Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
They don't make beautiful films like this anymore
1 September 2006
This film will always have a great significance to me because it introduced me to the beauty of opera. Marjorie Lawrence was a major soprano with the Metropolitan Opera, and her career was cut short by polio while she was still in her vocal prime. Her story is told with great sensitivity and warmth. The operatic scenes are done to perfection, with the superb soprano Eileen Farrell doing the vocals. Eleanor Parker is seen here in what must be her greatest work as an actress. Parker was a great, if somewhat under-appreciated actress, and she was a beautiful woman. Of course, it is she who dominates the movie. Glenn Ford provides excellent support as her doctor husband who guides her back to her career. When this film was released, I was ten years old, and kept going back again and again to see it over and over. I loved the music, loved the story, and will forever be indebted to it for having introduced me to the beauty of grand opera. If I had to choose a film as the most important of my life, it would have to be this one.
25 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Highly Fictionalized Biography of Enrico Caruso
31 August 2006
To begin with, this film, whatever its weaknesses, was largely responsible for many young people buying operatic recordings in the early 1950's. Lanza, of course, had a great, though uncultivated operatic voice, and his lack of lengthy formal training is obvious who anyone who knows what real operatic singing is supposed to sound like. Yes, he certainly had the range, power, and volume to sing every opera represented in this film, but his singing is far from polished or "finished". But no matter. He hit with a tremendous impact, and MGM made the most of it. The film itself really does not at all stick to the facts about Enrico Caruso. Caruso, certainly the greatest tenor of his time, died in Naples in 1920 after a somewhat lingering illness. The film opts for a more Hollywood-type ending. Lanza, moreover, was only a minimally competent actor, and, needless to say, his greatest moments are when he's singing Puccini, Donizetti, etc. Ann Blyth makes a positive account of herself as his wife Dorothy, and the celebrated Metropolitan Opera soprano Dorothy Kirsten actually comes off convincingly as a celebrated soprano who sang with Caruso (Lanza) in most of his Met performances. The operatic scenes are reasonably well done (by Hollywood standards), but as a biographical document of Caruso ----- it's neither accurate nor minimally plausible. I am sure that this film was lauded with great acclaim upon the time of it's release, but today, is just ends up being a nice two hours of entertainment ----- though it stands as a good testimony to the potential that Lanza had as a great tenor ------ a potential that was never realized. This was a great voice that could have been an operatic talent of the century had Hollywood not intervened and ruined it.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A lot better than I thought it would be!
28 July 2006
I just saw this film this morning on Turner Movie Classics, and was actually very surprised. The film is certainly pleasant to watch, and some of it is actually funny and very appealing. The two stars merit comment. Larry Parks, of course, turned out to be a truly tragic figure in Hollywood, and he was virtually decimated by the Hollywood black list in the 1950's. As the head reviewer on this page said, Parks would probably have evolved into an excellent character actor had his career not been destroyed (his wife, actress Betty Garrett, herself said in an interview that Park's life was ruined by the Hollywood blacklisting. To our country's shame, many others shared the same fate. In this film, he is convincing and moderately successful, but opposite Elizabeth Taylor, one would have expected a more handsome leading man. Elizabeth Taylor, at age 20, is, of course, drop-dead gorgeous, but more importantly, she exudes an appeal and demeanor that is altogether winning. She had this same quality in such films as "The Last Time I Saw Paris", "Father of the Bride", and "Giant". Then she entered her most intense period with the films that brought her Oscar nominations (as well as two Oscars). It's a shame that after "Virginia Woolf", her second Oscar-winning performance, she essentially kept repeating the same loudmouthed strident type of demeanor. She was never able to regain the vulnerability and tenderness that she so beautifully demonstrated during the early and middle 1950's. Of course her much publicized personal life played a major part. In essence, she became a parody of herself in the late 1960's and never recovered. Whatever the case, "Love is Better than Ever" is worth watching for the light entertainment, the uniqueness of Larry Parks, and above all, for the charm and sweetness Elizabeth Taylor brought to the screen at this stage of her career.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film should have earned Taylor her first Oscar
1 June 2006
"Suddenly, Last Summer" brought Elizabeth Taylor her third Oscar nomination, and she probably should have won (though winner Simone Signoret's performance in "Room at the Top" was also outstanding). Taylor is awesome in this film ----- most notably in the final twenty minutes, which she virtually dominates. This entire scene was reportedly shot in one take, which makes sense, since the character begins with a narrative and gradually builds to an emotionally shattering climax. Taylor's previous film, "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", was also Oscar caliber, but this performance is even more impressive. The 1960 Oscar for "Butterfield 8" was probably a consolation prize for the Oscar she should have received for either of these two previous films.
52 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
How Time Alters One's Perspective!
9 May 2006
I saw this film when I was eleven and I thought it was the ultimate. It was shown on TV several times in the seventies, and then it seemed to have vanished. My memories of the film were so strong that I could never understand why it never found its way on to the VHS format. I later read that there was some legal difficulty. Whatever the case, it's finally here and, of course, I bought it on DVD. In today's post 9/11 world, the film is definitely dated. Still, it brings us back to a time when Hollywood was making great films with ensemble casts, and the cast assembled for this film is a great one, and of course, they are all interesting to watch. The theme song remains haunting and as fresh as when I first heard it so long ago. This is an important film that perfectly illustrates movie-making in the mid 1950's. The print has been beautifully restored, and the sound track has been expertly remastered. My original memory, however, is far more powerful than the film itself, but I'm sure I'm not alone on that score. Still, it's a lot of fun to watch, and it takes me back to a time when all I did was go to movies.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
An Opportunity Again Missed
28 July 2005
Maria Callas was an artist of such magnitude that it seems impossible for any filmed biography to do her justice. Besides, who could really play Maria Callas? Well, the actress featured here does as well as anyone else could, which is, I guess, adequate. Of much greater importance is the banality of the story. I can't imagine Maria Callas in the 1970's even considering doing what the film suggests. By 1965, it was painfully obvious that Callas, despite her glamorous image and appearance, could never, even at age 41, have reconstructed her once fabulous voice, a voice which in its prime could accomplish miracles. In any case, it is folly to suggest that Callas would have elected to do a film version of "Carmen" ( a role she never cared for) with a dubbed recording she had made years earlier. I could see "Norma", "Tosca" or "Traviata", but never "Carmen". Larry Kelly actually died several years before Callas, so his presence here is pure fiction ------- which is what the film actually is. As a way to pass 108 minutes, the film is adequate, but if you're looking for a documentation of Maria Callas in her final years, you will have to keep looking. I doubt whether you will ever find what you are looking for because it seems highly unlikely that the real Callas, ever the elusive firefly, will ever be captured and preserved.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed