Oh... Rosalinda!! (1955) User Reviews

Much better than anticipated

[MissSimonetta · 7/10 · 9 August 2016]

Though their 1940s output is unanimously celebrated by critics and audiences, the Powell/Pressburger collaborations of the 1950s are often forgotten or outright dismissed. I have not seen all of them, save for Gone to Earth and Oh... Rosalinda!! but I was surprised by how good both of them were. No, they're not on the same transcendent heights as the likes of The Red Shoes or The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (heck, precious few movies are), but they are good in their own right and still lovely to look at.

Oh... Rosalinda!! may be a bit of an acquired taste for some people. The aesthetic is very flat and artificial, stagey even, much like the more elaborate Tales of Hoffman but with apparently less of a budget. It's also a bedroom farce, so if you're not much for that kind of comedy, you may find it hard to get into the swing of things. I myself care little for such comedies, but I rather enjoyed this one, mainly due to the strength of the performers. Anton Walbrook is great as the black market dealer who manipulates everyone, showing a great penchant for comedy he rarely got to express in his English language projects. Ludmilla Tcherina is playful and sexy as the woman everyone wants. Mel Ferrer is a bit overdone, but he's not bad at all.

No great classic, but Oh... Rosalinda!! is worth at least one glance from Powell-Pressburger devotees.

Oh... Rosalinda!! (1955)

[MartinTeller · 7/10 · 6 January 2012]

Powell & Pressburger take Strauss' "Die Fledermaus" and update it. I'm not familiar with the original work, but from what I can tell most of the plot points remain intact. The updating comes in the form of bringing it to postwar "Four Power" Vienna (like THE THIRD MAN) with some light commentary on the occupation. My problem with opera is quite similar to my problem with Shakespeare. The story is being advanced in a manner I find difficult to comprehend. Sometimes it's alright, but whenever there's a large chorus singing, it all sounds like mush to me. And some of the ladies go into that ridiculously high register where all words turn into "aaaaaaEEEEEEeEeEeEeee!!!" Still, when I couldn't make out the words I managed to get most of it from context, and the movie is fun musical comedy. The farce is well-constructed and the performances are very enjoyable (including Michael Redgrave being far more flamboyant than I would have ever imagined him). It's not brilliant, it's not stunning, it doesn't stick with you, but it's a good little romp with some nice tunes.

Champagne, Scotch, Vodka, or Coke?

[jshoaf · 2 June 2004]

I just saw this film on a not-too-great VHS copy and wish it could be released on DVD. It would be a great companion to Tales of Hoffmann by the same team, though it is quite different in flavor.

As in Hoffmann, the film is full of dancing--but much of it has an improvised flavor, a polka down the hall, a can-can by Michael Redgrave in full military evening dress and kepi, as well as lots of waltzing-- and some of the actors are lip-synching the arias as sung by folks with bigger voices. But there is also a lot of spoken dialogue, so the actors get to establish their characters in their own voices. The trouble is that the characters are still the silly, exaggerated characters of an operetta, with chiming watches, comic hangovers, and huge plot-enhancing blind spots.

The most interesting character is of course Anton Walbrook's Dr. Falke, the Bat. As in The Red Shoes and La Ronde, Walbrook plays the man who keeps the whole thing going, the leader of the dance, but here he is euphoric, almost ecstatic. Falke is presented as a black-marketer who arranges parties for the higher-ups of the Four Powers occupying Vienna, and keeps them on good terms with each other; he exploits them, lives off them--and he would like to see them all go home. He is witty and views everything with cheerful irony, but he never stops enjoying himself for a moment, never goes down, only up, up, up.

Ludmilla Tcherina is a delightful French farce heroine, flirting only when absolutely necessary. Michael Redgrave gets to do some great swooping physical comedy (apparently he also did his own singing, but who can tell?). Mel Ferrer comes off well in his light role as the old boyfriend, as does Dennis Price in a smaller role whose main duty is to be recognizable for plot purposes. Anneliese Rothenberger is a reminder of more conventional stagings, where the singers act instead of having actors "sing."

I felt that the 1955 setting was a bit thin--were the 50's really THAT much about denying what had happened and "moving on"? Maybe they were--Pressburger and Powell were good at telling where the wind was blowing.

Perhaps the worst movie I've ever enjoyed

[mountainviewer · 6/10 · 27 October 2007]

Surreal, not even taking into account the operetta part. Slightly subversive, too. Normally, surreal and subversive are a great mix, but this one just keeps tripping over itself. I kept waiting for it to get off the ground, and in the process sort of enjoyed the weirdness. But it's not a good movie by any measure.

Think Dr. Caligari crossed with the worst Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland musical you've seen (ok, with better music, but is anyone really _that_ into Strauss?). Or maybe The Third Man on a tremendous amount of ecstasy, except that's way too kind.

My wife thinks Mel Ferrer's performance might have been an inspiration for Jim Carrey's acting style. That's the kind of quality to expect.

Have fun!

By Strauss!!

[writers_reign · 6/10 · 5 March 2012]

Referential? You've got to be kidding. Start with Peter Ustinov's The Love Of Four Colonels than throw in a 'borrowing' from Max Ophuls' La Ronde, made more blatant by employing the same actor Anton (Tilly)Walbrook to do the narration-to-camera. As if do divert attention from the plagiarism Powell and Pressburger cheerfully own up to taking Die Fleidermause and 'updating' it to the immediate post-war Vienna, still divided into four sections and ruled by four powers. For me, Michael Redgrave was the selling point though Iconcede that for others it may have been the Strauss operetta - it's hard to see Mel Ferrer being a draw. Whatever, it's a sort of soufflé manque and amusing in parts.

Oh... Rosalinda!!

[CinemaSerf · 7/10 · 22 December 2023]

Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger have shifted this lively and engaging Strauss operetta to the scenario of post WWII Vienna and that allows for some pretty potent language from the top of his game Anton Walbrook's "Dr. Falke" delivering us a slightly more relevant critique of politics, hope, friendship and honour than might have emanated from the original timeframe. The thought of such monologues might be a little off-putting at first, but they are littered with powerful and emotionally charged messages that compliment really well the musical powerhouse that is "Die Fledermaus". On that latter front, Michael Redgrave ("Col. Eisenstein") impresses with his singing and his dancing; Dennis Price features sparingly but effectively as "Maj. Frank" and P&P regular Ludmilla Tcherina actually glows as she takes on the title role with a subtly alluring and charming style. It's colourful, always busy but never rushed and the characterisations evoke a smile and a grimace every now and again as we try to discover just whom is cheating - or wants to cheat - on whom! If you've seen it on stage then it may not compare so well - it does lose some of the intensity of the live performance and Anthony Quayle ("Orlovsky") just never quite did it for me when charisma was required. The remainder of the assembled cast work well with the memorable score and the pristine imagery ensuring this is a challenging but rewarding film to enjoy.

The people you don't see are the stars!

[ouzman-1 · 3/10 · 3 March 2020]

I really wanted to "like" this but I can't. Sorry.

the film is totally uninspired by the miscasting and the actors inability to lip sync to the songs!

If only they had achieved something amazing - by getting Orson Welles and Bing to sing! But they didn't and that's the rub.

The colour is a delight and the music a delight but it can't work until someone spends a fortune re-editing this and applying CGI to the lips syncs? Some awful acting doesn't help. What is Quayle like? Awful.

Ahead of its time and misunderstood (Yes Mr Powell, again!)

[davidbrackenbury · 10/10 · 5 November 2023]

If you like the work of Wes Anderson then you will absolutely love this! Though released in 1955 it is astonishingly modern in its outlook, humour, and cinematic technique. Way ahead of its time it was woefully misunderstood and underrated on its initial release and it is only recently that this wonderful film has it become to be properly appreciated.

The delightfully daft plot, a reworking of Der Fledermaus, doesn't need a synopsis and, anyway, all you do need to know is given by Anton Walbrook, in character and directly to the camera, in the prologue. (I mentioned that the film had a marvelously modern feel). In a similar manner he also has a chance to make a pertinent political point later in the film.

Great directing and writing by the Archers, great acting, great music, great cinematography - and funny. What more could anyone ever wish for from a film?

What were they trying to accomplish?

[fischelliot · 2/10 · 24 September 2020]

Strange by any measure. Did Powell and Pressburger really make this? A dreadful version of Strauss' masterpiece. The color and scenic design is somewhat similar to P&P's Tales of Hoffman but way overdone. The performances are embarassing. Lots of yelling and loud singing with absolutely no subtelty..Worth a look for the scenic design and Anton Walbrook who seems to recognize how silly the whole thing is. Not shown in the US until 1985, for good reason.

Wonderfully frothy. Quite clever. Newly relevant with our occupation of Iraq.

[kaleberg · 9/10 · 19 April 2003]

We are big champagne fans and this movie was sponsored by a big French champagne outfit and it couldn't have been more appropriate. The post WWII Vienna setting was marvelously bubbly and clever. Where better to set such an international tale of deception and decadence.

With the recent US occupation of Iraq, this film may be newly relevant. After all,Oh ... Rosalinda! was a plea for an end to the occupation of Austria. The party was over in the mid50s. In another ten years, perhaps, there might be a wonderful remake set in Bagdad.

This 'lost' Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger movie updates Strauss' operetta Die Fledermaus to post-war Vienna

[babybuletgani · 4/10 · 14 November 2019]

This 'lost' Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger movie updates Strauss' operetta Die Fledermaus to post-war Vienna, with the city under occupation by the four Allied powers. A romantic romp starring Anton Walbrook, Michael Redgrave and Ludmilla Tchérina as the titular object of desire, its primary pleasure is Hein Heckroth's gaudy décor, and it's not hard to see why it was a critical and commercial flop. If you want to see P&P meld opera and cinema to dazzling effect, try their previous film The Tales Of Hoffmann.

Will leave you open-mouthed - and not in the best way

[postmortem-books · 2/10 · 3 March 2020]

I came upon this quite by chance on Talking Pictures whose output I enjoy 9 times out of 10. This was the one that misfired for me. Knowing the original Die Fledermaus very well I was somewhat flummoxed by the updating and by the serenely bad lypsynching of the actors. I'm not sure how Dennis Price and Anthony Quayle got themselves involved in this debacle but the sight - and sound - of the former tackling the "singing" was NOT a joy to behold.

Russian party of peace in Vienna

[clanciai · 10/10 · 3 December 2020]

This ingenious adaptation of the great Strauss operetta for the screen with a positive political message, that carried results, has always been grossly undervalued. For some reason it was never shown in America until 30 years after it was made. It shows all the Powell-Pressburger magic tricks in a fantasmagoria of great fun with intriguing details in every new scene. The story is rather confusing, but that's the purpose of it, and doctor Franke (Viennese, played by Anton Walbrook) is the magician controlling everything. He wakes up after a party having been placed on top of a statue as an insult to the Russians by the French (Michael Redgrave) and decides to take a comprehensive revenge. He persuades the Russian in charge (Anthony Quayle) to give a party for all involved, and the most involved of all is Rosalinda, Michael Regrave's (French) wife (Ludmila Tcherina, the primadonna of the film, like she was in their previous film "Tales of Hoffmann"), and here she repeats her very seductive role, insistently courted by the American Mel Ferrer. The funniest scene is perhaps the British representative (Dennis Price) seeing double after the party, which is clearly visualized to the audience, while the best acting is by Anthony Quayle as the pompous and very convincing Russian general, the most drunk of all. It's a party film all the way and one of the best ever made, and it was in some aspects prophetic, as the French, the British, the Americans and the Russians actually gave up their occupation of Vienna in this year, tiring of being guests staying too long and of being unnecessary occupants of such a charming and lovely city.

An expensive misfire

[malcolmgsw · 2/10 · 18 January 2020]

The Archers made some memorable films,but this was not one of them.To be honest I am not a lover of operetta and I just about made it to the 45 minute mark.I am sure that there has must be ecstatic to see it but I could last the film out.Maybe if they had managed to assemble their proposed all star cast it would have made it memorable.