anything positive to say about it. The color is vibrant; that is to say, wasted on what it shows. The sound is at least too good for the material.
Ah, well. At least Atkins runs about in descamiado mode for most of the film, which I suppose is some slight compensation. And not enough. Avoid this turkey.
Don't worry, friends; it goes downhill from there.
The film in question goes by the title "The Pirate Movie". The reason for the title is, apparently, that the people responsible have pirated some pieces of Sullivan's "Pirates of Penzance" just enough to make you wish they had pirated the whole operetta and jettisoned the drek they added to the maimed remains they used.
Appearing in this wanton travesty are a bunch of little- and un-knowns who couldn't have salvaged the production even if it was good. Which of course it isn't. So the whole baggage sinks under its own dead, dead, dead, boring weight. Well, it wasn't their fault, really; it was a job for a lot of people who, judging by their credits on the IMDb, didn't get many. The names are withheld to protect the presumed innocent.
The story of "The Pirate Movie" follows the general and well-known outline of "Pirates of Penzance" (which is easy enough to look up if you don't know it) although with a number of rather stupid changes that sap it of its original vitality. To substitute for this vapidity, a composer was hired to write some "up" music. His talent, if any, is scarcely on display. What we get meager quotations from some of Sullivan's "Penzance" tunes although not always readily recognizable and usually not in the spirit of the original. Then there is a lot of stuff in a two-bit modern idiom that is also wholly out of touch with Sullivan's originality and wittiness.
This film is so awful on so many levels it's hard to find anything positive to say about it. The color is vibrant; that is to say, wasted on what it shows. The sound is at least too good for the material.
Ah, well. At least Atkins runs about in descamiado mode for most of the film, which I suppose is some slight compensation. And not enough. Avoid this turkey.