input: ... just look at the poor Robert Webber character (great performance, once again!) who tries to wrestle a sub machine gun from one of the terrorists. Everything in this movie seems to be a little wrong. The biggest mistake in my opinion is the effort to give the action a firm footing in the actuality of the early 1980ies (the fundamental difference between this flick and the far more fantastic, ironic and therefore timeless Die Hard). The story comes through as a failed attempt to glorify the SAS commandos. Ideas like when a commando shouts "heads down" all good guys do it and all bad guys don't so that they can blast away ad lib (with a good conscience), that the main character does not get mown down by the gas masked commandos although he wears the same clothes and carries a weapon from their arsenal just seem to be unlikely and make it hard to take the movie seriously. And it just happens that it tries to be more than just fun. Don't talk about the toilet-mirror-signal episode ...

I don't mind the criticism of the Pacifist movement as a shield for evildoers and the arguments between the peace fanatics and the settled, even headed representatives of power in this movie. But the political comment is rather lame and uninspired. This is insofar regrettable as the movie features an early performance of Judy Davies. She plays the main fanatic and seems to have done extensive studies on the "subject". Anyway, her performance is a notch above that of the others and somehow I feel the movie let her down.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: ONCE UPON A TIME, there were different types of movies. These different movies coexisted even though each one had something different to offer....

This seems obvious at first, but I thought I'd point it out during this review because it seems a few people may have forgotten. This is just a fun movie for Pavarotti fans. That's all it is. It doesn't claim to be anything else or anything grander. People who deride it as something that fell short of a promise aren't seeing the whole picture- literally. After all, Hollywood makes movies all the time that are shameless vehicles for people (Bodyguard or The Preacher's Wife w/Whitney Houston are 2 examples that spring to mind.)

First I'd like to address the movie as a vehicle for Pavarotti. There are worse things in this world-- and worse movies. The singing is fabulous and the selection of arias is fun. The movie starts with Schubert's Ave Maria and then Leoncavallo's Matinatta. Pav sings arias from La Gioconda, Manon Lescaut, and Turandot but also sings popular music such as "I left my heart in San Francisco" and the song that was nominated for an Oscar & Golden Globe, "If we were in Love" w/music by John Williams & lyrics by Alan & Marilyn Bergman- all 3 previous Oscar winners.

The story isn't that bad. It was built for Pavarotti so of course it's not going to be something that's profound or universally applicable to the average movie viewer. It's a story of a famous opera singer who was traumatized by a bad night at the opera years ago. When asked to sing again at the same place, the "MET" in NYC, he loses his voice from fear. Doctor Pamela (or Pah-MAY-lah in Italian:)) played by Kathryn Harrold- gives him a shot to cure his psychosomatic reaction. He offers her the chance to have a fling with him and she reluctantly accepts.

They embark on an affair, she knowing he's married & promising not to fall in love with him and him thinking she will be just another woman. Despite all that, they fall in love (thus the song, "IF we were in love") and with her help, he overcomes his fear & goes back to the MET where he triumphs. I won't tell how it ends, but it's fairly predictable. Which isn't always a bad thing.

The performances in this aren't that bad. Pavarotti (who plays Giorgio Fini) isn't an actor, so if you're expecting a Spencer Tracy or Tom Hanks performance, YOU are deluded, not Pavarotti. He knows he's not a thespian. What he is is cute, charming & charismatic. He is having fun himself, and if you can just let yourself have fun too, it's not so bad. One funny line is when he tells Pamela (Harrold) that she's a "thirsty plant, Fini can water you!" and of course, she says, "I don't want to be watered on by Fini!" Kathryn Harrold is very sweet and does a nice job as a semi-uptight woman who learns from this extravagant man to live a little. One of my favorite lines in the movie is: "Life never has to be life size." And there's Eddie Albert who does his usual good job as Fini's manager. There are several "themselves" cameos by real conductors, singers, etc. and it is filmed on location at the Metropolitan Opera at Lincoln Center.

If you like opera, if you like Pavarotti, or if you can just let yourself go & enjoy a "little fling" just like he proposes in the movie- then you can enjoy this movie for what it is. I know I do- EVERY time. :)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.

The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).

As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.

Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative