bbmtwist Seeing this for the first time since its original release fifty years ago, I can gain perspective and see what holds up and what doesn't. So I want to concentrate on what is excellent and then look at what fails.First off, the choreography by Gillian Lynne is extraordinary - there are six dances associated with six of the songs and the dancing is some of the best ever filmed, yet who has ever heard of Gillian Lynne??? And why not??? Second, there's Grover Dale as lead dancer, and is he ever fine!!!! Wish we had more of his work on film, but sadly for posterity he was devoted to the stage and made few films.Third, the songs - the good ones - are all from the original show and there are five of them - All In The Cause of Economy, Half A Sixpence, Money To Burn, If The Rain's Got To Fall, Flash! Bang! Wallop!There are eight others, three of them new for the film (I Don't Believe A Word of It; The Race Is On; This Is My World) and they are negligible. Five remaining flop badly: Long Ago; I'm Not Talking To You; She's Too Far Above Me; A Proper Gentleman; I Know What I am.Now to the problems: Primarily Tommy Steele is an acquired taste. The Brits adore him, from rock star to song and dance man. He is a bit over the top - enough energy to light the entire electric world grid, and a smile with piano teeth that can be off-putting at times. Face it, he is quite homely, bordering on the ugly, but so sincere, and trying so hard to be entertaining, we must forgive him for his excesses. Then there is Julia Foster's Ann, a cruel, selfish, self- centered bitch we are supposed to care about. No, sorry - bad writing and acting there.The musical at 147 minutes, timed from the DVD release, is unforgivable in one instance: it is dull, dull, dull beyond belief. The libretto is tres boring, the plot is limp, the one conceit seeming to be "don't try to rise above your station in life." Don't tell that to Eliza Dolittle, please!The libretto condescends, but it does keep the British Upper Lip solidly in place! Nasty, that!The DVD release in widescreen has not been "restored" digitally, so it looks fuzzy and out of focus. Someone didn't want to spend the money to give it a proper refurbishing.I am keeping it for the half dozen brilliant song/dance numbers and will simply use the chapter feature to show these off to friends. They watch the entire film after that at their own risk.

Jeff Sultanof The movie musical had a brief resurgence in the late 1960s due to the success of "The Sound of Music." In that film, all the right elements were there: a major star, a good story and screenplay (in fact, the screenplay was a lot better than the book written for the Broadway production), a great score, and gorgeous photography. Of course it made a fortune, saved 20th Century-Fox from ruin, and the race was on. Musicals were back 'in.' The problem was, the production units that once existed that made these musicals had long since disbanded, and it seemed like production companies had to re-learn how to make them. Even seasoned hands didn't do all that well (although Gene Kelly's "Hello Dolly" is a better film than its reputation would indicate; Streisand was still miscast). Society and music had also changed, and the old-fashioned musical often came off as a museum piece - "Finian's Rainbow" should have been filmed years before; in 1969 it came off as a relic. (Footnote: when "Hair" was finally filmed, that also came off as a souvenir from the past; what a pity it was not made when the show closed on Broadway so that it could capture the real spirit of the times). Certainly there were exceptions - "Goodbye Mr. Chips" is far better than was realized at the time, and "Star" had the misfortune of coming off as a follow-up to "The Sound of Music," even though it's aspirations were far more modest.And so we have this perfectly professional film version of a musical that was a big hit in the sixties, with the star a Tony nominee, directed by a veteran of old Hollywood. The star is talented and charming, Julia Foster more than holds her own, Cyril Ritchard is wonderful to have. Unfortunately once you see the movie, the reasons this film is relatively little known become clear: everything is very well done, the art direction excellent, in other words the money shows. But the score is not very good, the dancing is okay, and the end result, to these eyes, is a film that I really have no interest in seeing again.I was fourteen when this film came out, and even though I liked Tommy Steele, I didn't 'need' to see this film the way I couldn't wait to see "Patton" and "2001." Now I know why. I was saddened when it was over because all that effort just added up to nothing for me.

bkoganbing Half A Sixpence is a musical adapted from the H.G. Wells story Kipps which Michael Redgrave played the title role back in a 1941 film version. I'm sure his interpretation of the role differed quite a bit from the boisterous styling of Tommy Steele in this film. They're so different in personality types.It wasn't Wells the interpreter of the scientific future who wrote Kipps, but rather the Wells who was the Fabian Socialist. In a way this should be seen back to back with Pygmalion or My Fair Lady if you will. Some of the same themes were also done American style in The Unsinkable Molly Brown.George Bernard Shaw when he wrote Pygmalion did the exact reverse of what Wells did in Kipps. That other noted Fabian Socialist took the flower girl Eliza and had her schooled in manners by the overbearing Henry Higgins to improve her station. Her economic status doesn't improve any, unless you figure she might marry well like the Freddy Eynsford-Hill character. She speaks well enough to fit in with his crowd.But the exact opposite happens to Arthur Kipps. He's of illegitimate birth, apprenticed as a draper's assistant and living in the basement of his employer's store with other apprentices. But one fine day, Arthur's ship comes in, a grandfather leaves him an inheritance and a guaranteed annual income.But unlike Audrey Hepburn, Tommy Steele is still at heart from the lower classes. So the story of Half A Sixpence is his personal struggle to find his place. That could be with a girl of his own class, Julia Foster or the previous unattainable Penelope Horner. Give you one guess where Steele winds up.Half A Sixpence ran on Broadway for 511 performances in the 1965-66 season with Tommy Steele in the title role there. Steele's infectious style of performing is awfully hard to resist. Though he started out as a rock and roll singer, a British answer to Elvis Presley, Steele is really from the great tradition of Music Hall performers in the United Kingdom. The socialist polemics are kept to a minimum here, I can't speak for how Wells originally wrote Kipps or how Michael Redgrave played it back in the day. But his points do come across and come across most entertainingly.

mikwalen I "accidentally" discovered HALF A SIXPENCE during 1979 on the late movie on NYC's Channel 5. I turned it on just before the "Half a Sixpence" number between Tommy Steele and Julia Foster. I didn't get to see it all, but years later it was shown on the Disney Channel. What a great movie! Great choreography (Gillian Lynne of CATS fame), charming actors playing the leads, and all that beautiful on-location photography in England! Tommy Steele sets the screen on fire when he lets loose in a dance number, and his star turn in the role of a simple lad who gets too rich too quickly and ends up miserable is believable and touching. Julia Foster is by turns sweet, vulnerable, AND feisty as his love interest, Ann.The film (based on the London/Bdwy stage show and directed by movie-musical veteran George Sidney) has the look and feel of an old-fashioned MGM musical, which is probably why I loved it so. It seems to be more widely known in the UK - I believe it was more popular there than in the States at the time of its release, and perhaps it gets more TV airings in the UK? It's just too bad that it's not seen more often and appreciated as it deserves.