IMDb user comments for
The Fantasticks (1995) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Index

64 comments in total

---

13 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
More Nays than Yays, 13 April 2004

Author: harry-76 from Cleveland, Ohio

People who experienced this intimate musical off-Broadway, and in local community theater productions around the country, will rightly be disappointed and even horrified by this film effort.

Gone is the magic, the delight, and the imagination of a creation designed for small spaces, interaction with audiences, scant scenery and loads of beautiful melodies and poetic charm.

They've taken a concept geared for a cabaret and ballooned into a huge overblown, literate production that comes off as strange and even weird. They've juxtaposed and cut great songs, and tried to make a small ensemble effort into a large Hollywood extravaganza.

I agree this is one misfire that simply should have stayed on the shelf and not released--just written off as a tax loss.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
As I figured..., 8 October 2001
Author: bbrown2676 from Washington, D.C.

As I am reading the comments here I am finding that they are just as I has thought. Some are voraciously against this adaptation, these all seem to be those that are purists of the original stage play. Some are rabidly in love with it, these are primarily families and those that love Joey (sorry, Joe)McIntyre. But the majority, of which I include myself, simply like it. I watched this with an open mind since I love the original play and had to watch it a second time to really see how I felt about it. Some of the modifications are admittedly baffling, such as the rewrite of "Metaphor", but by no means really detract that much from the original. If there is one thing you can see from this production it is that Hollywood does not know how to deal with a musical anymore. They all panic about marketability and political correctness which can ruin a great show. That being said, I still really enjoyed this production. The addition of the Carnival allowed for a fanciful feel while still grounding the main characters in reality. The character of El Gallo is allowed more freedom to orchestrate the romance between Louisa and Matt by taking a theatre convnetion of the omnicient observer and applying it to a film. We in the theatre are used to seeing a character come on and off stage, setting scenes and so forth, yet it is a convention rarely used in film but can be done far more effectively since the character does not have to worry about getting set pieces on and off and can simply be a mystical figure. The performances are wonderful, though Joel Grey is woefully underused. Jean Kelly is fabulous as she always is (Uncle Buck, Mr. Holland's Opus). Joe McIntyre is not the greatest actor but his lack of skill adds to the awkwardness of Matt that is revealed once reality sets in. Jonathon Morris is a fabulous El Gallo, much more charming and witty than some of the "salesman-like" El Gallo's I have seen. All in all the things that differ from the original play do not detract from the film itself. All they do is differ from the play. Would that this filmed production were done on stage it would be a mere shadow of the original stage version, but that is why this is a movie and that is a play.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Respect your material, 30 May 2005

Author: andiam-1 from United States

This is a film that could have had a lot going for it. I liked the set, which was a clever solution of how to film a play with such a minimalist set.

But how could they destroy the material like this? This is one of those handful of musicals ("Oklahoma!", "Fiddler on the Roof," "Guys and Dolls" are some others) where everyone knows the opening song. "Try to Remember" is totally eliminated at the beginning, and at the end, El Gallo sings only two of the three verses. "Plant a Radish," one of the show's highlights, is totally gone (except on the DVD as an "extra"). Some of my favorite moments on the CD are Jerry Orbach's poetic narrations, especially "You wonder how these things begin." Here, only one of the three--or rather half of one--is preserved.

There should be a rule somewhere that if you don't like the original you shouldn't get to film it.

Would it be too much to ask if

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Disappointing, 12 September 2002

Author: danhicks from Minnesota

Given the resources and talent involved, one would have hoped for much more, but the movie lacks the sparkle of even a mediocre stage production.

Joel Grey as Bellamy phoned in his performance. Even making allowances for the fact that he was 63 when he made the movie, his performance was remarkably lifeless and his singing was unremarkable, even strained at times. Brad Sullivan as Hucklebee was even worse, flat performing and flat singing. Joseph McIntyre as The Boy turned in a passable performance, though he didn't really do the role justice. Jean Louisa Kelley as The Girl was perhaps the brightest spot in the lineup, delivering an adequate if not inspired performance.

Jonathon Morris was sadly miscast as El Gallo. He had the agility and strength needed for such a physical role, but lacked the proper menacing look needed. His acting was, if not totally flat, at least rather plastic. And the one song he needed to really carry -- "Try to Remember" -- he didn't have the voice for.

The staging was the most inspired part of the movie. Simply filming the minimalistic stage production wouldn't have worked, but the movie's set -- two homes and a carnival set in the prairie -- was sufficiently minimalistic to honor the play's concept while still bending to the requirements of the big screen. This facilitated devices that helped to flesh out some of the more ambiguous scenes in the play.

The script was unfortunately a Bowdlerized version. The song substituted for "The Rape Ballet" was incredibly uninspired and inconsistent. It was almost as if the writer wanted the substitute to be bad, in retaliation for pulling the original piece. In addition to "The Rape Ballet" substitution, several other songs were changed from the original, generally not for the better, and the delightful "Plant a Radish" was omitted entirely.

Perhaps the saddest change of all from the stage play was that the role of The Narrator was essentially omitted, and with it some of the most enchanting poetry in the script.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
"It depends on what you pay" is missed badly., 5 August 2002
Author: Matthew W. Hudson from Toledo, OH

This is one of my favorite musicals... EVER. I was blessed to see it before it closed off broadway. I bought this simply because of love for the original stage source material.

It's NOT horrible. MANY BAD choices in my opinion, though. The deletion of It Depends on What you Pay is by far it's worst mistake. Plant a Radish is missed too, but I feel It Depends on What you Pay was probably cut because of censorship...

If you watch the cut scenes on the DVD, you can see it could have been a much better movie if some had been included... HOW CAN YOU CUT THE OLD ACTOR'S FINAL SPEECH! At least you can watch the scenes.

Otherwise, if you haven't ever seen it, it's a decent representation... You get the basic idea, but it could have been much better. Although, the show might be simply too intimate to work on film. ...remember me in the light.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
The Impossible Film, 5 May 2001
Author: Howard Lightstone (hlightstone) from Los Angeles

I think the defining moment of "The Fantasticks" is the presentation of the song, "It Depends on What You Pay." In this film, that title is the only line from the original song that makes it into the film. That's because an alternate title of the original song is "Rape," the word being defined in the musical as "abduction," not the darker meaning. That explanation, curiously, remains in the film, but the other lyrics, describing different kinds of "rapes" are excluded. The exclusion of those lyrics is not surprising--what seemed only risque in 1960 now seems not only politically incorrect but surprisingly callous and insensitive. The fact, however, that one song from a 1960 Off-Broadway musical cannot fit into a 1995 movie, doesn't necessary mean the rest of the musical can.

Much of what was classic in the past no longer fits into contemporary thought. Updating, however, cannot necessarily preserve what made it into a classic in the first place, and it is not just "It Depends on What You Pay" that's been updated.

Speaking of the original "Fantasticks" as a whole, the score is something I fell in love with 34 years ago. The simplicity of it--scored basically for harp and piano--was a revelation compared to overscored Broadway shows. It also accentuated the music's occasional harmonic surprises, which seem to look forward to Stephen Sondheim. More than this, the minimalist staging--no real sets or props--also was very foward-looking, and assisted in making more timeless what might now seem like a very timebound story. I think the fact the original play has run non-stop for 41 years verifies this.

All this is lacking in the film. Jonathan Tunick's updated orchestrations are good, but they blunt the impact of the score. In place of a bare bones stage, we now see location shooting and a huge carnival set. Other songs are abridged, and dialogue omitted. Maybe this had to be done to adapt the musical into something that didn't seem just a filmed stage event and adapt it for modern audiences, but it isn't really "The Fantasticks" anymore, and it shows on the screen. The film comes off hopelessly hokey and contrived. Worse, it comes off as the very thing I believe I remember Luisa asks God not to make her in the play's introduction to "Just Once": ordinary.

Perhaps this is a film that should never have been attempted. And perhaps someone will have the foresight to release the 1960's TV version on video soon.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Ridiculous waste of a fabulous and moving score., 4 April 2007

Author: stacyembry from United States

This is one of the most inane and unsupportable interpretations of a work I have ever had the misfortune to see. I can't even call it absurd. It is just as if the directors had never even heard the score. The production isn't sung, it isn't acted or reacted... it is nothing. A work, a film--- this is an ugly and unflinching look has several glaring and unforgivable errors. First, these people aren't singing well and many seem to actually have talent (we know Joel Gray does!) that is deliberately covered with dross. The pitch problems are awful--- causing a beautiful score to be reduced to unsingable drivel. The production value is as cheap as the interpretation of it is! I would highly suggest avoiding this piece because I found not a single redeemable point. See a live production--- ANY production would have to be superior. This film was simply a crime against the love and history of the work and all involved should pay to buy up remaining copies and destroy them.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Thank goodness there's Joe McIntyre, 4 April 2006

Author: vinsond21 from Singapore

The Fantasticks is one of my favorite musical shows ever, and i was thrilled to know that a film version of it is available. Unfortunately, the best thing about the film is the casting of Joe McIntyre as Matt; he is thoroughly adorable and sings his part beautifully. The best-executed number in the whole show is "I Can See It", his duet with the Narrator/El Gallo. Other excellent numbers include "Soon It's Gonna Rain" and "This Plum Is Too Ripe". The part of Luisa played by Jean Louisa Kelly was all right. While Joel Grey looks the part of the girl's father Bellomy, his singing is not as good as one would expect, so his witty duets with the other father Hucklebee, played by Brad Sullivan, came off a little flat. But the biggest disappointments to me are the casting of a colorless Jonathan Morris in the important part of El Gallo aka The Narrator, and the replacement of the Rape song with a number that's less clever, though I suppose still serviceable. If you've never seen a decent version of this show on stage, you will probably not know what you really missed anyway.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Doesn't live up to its source material., 5 March 2001

Author: Dehlia from New York

I am the world's biggest fan of this stage show, having seen it three times. This is a weak and butchered rendition of my favorite musical, but it still retains enough charm and humor to convey the perfection of the original. The excision of three songs is bad enough, but the removal of a verse of one song (I Can See It) and the replacement of a verse of another (Metaphor) is downright bizarre; in Metaphor, the entire rest of the song depends upon the rewritten first verse, and so it makes no sense, and in I Can See It, much of the dramatic tension is lost with the missing verse, which they seemed to have cut because they couldn't figure out how to choreograph it. The movie had one really creative idea -- the carnival, and then apparently shot its wad. The Boy and The Girl are wonderful, as is Barnard Hughes and Teller as The Actor and The Man Who Dies, but Joel Grey is surprisingly weak, and Brad Sullivan as the other father is just a total mistake. Much of the material removed is that which suggests that El Gallo is some kind of mystical figure, engineering the whole thing, and this weakens the story considerably.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
The Abridged Fantasticks, 1 March 2001
Author: TonyTheBear from San Francisco

Upon hearing of the upcoming DVD Release of "The Fantasticks", I was overjoyed because the film ran for only one week in the theatres and was missed by many. So when I learned that this Special Edition DVD had numerous deleted scenes and excised songs, I was ecstatic. Well, upon seeing the DVD, I can say that someone at MGM Home Video had the sense to release all these extras in the DVD. Personally, had MGM/UA marketed this film properly instead of assuming it would fail and had they not foolishly re-edited it, the film might have fared better. One gripe I have is that the only use of "Try To Remember" is the reprise at the end of the film. Granted, the excised footage and alternate ending are extras on the DVD but, it would have been nice had the film been restored to the way it was originally intended to be seen and released on DVD. For some reason, after seeing "Try To Remember" as a bonus and watching the film minus the song, it seems empty. I will say that this DVD is worthy to add to your collection and a must for musical fans... On a last note, Ritchie's commentary is quite interesting but listen to it when you rewatch the film, not the first time you see it.

---

---

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history