GeoPierpont Being a huge fan of 30's musicals, was not disappointed in the American sanitized version of inciting the audience to appreciate the pure beauty of longing expressed in their lyrics... very moving and took me back in time like no other Fred and Ginger Holiday Parade...Was extremely impressed with Walken's impeccable rousing dance routine and exquisite precision... being so accustomed to his typical despairing roles, only wanted more.... The mash up on the big screen with Fred and Ginger was yet another exciting performance and created a yearning for more Broadway dance numbers, which are amply provided in the final scenes... bravo!!! High recommend for fans of depression era lyrics and original music, tap dancing from unexpected performers with a splash of an 80's touch.

Richard Burin A conceptually dazzling musical, adapted by Dennis Potter from his BBC series, which juxtaposes the grim reality of Depression-era life with the fantasy of popular song.Steve Martin is a pipe-dreamer and travelling sheet music salesman who thinks about sex once every one second, leaving his frigid wife (Jessica Harper) in the lurch and a timid spinster (Bernadette Peters) up the duff. Potter doesn't give Peters the soapy sob story, though. In fact, what he does with this tiny-mouthed schoolteacher is remarkable to the point of revolution, and her candid, conflicted, sensual performance is astonishingly good, one of two real reasons to see the film.The other is the songs: an endless succession of show-stoppers, mostly framed as fantasy sequences, and almost all lip-synched to the crooniest available versions of old standards, while faithful to some distinct visual style of the 1930s. Many borrow directly from Busby Berkeley - Yes! Yes! even has kaleidoscopic overheads - but there's also a nod to nautical numbers, an enduring obsession in American popular culture for reasons unknown, while the film reaches the height of its ambition with a Fred-and-Ginger take-off staged on a replica of the Let's Face the Music and Dance set, but with choreography inspired by Top Hat, White Tie and Tails.Just about every number is impressive or thrilling in some way, from Peters' exuberant Love Is Good for Anything That Ails You (mimed to a Phyllis Robins record and featuring schoolchildren as backing dancers), to a gold-tinted, stunningly-staged version of the title tune danced by Vernel Bagneris, and excellent guest spots for '50s hoofer Tommy Rall and Christopher Walken, the latter magnificently objectionable as a face-cutting pimp with a sideline in tap-dancing, whose incredible version of Let's Misbehave is probably the gateway drug that Tarantino fans need to get into Cole Porter.Between these musical high points, though, which reveal the central characters' hidden urges or wildest desires, the dramatic passages don't quite cut it. I haven't seen Potter's original, but his script here - which underwent 12 revisions while boiling down six hours of drama to less than two - operates mostly at a surface level, and seems to mistake repetition and mundanity for profundity. Few of the characters seem truly affected by anything that happens to them, that strange, cold aloofness preventing you from engaging with much of what's going on amidst the impeccable period design. The writing isn't bad - there are moments of truth amidst Potter's laid-back perviness - but it isn't up to the standard of its interludes, which border on the sublime.There's also the problem of Martin's performance. His attempts at emotion seem to have a unique, mawkish insincerity about them, while his zany treatment of some of his musical spots, mugging when he should be following Peters' restrained lead, often puncture the pastiche, leaving only a cartoon in its place. He makes a good fist of the dancing, but with someone down-to-earth and dramatically dynamic in the central role, perhaps Potter's spoken passages would have come closer to the robustness and realism needed to make the central contrast really work. Though its numbers aren't as impressive, that's why Ken Russell's version of The Boy Friend works so well: you believe in the seedy seaside world it creates, and so the songs give you something to escape from.I wish this were great. It should be. It almost is. But it doesn't quite make it. A little like the pipe dreamer at its centre.

T Y I recall when this came out, the reviews stated and restated that this experimental movie was not an easy viewing, but after more than 25 years, it still took me a few numbers to adjust to the weird concept and to the grim plot. I can't say this movie doesn't have major problems but... wow. The numbers are cut against the bleakest storyline ever in a musical, with unflinching darkness highlighted. It confronts the usual jaded viewpoint and problematics of the 1970-80s musical from as the others of the time do (All that Jazz, One from the Heart and at that point the play Chicago) but also Singin in the Rain gets eyed for some influence.I don't mind that this is a dark trip with lowlifes and losers, but I don't understand it's larger point. The idea that the songs allow escape for the character just doesn't seem good enough for an experimental work. After the treat of each number, a viewer has to take the bitter medicine of the storyline.Another problem is the insertion of the numbers, which as they have for two previous 2 decades, suffer from unsuredness over which part of a script they replace (monologue, dialog, thoughts, dreams/fantasies, narration, plot summaries, etc) which had become the chief problem of the genre. (i.e. Attempting to address the usual complaint of unreality musicals, in "On a Clear Day you Can See Forever" some songs are only heard as the internal thoughts of Daisy. Nothing on the screen even suggests a musical number. Lips don't even mouth the lyrics. & Cabaret only allows it's numbers to be performed in a nightclub. etc.) Less satisfying: 1) Why do the characters look through the 4th wall at the camera in the musical numbers?, ...and 2) Why do women's voices come out of mens mouths and vice-versa?But in constructing this pastiche, many participants hidden expertise' are awesomely revealed. Danny Daniels choreography is routinely excellent. Steve Martins dancing is very precise. It's inconceivable that he hadn't danced before. The dance numbers had the real potential of being junky, simplified versions of the old ones. But the creators have rigorously studied what was good about the source movies fifty years earlier, and these hold their own; some of the most joyful production numbers ever put on film. Some numbers feature seemingly endless rows of dancers, all in perfect precision. It's a fr**king joy to behold. This must have taken enormous planning. The numbers "Yes, yes" "Love is good for anything that ails you" are just unbelievably jubilant.Steve Martin is really handsome here. He's convicning as both a heel and a debonaire. In his 2nd film he's already showing more range than, say the pathetic Mike Myers, who turns every character into another opportunity to do a "funny" (unfunny) Scottish accent. Making matters worse for Myers is that on his new press junket for Shrek 3 he's clearly contracted some disease where he can't stop being entertaining. Each new feeble attempt at humor makes you clench your butt. It's really creepy. Donald O'Connor was the last to contract this. Both are unbearable.

preppy-3 This takes place in 1934 Chicago. Sheet music salesman Arthur Parker (Steve Martin) hates his job and is married to a frigid unloving wife (Jessica Harper). He then meets naive unmarried Eileen (Bernadette Peters). Sex, rape, abortion, prostitution and murder follow. This is all pretty grim but, without warning, all the characters start lip syncing to cheerful songs from that era and musical numbers start. These numbers are very impressive and would make Busby Berkeley turn green with envy.This was (for 1981) a very odd idea for a big budget Hollywood movie. A bleak, depressing storyline full of unlikable characters is undercut by the cheerful music and dancing. This was released around Christmas as a holiday movie (a VERY bad idea) and was savaged by the critics and ignored by audiences. If this had been released at any other time of the year it might have been successful. Also this was years ahead of its time. I saw it twice when it came out. I was thoroughly depressed after each screening but fascinated too. There was nothing else like this at the time.The set design was VERY impressive. Some shots are recreations of famous paintings of that time-I recognized "Nighthawks" right away! The songs were great and they used the original recordings. They didn't transfer the songs to stereo either--they wanted them to sound like they did back then. The dances are just downright astounding. They're among some of the best I've ever seen. Christopher Walken stops the show by lip syncing (and tap dancing) to "Let's Misbehave".Casting Martin and Peters in this was a mistake. At this point neither were known for doing drama--Martin was a comedian and Peters just sang. Martin does OK in his role but Peters is pretty bad in hers. It doesn't destroy the movie it just lessens the impact. Harper is very good (although she's not in the movie much).So it's a depressing but a one of a kind movie. I give it an 8.