Yes, Giorgio (1982) User Reviews

Not dreadful, but still not worth bothering for

[bellino-angelo2014 · 4/10 · 8 October 2018]

Always wanted to see this movie since I have heard lots of bad things about it, and as you probably would have guessed, I am also a bad movie fan. Well, while this movie is bad and far from a masterpiece, I liked only a few things of the movie.

YES GIORGIO has some flaws, the main being the writing and the acting, especially from Pavarotti (who was a great opera singer but when it came to acting he leaved a lot to be desired). At the moment I can't even think of a romantic comedy with such wacky and goofy scenes like the food fight scene (and I admit that it was one of the most atrocious scenes in the movie). And Pavarotti's character was very unlikeable, especially since he admits that he is married and his children are at home waiting for him. Hey, a good message kids!

Anyway, why I rated this movie 4? The music was very nice to hear at, and half-way in the movie there is a scene with Pavarotti in a hot-air balloon where the music is very powerful and fits like a glove the movie's pathos. The only good actor in the movie is Eddie Albert, that gives a solid performance as Pavarotti's agent. Although he deserved much better than this!

I hoped to like this movie, but it was bad. Not BABY GENIUSES bad, but still not good. Apart from a good soundtrack and a nice performance by Eddie Albert, it's not a must-see movie.

Not that bad, okay for what it is

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 14 May 2016]

Judging from what was said about 'Yes Giorgio' at the time of its release, this reviewer was expecting utter rubbish and a film bad enough to be among the worst films ever made.

Finally watching it, as a singer myself, a life-long opera enthusiast and as someone who likes Luciano Pavarotti very much, 'Yes Giorgio' is not a great film, or even a good one. However, to me it was not that bad. Taken for what it is, which is essentially a vehicle for Pavarotti, it's okay, with some huge flaws but also enough charms to make it worth a one-time-only watch.

Starting with the positives, 'Yes Giorgio' is beautifully shot and contains some positively gorgeous scenery, particularly towards the end. The music, which contains operatic favourites "Nessun Dorma" (Puccini's 'Turandot'), "Una Furtiva Lagrima" (Donizetti's 'L'Elsir D'Amore'), "Cielo e Mar" (Ponchielli's 'La Gioconda') and "La Donna e Mobile" (Verdi's 'Rigoletto') and popular classical songs "Ave Maria" (the Schubert version) and "O Sole Mio", is enough to transcend even non-opera fans to heaven, while the charming music score and the justly Oscar-nominated "If We Were in Love" complement beautifully.

Pavarotti as ever sounds absolutely glorious throughout the whole duration of 'Yes Giorgio'. All the operatic arias (especially "Nessun Dorma" and "La Donna e Mobile", "Una Furtiva Lagrima" is also quite heartfelt) suit him perfectly as do "Ave Maria" and "O Sole Mio", his endearing personality too shines. Eddie Albert gives his usual solid performance, he's understated but looks as if he's having fun too. Although Pavarotti is the thing that people will remember, Albert gives the best overall performance in the film.

Unfortunately, although Pavarotti sounds glorious and there is no doubting that he has a personality that radiates, his acting (which admittedly, with some exceptions, never was a strength of his) looks awkward and the amount of preparation and polish that went into the singing doesn't translate in the line delivery. He surprisingly (although he was not the best of actors, he always did have a charming rapport with his leading ladies) shares very little chemistry with the female lead Kathryn Harrold, or at least not a very natural or obviously amorous one. The romance is not very well written, being contrived and cloying, and Harrold's unbearably obnoxious performance is an even larger part of the problem, her character being written and performed in a way that makes one wonder what did Pavarotti's character see in her.

The script has some sweet and amusing moments, but too many forced and nauseatingly sugary ones as well. The romantic dialogue was particularly squirm-inducing, so much so it beggars belief how it was approved beyond first draft. With the story, the predictability- with a very old-fashioned premise that worked just fine before with the right execution but not so much now- isn't the issue, but the erratic pacing and thin structure were issues and even worse was that it felt more an excuse to string along arias and classical favourites to show off Pavarotti's voice and talents. Sure the Mario Lanza films can be seen as guilty of this too, but the acting was more consistent in those films with better leading ladies and while the stories were among the weaker assets of most they were handled with more charm and emotion and easier to relate to, never did they feel exploitative in the way 'Yes Giorgio' sometimes did. With the acting, the only really consistently good performance came from Albert, the rest of the supporting roles are underwritten and the rest of the performers can't do anything with the material.

Overall, okay for what it is and not as bad as its reputation but at the same time not particularly great or good. 5/10 Bethany Cox

It's best to ignore the reviews that give this a 10--they're all "Kool-Aid drinkers"

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 24 February 2008]

By my "Kool-Aid drinkers" remark, I mean that these are such devoted fans of the man Pavarotti that they make no attempt to objectively rate this film. Giving this a 10 is akin to giving Wally Cox the award for Mr. Universe or putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!! When this film debuted, I remember the savage reviews with headlines such as "No, Giorgio" and some said it was among the worst films ever made. This is definitely overstating it as well. While bad and far from a great work of art, there was a lot to like about the film and the movie's biggest deficit was not the acting of Pavarotti nor his girth.

Believe it or not, the brunt of the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the writers (who, I believe, were chimps). It is rare to see a movie with such clichéd dialog or goofy scenes like the food fight, but even they aren't the heart of the problem. The problem is that the writers intend for the audience to care about a "romance" that consists of a horny married middle-aged man and a seemingly desperate lady. Perhaps European audiences might be more forgiving of this, but in the United States in 1982 or today, such a romance seems sleazy and selfish--especially when Pavarotti tells Harrold that he loves his wife and "this is just fun". Wow, talk about romantic dialog!! Sadly, if they had just changed the script a little bit and made Pavarotti a widower or perhaps had his wife be like the wife from a couple classic Hollywood films, such as from ALL THIS AND HEAVEN, TOO or THE SUSPECT (where the wife was so vile and unlikable you could forgive the husband having an affair or even killing her). Instead, she's the loving mother of two kids who waits patiently at home while her egotistical hubby beds tarts right and left--as Pavarotti admits to having had many affairs before meeting Harrold.

Sadly, even the gorgeous music of Pavarotti couldn't save this film. Towards the end of the film, there are some amazing scenes in New York where the set is just incredible and Pavarotti's singing transcendent. For that reason, I think the movie at least deserves a 3. I really wanted to like the film more, but it was a truly bad film--though not quite as rotten as you might have heard.

Sadly, from what I have read, this film might be a case of art imitating life, as Pavarotti's own life later had some parallels to this film, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss this in detail.

Another singer makes a movie. Worth seeing one time.

[yonhope · 7 June 2004]

Hi, Everyone,

I was fortunate enough to work as an extra in this movie. I was a doctor in the background in a hospital scene. The extras who worked with Pavoratti liked him. He was a pleasant, unassuming guy who spent a lot of time at the craft services table (snack table).

There was one scene in the movie that had one quote which made the movie worth seeing from my point of view. In a restaurant setting, Pavoratti's character takes his date into a fancy, expensive dining establishment. He has rented the entire restaurant and they are dining alone in a huge room with musicians playing for them alone.

The girl comments about how odd it is to be dining in such an enormous room without other diners present.

I won't spoil it for you by giving his quote that makes this scene so wonderful. He says something that is one of my all time favorite movie quotes.

He is a charming personality and I would have liked for him to make other film appearances. He could have been like a Burl Ives character who could have made movies that were not musicals as well as operatic films.

Tom Willett

A Great Singer, A Nice Giuy, But He Picked A Bad Film

[ccthemovieman-1 · 2/10 · 17 June 2007]

As others have said, "No, Luciano" is a more apt title or response to this movie title. For entertainment, the great opera singer should stick to singing.....not that he's a terrible actor. It's just that this movie stinks.

The first 25 minutes were fine - a nice family movie, as it were - but after that it's nothing but a boring soap opera.

Appropriately playing a singer, Pavarotti, as "Giorgio Fini," loses his voice a few times and the doctor, "Pamela Taylor" (Kathryn Harrold) comes to the rescue. The singer then falls for the doctor, the doctor slowly falls for the singer, the two argue all the time and on and on and on it goes.

Pavarotti has a winning smile and is a likable guy. It's Harrold that spoils things and after watching her here I am not surprised she didn't become a star.

There is nice scenery in the movie to enjoy, good shots of San Francisco and Italy, at least in the first half of the film. I got bored and don't remember much about the second half of it.

No, Pavarotti!

[brower8 · 3/10 · 1 January 2004]

An attempt at crossover to appeal to those who don't appreciate opera, exploiting the fame of one of the greatest opera singers of all time, it fails badly. All that is desirable in this movie is the opera, and one can best find a recording of Pavarotti doing what he does best. The plot revolves around a romance with a doctor who heals his throat which has suddenly become troublesome.

Only because it came out so long ago is it largely forgotten. Like most opera stars, Pavarotti is a decent actor and has stage presence aside from his singing talent, and nothing that he does in this movie negates that opinion. His culpability lies in not rejecting the horrid script. Perhaps because great operas can have silly stories he tolerated this one.

Who knows, except those involved? Do we need to know?

The plot is weak and trite. This movie is like trudging through cold mud to pick off a few juicy tidbits (the opera music) hanging above the mud. We have other ways in which to appreciate the great Pavarotti, and this one isn't one of them. Just get one of his many superb opera or vocal-concert recordings and recognize the master tenor where he is most suited.

It would be one of IMDb's 100 Worst Films if more people remembered it and gave it some votes; it would fit neatly in a list including several efforts of singers, actors, models, and athletes to exploit their popularity through film. Very often it all goes badly wrong due to incompetent acting or a horrible script. Pavarotti would have been a decent actor had he not shown such a superb voice. However effective he is as an actor (opera requires it), not even Jimmy Stewart could have rescued this turkey of a script.

I give it a polite 3 of 10 because someone may have become a fan of Pavarotti's singing and of opera because of this movie.

UGH!

[BandSAboutMovies · 1/10 · 4 April 2022]

MGM announced they had signed a deal with Lucio Pavarotti to star in this movie and he responded by saying, "I have done a lot of television and think I have the experience to do a movie. I will put myself in the hands of those making this but hopefully my sense of humor will come through."

Producer Peter Fetterman said, "I just knew that someone had to make a movie with Pavarotti. He's got so much charisma. A talent like his appears only once in every generation."

Executive producer Herbert Breslin chimed in with, "We're not going to skimp on it. We'll spend whatever it takes to make a movie right for Mr. Pavarotti."

The result?

$2.3 million back on a $19 million budget, but based on this Newsweek article, the estimated loss was $45.9 million. Pretty steep for a movie made because Gladys Begelman, wife of David Begelman, the COO and president of MGM at that time, was an opera lover.

But it was Pavarotti's debut in the movies!

He plays world-famous Italian tenor opera singer Giorgio Fini - hmm, a stretch - who has mental issues preventing him from singing at the Met. That's when his business manager Henry Pollack (Eddie Albert, I'm so sorry) introduces him to throat specialist Pamela Taylor (Kathryn Harrold from The Sender) who he refuses to see because why could a woman be a doctor?

It gets better. Or worse. Because the entire movie is him pursuing her, even though he has a wife and kids, and tells her it will mean nothing and yet, she falls for this sexist man with talent and still gets hurt, but it's a comedy.

Franklin J. Schaffner made Planet of the Apes, Patton and The Boys from Brazil. He deserved better. Or maybe he deserves the blame because this movie is pure pain. Or perhaps it's the script by Norman Steinberg, who also wrote Blazing Saddles, Johnny Dangerously and Wise Guys. Or could it be Anne Piper, who wrote the book this was based on?

Nah, I think we know who was at fault.

Pavarotti refused to work more than 12 hours a day and would do no work after 8PM. He would only be filmed in angles that made him look smaller, just one of the many demands that led the crew to call the movie No, Luciano.

This movie starts with "This story is dedicated to lovers everywhere."

I hate you, lovers.

Yes, its that bad

[zappaman-69382 · 1/10 · 6 January 2023]

Everything youve heard is true. Its probably even worse than its reputation dictates. Not enough charm to be charmingly bad. No laughs, intentional ones at least. No chemistry, no nothing. Everyone involved in this watched their career smash to a permanent halt. It was rumored pavoratti was loaded most of the time on set. This was supposed to be a big hit & pavoratti was paid a bundle to star. Not dure how ypu watch this thing at this point. If there is a god this has not been released digitally - I know there is a vhs version. But its better not to know. Absolutely no reason to ever watch this.

Three Tenors. . . (out of Ten Tenors).

[southdavid · 3/10 · 22 January 2023]

Another film watched for the "How Did This Get Made" podcast, "Yes, Giorgio" is a pretty terrible vehicle to (presumably) try and establish Luciano Pavarotti as an actor. Though he's not good, he's not the main problem with this boring mess.

Famous opera singer Giorgio Fini (Luciano Pavarotti) brings his talent back to America, after a long time away, following a disastrous show at the Met. Ahead of a performance, he loses his voice and a Doctor, Pamela Taylor (Kathryn Harrold) is brought in to help. Despite his marriage, the pair embark on a romance and Pamela eventually comes to have deeper feelings for him than they previously agreed. Then the Met call again to offer him the lead role in a performance of Turandot.

Regardless of your opinion of opera (to be honest, I don't much care for it), that Luciano Pavarotti was one of the worlds greatest ever performers of it is beyond doubt and any time he gets the chance to sing here is when the film it as it strongest. He's not much of an actor, that is for sure, but he's not given that much to do and to act like a spoiled, entitled Tenor probably wasn't that much of a stretch for him.

The trouble is the rest of the film around him is a tedious mess, with a plot barely worthy of a 30-minute soap opera, let alone a lengthy near two-hour movie. I didn't find the romance particularly believable, as Pamela didn't seem the type to be won over by big gestures and that is pretty much Giorgio has going for him. They drift through their tedious relationship before he agrees, without really enough motivation for my thoughts, to take the role at the Met again.

The version I was watching also looked pretty awful, but I'm prepared to concede that was because it was a version on Youtube and not a decent print.

I'd say I've watched worse films to keep in step with the Podcast, but very few that were more boring.

It's just a movie!

[rondine · 7/10 · 25 July 2004]

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. :)

A Musical Heaven's Gate....

[661jda · 1/10 · 15 February 2022]

First off - this picture had no business being made. I read someplace the only reason it was made was because the wife of a studio head was an opera fan. Judging from this, it's no wonder that MGM went out of business on a number of occasions: 1982 when this was released, other studios were releasing 'ET", "TOOTSIE", "GHANDI", "DAS BOOT", "SOPHIE'S CHOICE" to name a few. There is NOTHING redeemable about this celluloid - it's not a movie - it's not a film - it's something that someone with ,arguably, a great voice wants to project to the public just how great he is. Even the romance isn't believable. If you have seen it - my sympathies. If you haven't seen it, chances are you won't as it's hard to find and I wouldn't go looking for it again. This is just mid-level trash.

He opened my eyes - he will be missed

[suebella1 · 9/10 · 6 September 2007]

I watched this movie with my mother when I was in high school many years ago. I definitely was not the least bit interested in opera at the time, but he changed my views. I enjoyed this movie very much and have truly enjoyed opera ever since. I even bought several of his CD's. Who cares what his acting abilities were, he basically just played himself, which was adorable. He was so charming, so charismatic; I honestly just wanted to hug him. I feel very sad that so many are criticizing him so harshly. It was so straight, did not accept people pushing him around or judging him for his actions. He deserves to be respected and admired for his talent. He will definitely be missed!!!

Aurally Rewarding!

[dmb622-1 · 7/10 · 1 March 2008]

"Yes, Georgio" is a light-hearted and enjoyable movie/comedy that contains beautiful settings and beautiful music. It's not my favorite movie but it is a movie I have enjoyed seeing more than once. Some reviewers suggested if one wished to enjoy Pavarotti, they would likely be better served by picking up an opera DVD. Although, a full opera might be a better representation of Pavarotti's operatic talents, oftentimes, an opera requires costumes and has story lines that completely hide the appearance and nature of the person. "Yes, Georgio" permits Pavarotti to use his speaking voice and to exhibit a personality and character in ways an opera would not.

Many reviewers seemed to find the story unbelievable; I don't agree. Enormously talented people can be both self-centered and charming - charming enough to captivate intelligent and beautiful people. Additionally, people who are very different from one other often gain insights about themselves and grow in positive ways from interacting with people who stretch them or take them in directions they might not have chosen on their own. Both Georgio and Pamela become more open to unexplored parts of themselves in relationship with the other.

Relax and let yourself go into a visually and aurally rewarding film with Pavarotti at the peak of his vocal abilities. The ending scenes from Puccini's Turandot alone are worth the time to get there.

Waste of time

[vanessakowara · 1/10 · 8 July 2012]

The main character is such a douche bag. Sure the man can sing, but he can't act for sh*t. He condones polygamy and was so self-conceited that it was painful to watch the movie. My Grandpa is a fan of Pavarotti and seemed to enjoy the movie, but I had some serious cringing sessions. Pamela is a stupid lady, a doctor working in a children ward should know better than to destroy someone's marriage. The woman had no self-respect. She still wanted to be his mistress after he referred to her as his niece in front of his friends. He treated like a slave. He even had the audacity to tell her not to fall in love with him after their first intercourse. He even added that it would be hard not to. Seriously?!

Boston memories.

[Blueghost · 6 September 2007]

I don't recall too much of this film, but I do recall going to the free concert in Boston for the climatic sequence for this film. It was a hot muggy East cost afternoon, and the mounted patrol of Boston's police force were out in force, horsies and all :) High above the camera copters were flying getting footage of the gathering crowd. Up front, near the actual ampitheatre, were the hard core opera and classical music aficionados. While behind them were folks who just wanted to get a glimpse of Luciano Pavarotti.

Needless to say Boston park was packed with people. I don't recall too much of the actual concert itself, but I do recall trying to spot myself in the crowd when the film aired on HBO. No, I didn't see myself, and the movie was just so-so, though entertaining all the same on a mediocre level.

I can't recall, but I think it was the same summer when the Red Sox decided to put on a water exhibition show during a rain delay. Who would've thought that I would experience two memorable events in Boston's social history that summer.

The film itself, from what I recall, isn't great cinema. Luciano Pavarotti was all the rage on the opera scene. So much so that he was gaining mainstream attention, and hence the studios took a chance on trying to cash in on his burgeoning popularity in this typical rags to riches tale.

It serves as a mild curiosity, but nothing more. I personally wish Pavarotti had done better mainstream films, but regardless he did some outstanding opera performances, many of which are available on DVD.

I haven't seen the film in over twenty years, but I won't forget my small participation in it.

Just a nice recall

[pablrg · 5/10 · 31 August 2019]

The movie was a whole silliness, but it was when I for the first time heard the aria 'Nessun dorma' and loved it. So, only for that I was somewhat indulgent with my rating.

If you love Pavarotti singing, it is OK

[dmhcaptain · 4/10 · 12 September 2023]

The singing appears to be found on most of his greatest hits or compilations. There does not appear to be any new vocal material. Kathryn Harrold is definitely eye catching and if I remember properly, Eddie Albert seems to be doing a reprise of Oliver Wendell Douglas. Nice to watch, simply to say you have watched it. Recall though, operatic acting is VERY different from screen acting. Saw him at the Met in an opera in 1998 at a time his health made every performance a question mark as to who would actually be singing that night. I got lucky, but I did sweat a bit. When I got my Playbill with no insert, I was a little kid at Christmas. That was a man in his element. In front of a camera, Pavarotti is great for talking and discussing. Not acting. Simply not trained for it.

Wonderful fluff!

[ezlidblue-1 · 7/10 · 4 February 2009]

As someone else commented, this is a feel-good movie. It's got glorious scenery and the wonder-filled voice of Luciano! I've seen this movie many times and just saw it again this afternoon. I'd forgotten how much I miss Pavarotti's singing of Nessun Dorma and I need to get out the CD! It's a great movie to just while away the afternoon engrossed in fun and reverie. Eddie Albert is grand as the agent and a bit over the top, but all agents are just that anyway. The Italian countryside is gorgeous but nothing tops the balloon ride for the perfect view. If you need acting of Olivier proportion, this movie isn't for you. If you just want a flight of fancy and some wonderful music, watch this film. Just enjoy!

Everyone should see this film once!

[tsimpson56 · 10/10 · 16 February 2002]

Yes, Giorgio, is a feel good movie. A little romance, great music, beautiful scenery, comedy, (a great food fight), and a little taste of bittersweet are the ingredients of Yes, Giorgio. Any movie buff would enjoy this film. Those who require massive special effects, should look elsewhere. Most of us need a little escape now and then, and how better to do this, than with a feast for the eyes, ears, and heart? A must see!

My Introduction to Pavarotti

[sharonhorney · 10/10 · 5 September 2007]

I saw this movie when it came out when I was 17 years old and into classic rock (still am)...

I never liked opera before because I hate soprano voices, but he changed all that. He was adorable in the movie and had such an amazing voice.

I heard on CNN that he died tonight at home of pancreatic cancer, he will be missed, and he definitely left his mark on this world.

I hope to buy this movie if I can find it, watch and enjoy. *smile* Maybe I should head over to Amazon.com and have a look before it's sold out.

Still a good movie 27 years on!

[KateC49 · 10/10 · 24 May 2009]

I remember seeing this film when it first came out in 1982 & loved it then. About 4 years later I had the privilege of seeing Luciano Pavarotti sing at the Metropolitan Opera house in New York (in Tosca) so seeing the ending of this film reminds me very much of that great night. What's not to like about this film? The music is brilliant and Pavarotti (Fini) was at his best and still looked great. The story is actually very funny in parts & the 'food fight' scene is still one of the funniest I have ever seen. The hot air balloon flight over the Napa valley was beautiful & so was the song he sang "If we were in love" (one of the few times Pavarotti sang in English). And hearing the duet of Santa Lucia gorgeous. Get real folks, this was a film about an opera singer called Georgio Fini who just happened to be played by Pavarotti. Kathryn Harrold & Eddie Albert were excellent in their supporting roles.

I am VERY glad that I still have this almost worn out VHS tape of this movie but I would love this to be released on DVD especially now that Pavarotti is no longer with us because I think this includes the best performance of Nessun Dorma sung by him still on film today!

Ain't no way, Luciano!

[BobLib · 7 April 2004]

There's Pavarotti, at the height of his powers and popularity, in glorious voice, and some beautiful photography, and that's about it for this misguided attempt to turn Luciano Pavarotti into the Mario Lanza of the 1980's. The whole thing was totally uninspired by anything except the desire to make a quick buck out of Pavarotti fans. All the critics panned it when it came out, but thought it would succeed on the strength of Pavarotti's (then) huge fan base. They were wrong. Talent or no, the rotund Pavarotti was nobody's idea of a romantic leading man. The fans wanted to hear Pavarotti sing, not see him try to act, and "Yes, Giorgio!" sank like a stone at the box office. Only Eddie Albert managed to rise above the mess with his dignity intact, giving his usual good, understated performance (Was he ever capable of giving a BAD performance?).

In short, if you want to see and hear Pavarotti at his best (roughly 1973-90), watch one of his videos/DVDs, either of his opera performances or his concerts, and avoid this best-forgotten failure.

Purely for Pavarotti Peeps

[arieliondotcom · 9/10 · 24 February 2008]

Okay, let's face it. this is a god-awful movie. The plot (such as it is) is horrible, the acting worse. But the movie was made for one reason and one reason only, like all of those awful Mario Lanza movies...just to hear the voice of the star, in this case Pavarotti in his prime. Okay, so maybe the Lanza movies were also an excuse for him to hit on women, but this movie is about hearing Luciano. That alone is worth watching the movie. A big opera star stuck on himself faces his fears, finds humility and love along the way, and belts out a lot of hit numbers, too.

I must admit I'm prejudiced on a number of levels. I'm Italian. I'm a big Pavarotti fan (is there anything about Pavarotti that isn't big, including his fan base?). And when I first saw this movie I was going out on my own, seeing the height and depth of Life's possibilities and in love for the first time. So as awful as this movie is, the beautiful voice and memories are enough to make me breathe deep of life and love again.

Yes, it's corny and awful. But the voice is immortal and timeless, and the voice is what it's all about. So I give this movie a high rating in hopes that someone who has never heard Pavarotti before will listen and watch and enjoy a new level of music and love, especially since he is now gone. Like Italian food that you've never tried before, try it! You may be pleasantly surprised, as a Luciano lover or prospective Pavarotti peep.