The pluses for this are terrific art and production design which is beautifully displayed by the cinematography of Fred Murphy but pretty pictures only go so far. The piece's other strong suit is a fine score with many lovely songs however they are compromised by being given to the two leads who have thin reedy voices without distinction or subtlety and the tunes suffer because of it. The score was a favorite of the young Barbra Streisand and she recorded several of the numbers, listen to her versions of Much More, Soon It's Gonna Rain and particularly I Can See It and you'll understand what has been lost in the pallid interpretations offered here. Alas it is of no help that the same romantic leads share zero chemistry on screen with McIntyre practically disappearing from the screen, so bland is his presence. The best work is turned in by Brad Sullivan and Joel Grey but their parts are small and Grey is especially wasted. Catch the live show instead.
74 Reviews
"Teller doesn't talk!" - David Patrick Kelly in "Penn & Teller Get Killed"
Bilko-38 December 2004
Let's get the usual remarks out of the way:
1. I saw "The Fantasticks" on Sullivan Street. 2. I've played Hucklebee. 3. I love the show.
The movie was OK. Not special; but OK. This will seem egotistical, but it's not: John Corona & I were SO much better than Joel Grey and Brad Sullivan, and that's on a community theatre level. It's not that we were brilliant, but Brad Sullivan was so completely god-awful that Joel Grey (who at least is competent) was completely sandbagged. Why in the name of David Merrick would you cast someone in a major musical part who can't carry a tune in a bucket? I lamented that "Plant a Radish" was cut from the movie until I saw it as a DVD extra. "Oh. That's why they cut it. The singing sucks."
The young lovers were OK. Jonathon Morris acted wonderfully as El Gallo, danced well... and his singing was OK but breathy. None of the power associated with the role.
The best ones in the movie were Barnard Hughes as Henry & Teller as Mortimer... so of course their parts were heavily trimmed, prompting the heading on this review. Apparently when Francis Ford Coppola was editing the movie, he was shocked and aghast at Teller speaking. Teller is now silent in the film.
Some of the changes from play to film are clever, and there is some beautiful photography. But in a musical, without the voices you're sunk.
1. I saw "The Fantasticks" on Sullivan Street. 2. I've played Hucklebee. 3. I love the show.
The movie was OK. Not special; but OK. This will seem egotistical, but it's not: John Corona & I were SO much better than Joel Grey and Brad Sullivan, and that's on a community theatre level. It's not that we were brilliant, but Brad Sullivan was so completely god-awful that Joel Grey (who at least is competent) was completely sandbagged. Why in the name of David Merrick would you cast someone in a major musical part who can't carry a tune in a bucket? I lamented that "Plant a Radish" was cut from the movie until I saw it as a DVD extra. "Oh. That's why they cut it. The singing sucks."
The young lovers were OK. Jonathon Morris acted wonderfully as El Gallo, danced well... and his singing was OK but breathy. None of the power associated with the role.
The best ones in the movie were Barnard Hughes as Henry & Teller as Mortimer... so of course their parts were heavily trimmed, prompting the heading on this review. Apparently when Francis Ford Coppola was editing the movie, he was shocked and aghast at Teller speaking. Teller is now silent in the film.
Some of the changes from play to film are clever, and there is some beautiful photography. But in a musical, without the voices you're sunk.
The Impossible Film
hlightstone5 May 2001
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.
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.
Good, could have been great
preppy-325 September 2000
It's a mystery to me why this film sat on the shelf for 5 years. It's no masterpiece, but it's colorful and entertaining. The songs are beautiful and well performed by ALMOST the entire cast. The story is interesting but gets confusing at the half-way point--I'm assuming it's because of the 15 minutes cut out of the original print. Unfortunately there's one huge problem with the movie--Joey McIntyre. He can sing OK, but sounds bad compared to everyone else. And his acting is horrendous! At one point he's trying to be romantic with his girlfriend on a porch bench--he was so bad the audience I had was in hysterics by the end of the scene. Also, he's not good-looking at all (sorry!) and just unbelievable. Without him this might have been a great musical. Sadly, it just misses the mark. Still worth seeing though.
More Nays than Yays
harry-7613 April 2004
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.
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.
Thank goodness there's Joe McIntyre
vinsond214 April 2006
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.
Very disappointing
redvette_ragtop24 June 2003
I am a big musical fan. As a high school choir teacher, I require my students to watch them. I won't be requiring them to watch this.
Another comment on this forum said that the negatively opinionated people should cut the movie version some slack as there are always differences with a screenplay. True, but most of the screenplay versions have become classics in their own right--and for good reason. That reason being that the screenplay itself is an excellent adaptation and it is quality work. Not so with this disappointing movie.
This movie had great potential with a good cast. I think that Jean Louisa Kelly was the bright spot, quite good actually, and the actor who portrayed El Gallo was the low spot.
Ironically, the movie was like the story. Once Matt and Louisa had the freedom to see each other and empowered to make their relationship and fantasies materialize from abstract to concrete, the magic was gone. I felt the magic of the play was gone because much of what was the magic of our imagination and imagery gave way to too many concrete images on screen via sets, props, and what not. It simply didn't work.
I remember the intimacy of doing this play in high school. I was not on stage, but I was one of the "pit" musicians. We did it in 3/4 in the round. The theater seated 70 people. The cast interacted with the pit and the audience. It was simply charming. It was magical. Not so with this movie.
Like others, big question marks entered my head with the script. I kept saying to myself several times during the viewing, "I don't remember this," or "I thought something else happened (or was said)."
No, I'm not going to cut this some slack just because a movie version is going to differ from the staged version. We own most of the movie versions of various musicals and we watch them and re-watch them and re-watch them again and again. Why? Because they're great. This one?....Well, I'm glad we rented it.
Go see the real thing. On a stage.
Another comment on this forum said that the negatively opinionated people should cut the movie version some slack as there are always differences with a screenplay. True, but most of the screenplay versions have become classics in their own right--and for good reason. That reason being that the screenplay itself is an excellent adaptation and it is quality work. Not so with this disappointing movie.
This movie had great potential with a good cast. I think that Jean Louisa Kelly was the bright spot, quite good actually, and the actor who portrayed El Gallo was the low spot.
Ironically, the movie was like the story. Once Matt and Louisa had the freedom to see each other and empowered to make their relationship and fantasies materialize from abstract to concrete, the magic was gone. I felt the magic of the play was gone because much of what was the magic of our imagination and imagery gave way to too many concrete images on screen via sets, props, and what not. It simply didn't work.
I remember the intimacy of doing this play in high school. I was not on stage, but I was one of the "pit" musicians. We did it in 3/4 in the round. The theater seated 70 people. The cast interacted with the pit and the audience. It was simply charming. It was magical. Not so with this movie.
Like others, big question marks entered my head with the script. I kept saying to myself several times during the viewing, "I don't remember this," or "I thought something else happened (or was said)."
No, I'm not going to cut this some slack just because a movie version is going to differ from the staged version. We own most of the movie versions of various musicals and we watch them and re-watch them and re-watch them again and again. Why? Because they're great. This one?....Well, I'm glad we rented it.
Go see the real thing. On a stage.
Old Fashioned In The Best Sense!
Donato15 June 2002
This show ran for over 40 years off-Broadway, where I saw it late in its run. It has certainly been done a lot on stages everywhere and often the approach is so heavy-handed that the simplicity and charm of the show are lost. So after all the delays and re-cuttings, the film came out and I had to give it a try. The good news: it worked and worked well. In fact, I can't imagine it being done much better given the difficulty of adapting stage musicals to the screen. "Act One" is full of youthful idealism (with adult plotting going on behind the scenes). "Act Two" is the reality check wherein one sees all the flaws that had been masked by that youthful idealism. A simple love story with some of Tom Jones and Harvey Schmidt's most enjoyable music, this film is a wonderful entertainment.
Maybe there's just no way to film this
marcslope16 August 2023
It's a legendary, and unique, stage musical, with an ethereal, non-literal quality that doesn't easily lend itself to the screen. Several film versions were proposed over the years, and it finally fell to Michael Ritchie, who was a Fantasticks fanatic, having loved it ever since seeing it early in its run on Sullivan Street. (I interviewed him at a mixing session for the never-released CD, and he excitedly told me, "I'm gonna bring back the movie musical!" It took CHICAGO to do that.) It's pretty to look at, and bolstered by Jonathan Tunick's big-musical orchestrations, and some of it works just fine. Jean Louisa Kelly's a charming Louisa, not the strongest-voiced, but it's the right voice for the character, Barnard Hughes has some wonderful moments as the old actor, and Joel Grey is a touching dad (Brad Sullivan, his counterpart, gets the character right but has no voice). Jonathon Morris doesn't quite get El Gallo, he's not dashing or authoritative enough, and Joey McIntyre hasn't much chemistry with Kelly. Several of the musical numbers are somewhat truncated, which dilutes their impact, and there's way too much MTV-ish cutting; "Soon It's Gonna Rain" and "They Were You," filmed in the fewest takes, work the best. Jones and Schmidt do some needless rewriting to both libretto and lyrics, and Jones's predilection for magic sometimes gets in the way, there's too much cavorting by the carnival troupe. The visuals are great, and the time period, more specifically 1920-ish than in the stage version, doesn't hurt. Ritchie directs with care and affection, and some of the greatness of the original seeps through. But the literalism of film makes an uncomfortable fit for this piece. It might be the best possible filming of The Fantasticks. It's still preferable onstage.
Disappointing
danhicks12 September 2002
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.
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.
A New Kind Of Villain For The Oldest Human Story
beorhouse7 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A wonderfully cast and colorful film about the wickedness of the world and how, if we are not careful, we can lose not our innocence, which none of us has anyway, but our purity--our holiness. The villain who steps into the lives of the four peaceful people on the plain is at first hard to discern. Is he evil? Is he neutral and only having fun at the expense of the unaware? Or, could it be? Maybe he is actually something like a guardian angel who saves the young couple from ruin by allowing them to see the world from the safety of the stage--as actors playing parts instead of actual victims of real-life thieves, prostitutes, drug dealers, and--in the girl's case--psychic vampires. This one really sets well with me. It is unique--nothing else like it that I am aware of. I'd definitely see it again, and again, and maybe even again.
The Source Material is great, but....
movieandtvfanatic15 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"The Fantasticks" is the longest running stage production ever, even over "Phantom of the Opera". For those who don't know, it ran off-Broadway for nearly 42 years and now is back and has been playing for about another four years. The musical has its detractors but I am not one of them. While the show does lose its luster in parts during Act Two, some of the songs in this musical are among the best ever written for musical theater. Other than the wonderful classic, "Try to Remember", this show includes the hilarious "It Depends on What You Pay" and the beautiful and haunting "They Were You" among others.
The movie version has a good cast. The two leads (Kelly and McIntyre) are very good and you also have Joel Grey in the mix, but this version falls flat. The direction and the editing are very bizarre (especially during the father duet "Never Say No") and the movie leaves the show's most famous song which opens the musical, the previously mentioned "Try to Remember" and leaves it for the very end as an afterthought.
A lot of the magic is lost in this version and I can see why it was shelved for five years. Quite a shame...but if you can see a great production on stage, it will be more worth the look then.
The movie version has a good cast. The two leads (Kelly and McIntyre) are very good and you also have Joel Grey in the mix, but this version falls flat. The direction and the editing are very bizarre (especially during the father duet "Never Say No") and the movie leaves the show's most famous song which opens the musical, the previously mentioned "Try to Remember" and leaves it for the very end as an afterthought.
A lot of the magic is lost in this version and I can see why it was shelved for five years. Quite a shame...but if you can see a great production on stage, it will be more worth the look then.
Respect your material
andiam-130 May 2005
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
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
Don't Be So Harsh, it's a Movie!!
RitchCS3 April 2001
"The Fantasticks" has been a part of my life since 1960 when I first saw Kenneth Nelson, Rita Gardner, and Jerry Orbach play in the original. Over the past forty years I've directed, played-in, or played-for hundreds of performances from New York to Miami. I feel I know the play inside and out, even adding many touches for the mute that was never off-Broadway. Thirty some-odd years ago, I saw it on television, as I recall, it was John Davison, Lesley Ann Warren, and Ricardo Montalban (as El Gallo). I, being a purist, thought the TV show was abominable. But I was younger and hadn't learned to tolerate or respect other viewpoints or interpretations. I held my breath as I started playing the DVD after finding out that the opening "Try to Remember" was gone....but the more I watched...Jonathan (Stephen Sondheim's musicals) Tunnick's orchestrations started working a magic on me, and by the time "Soon It's Gonna Rain". finished, I was charmed and captivated. I didn't object to the new "Depends on What You Play", for the melody as always been in the score, only played by the "orchestra" as the Rape music ballet. Reading the other posts on IMDB board, I think many comments were unfair to this movie. There is NO way you could capture the original staging on film. A compromise had to be reached. And since it was Jones and Schmidt who wrote the screenplay, they and they alone had to right to do with it as they wished.
It should have remained on the shelf
mike-54714 January 2002
I wasn't completely disappointed with the film "adaptation" of "The Fantasticks". It had a number of enjoyable cast members in it. That's why I felt generous enough to give it a 2 rating. If not for the likes of Joel Grey or Bernard Hughes or Teller, I would have figured out a way to give it a negative number. As a fan of the stage version (and a former cast member) I was not just dismayed to see some of the best numbers reduced or in some cases replaced or removed, I was actually hurt that anyone could mangle so completely such a simple, eloquent musical. I can only hope that now that the original off broadway production has closed someone will come along and make a real film of one of the best musicals ever written.
Try to dismember
LCShackley8 August 2010
I can't believe that Jones & Schmidt, the creators of this marvelous bit of theater, were complicit in the creation of this disastrous movie version that cuts the heart out of the original musical.
If you haven't seen the original, it's performed with very little in the way of props or sets. There's no "back story" for El Gallo, and no real history of the two fathers and their kids. As originally written, this show would not make a compelling movie - although it's a wonderful live event. So I didn't really mind that they opened it up and created an actual "location" for the story to take place, in this case the San Rafael Valley of Arizona, apparently sometime in the Depression. The two families live in quaint little houses in the middle of nowhere. Fine so far. And in order to beef up the chamber-style accompaniment of the play, they hired the wonderful Jonathan Tunick to orchestrate it: probably the best decision made by the producers.
In order to give El Gallo some background, however, the writers introduce an entire traveling circus that for some reason chooses to set up in a neighborhood containing only four people. It's a little creepy, and more than once reminded me of "Something Wicked This Way Comes."
The casting is the next problem. Hughes and Teller seem right as the "players." Joel Grey is good as always, but Brad Sullivan is a dud. (Try to picture Bert Lahr and Sterling Holloway in these roles - they were in the 1964 TV version. Now THAT was a cast.) The young couple is OK - Jean Louisa Kelly is charming, and she was about to make a splash in "Mr. Holland's Opus." El Gallo as played by Jonathon Morris, seems to be trying to channel Cary Elwes from "Princess Bride" and has an unimpressive singing voice. Too bad they couldn't have cast Kevin Kline or someone with a real voice as well as charisma.
So it starts with questionable raw material, then falls apart when they begin trimming songs, creating phony new dialog, and even substituting a lifeless new song for the biggest number of the musical. The lackadaisical approach to the original material spoiled the show.
If you've never seen "The Fantasticks," please go to see it live, even if it's just done by the local high school. Then you will capture the poetry and simplicity that made this a huge hit off-Broadway.
If you haven't seen the original, it's performed with very little in the way of props or sets. There's no "back story" for El Gallo, and no real history of the two fathers and their kids. As originally written, this show would not make a compelling movie - although it's a wonderful live event. So I didn't really mind that they opened it up and created an actual "location" for the story to take place, in this case the San Rafael Valley of Arizona, apparently sometime in the Depression. The two families live in quaint little houses in the middle of nowhere. Fine so far. And in order to beef up the chamber-style accompaniment of the play, they hired the wonderful Jonathan Tunick to orchestrate it: probably the best decision made by the producers.
In order to give El Gallo some background, however, the writers introduce an entire traveling circus that for some reason chooses to set up in a neighborhood containing only four people. It's a little creepy, and more than once reminded me of "Something Wicked This Way Comes."
The casting is the next problem. Hughes and Teller seem right as the "players." Joel Grey is good as always, but Brad Sullivan is a dud. (Try to picture Bert Lahr and Sterling Holloway in these roles - they were in the 1964 TV version. Now THAT was a cast.) The young couple is OK - Jean Louisa Kelly is charming, and she was about to make a splash in "Mr. Holland's Opus." El Gallo as played by Jonathon Morris, seems to be trying to channel Cary Elwes from "Princess Bride" and has an unimpressive singing voice. Too bad they couldn't have cast Kevin Kline or someone with a real voice as well as charisma.
So it starts with questionable raw material, then falls apart when they begin trimming songs, creating phony new dialog, and even substituting a lifeless new song for the biggest number of the musical. The lackadaisical approach to the original material spoiled the show.
If you've never seen "The Fantasticks," please go to see it live, even if it's just done by the local high school. Then you will capture the poetry and simplicity that made this a huge hit off-Broadway.
Stop comparing it to the stage play
21bostoncalifornia6 January 2003
I am surprised how many negative reviews there are on this site. THE FANTASTICKS is a good movie. The director made some
poor choices, but it is still a delightful, worthwhile movie. Luckily, the wonderful songs "Depends on What You Pay" and
"Plant a Radish" which were cut are available as extras on the
DVD. People need to stop comparing this to the stage production.
Movie adaptations of musicals almost ALWAYS change things and
purests can always point out major differences. Cabaret, Grease, Sound of Music...the list goes on and on. The fact is, the movie needs to be assessed on its own. It is a different entity than the play. Yes, we all know and love the stage production. Can't you simply enjoy the movie for what it is? Frankly, I thought it captured the mood of the play quite well. It was filmed on the praire of Arizona and has a very nostalgic,
theatrical feel to it. El Gallo is not the best, but Louisa and Matt are charming.
Especially Louisa. She is beautiful. And it's got Joel Grey, for gosh sake. Anything he's in is worth
seeing. So stop complaining. Don't grade on a scale of "1 to stage
production". Appreciate the movie for what it is. I know I did. It deserves more than a 5.4 weighted average (63% of users gave
it a "10").
poor choices, but it is still a delightful, worthwhile movie. Luckily, the wonderful songs "Depends on What You Pay" and
"Plant a Radish" which were cut are available as extras on the
DVD. People need to stop comparing this to the stage production.
Movie adaptations of musicals almost ALWAYS change things and
purests can always point out major differences. Cabaret, Grease, Sound of Music...the list goes on and on. The fact is, the movie needs to be assessed on its own. It is a different entity than the play. Yes, we all know and love the stage production. Can't you simply enjoy the movie for what it is? Frankly, I thought it captured the mood of the play quite well. It was filmed on the praire of Arizona and has a very nostalgic,
theatrical feel to it. El Gallo is not the best, but Louisa and Matt are charming.
Especially Louisa. She is beautiful. And it's got Joel Grey, for gosh sake. Anything he's in is worth
seeing. So stop complaining. Don't grade on a scale of "1 to stage
production". Appreciate the movie for what it is. I know I did. It deserves more than a 5.4 weighted average (63% of users gave
it a "10").
They really should have called it something else ....
Bascoda30 January 2013
because this isn't The Fantasticks that I fell in love with the first time I saw it some 50 years ago and later had the pleasure of performing in on 3 different occasions.
I avoided watching this movie for many years, mostly because I didn't want to spoil my memories of the play. Recently, however, I found a copy in the local thrift store and thought to myself "why not?" I wish I'd left it in the scratch and dent bin.
Another reviewer described the stage version as "a bubble balanced on the head of a pin" and that's as good an analogy as any of the fragility of the magical effect the play has on its audiences. This doesn't translate to the film version, not at all. To anyone reading this review: if you've seen and enjoyed a stage production of The Fantasticks but haven't seen the movie, don't bother; if you've seen the movie, but never the stage play, do yourself a favor - see the stage play if ever you have the chance, and also buy the original cast album to learn what the music is supposed to sound like.
I avoided watching this movie for many years, mostly because I didn't want to spoil my memories of the play. Recently, however, I found a copy in the local thrift store and thought to myself "why not?" I wish I'd left it in the scratch and dent bin.
Another reviewer described the stage version as "a bubble balanced on the head of a pin" and that's as good an analogy as any of the fragility of the magical effect the play has on its audiences. This doesn't translate to the film version, not at all. To anyone reading this review: if you've seen and enjoyed a stage production of The Fantasticks but haven't seen the movie, don't bother; if you've seen the movie, but never the stage play, do yourself a favor - see the stage play if ever you have the chance, and also buy the original cast album to learn what the music is supposed to sound like.
Why DID the kids put beans in their ears?
holding_the_stars4 February 2007
When my roommate and I put this DVD into the DVD player, we were not expecting much, due to a review on IMDb that said it was appropriate for small pre-teen girls. This review also claimed that the movie gave you an image of love without all the sex.
We would have to disagree.
A lot.
Based on all of the bawdy carnival humour related to rape, and breasts, not to mention the beans in the ears and the jam on the cats.
OH! And the drugging and torture of our beloved protagonist Joe McIntyre. Neither of us have seen the play, so imagine our confusion when the poor boy wakes up in the middle of the night, is lured across a field by a giant glowing light, slipped a roofie by a drag queen, then beaten and tortured repeatedly while his love, and some skeazy carnival owner taunt him from a gondola. "FAKEY FAKER!" anyone?
We especially appreciated the following songs:
"Never Say No": For the lines "Why did the kids pour jam on the cat" and "Why did the kids put beans in their ears" these made little if not no sense to us.
"It Depends on What You Pay": For it's casual throwing around of the terms rape, and abduction.
"Soon It's Gonna Rain": For the spaced out expression of Joe McIntyre's face, as well as the strange blindfolded foreplay near the end of the tune.
"Round and Round": For the repeated beatings and inexplicable "ah-ah-ah-ing" from the heroine.
We would also like to state for the record that it is a shame that the song "Plant A Radish" was cut, and not included in the final draft of the film because clearly with children you never know until the seed is fully grown, but at least with beans you can send 'em back.
We watched the movie on repeat for three hours reliving the best moments, WITHOUT the use of chemical enhancers... if you get our drift.
We would have to disagree.
A lot.
Based on all of the bawdy carnival humour related to rape, and breasts, not to mention the beans in the ears and the jam on the cats.
OH! And the drugging and torture of our beloved protagonist Joe McIntyre. Neither of us have seen the play, so imagine our confusion when the poor boy wakes up in the middle of the night, is lured across a field by a giant glowing light, slipped a roofie by a drag queen, then beaten and tortured repeatedly while his love, and some skeazy carnival owner taunt him from a gondola. "FAKEY FAKER!" anyone?
We especially appreciated the following songs:
"Never Say No": For the lines "Why did the kids pour jam on the cat" and "Why did the kids put beans in their ears" these made little if not no sense to us.
"It Depends on What You Pay": For it's casual throwing around of the terms rape, and abduction.
"Soon It's Gonna Rain": For the spaced out expression of Joe McIntyre's face, as well as the strange blindfolded foreplay near the end of the tune.
"Round and Round": For the repeated beatings and inexplicable "ah-ah-ah-ing" from the heroine.
We would also like to state for the record that it is a shame that the song "Plant A Radish" was cut, and not included in the final draft of the film because clearly with children you never know until the seed is fully grown, but at least with beans you can send 'em back.
We watched the movie on repeat for three hours reliving the best moments, WITHOUT the use of chemical enhancers... if you get our drift.
This movie is horrendous!!!!
DumontFan18 March 2001
I recently performed in the off-broadway musical "The Fantasticks" as Henry. This movie is NOTHING like the musical. After putting a lot of work into this, I feel as if they butchered it! They skipped vital things from the musical and added things that weren't there. Seriously, this movie was the hardest for me to sit through and watch.
As I figured...
bbrown26768 October 2001
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 convention of the omniscient 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.
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 convention of the omniscient 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.
Never release this film
Bruce-3928 September 1999
I've worked as lighting director on two different stage productions of "The Fantasticks". As Jason White suggests, a critical aspect to the magic of this production is the almost complete lack of set and props. The joy of the show is that the players work with so little, and each audience member's imagination fills out the picture. The published production photos make it clear that this movie violates these vital elements of this beautiful classic musical. It is a mistake and should never be released.
Horrifying...
dgl119920 February 2005
While I appreciate the effort to give a fresh perspective to this timeless classic, it just doesn't work. Others argue that it isn't easy to translate a musical from stage to screen. While I respect everyone's opinion I also have to ask what show were you watching? The Fantasicks has NO set, everything is minimalist; I mean come on....how hard would it be to adapt it to film? There was way too much attention to altering the non-cumbersome dynamic of the stage version to make it more "interesting." To that end it has been hacked apart and re-assembled as something virtually unrecognizable. The pacing and flow are terrible as is some of the singing and acting. But if I had to nail one (ok, a few things) thing, it's that El Gallo is not the narrator, Teller is not the Mute, and "Try to Remember," the show's anthem, is at the end???? There does not seem to be any reason for these alterations other than it appears that being different was a greater imperative for the director than was remaining honest to the charm and simplicity of the original. I gave it a chance. But I still say skip this garbage.
A breath of fresh air!
RDT-323 September 2000
I had heard for several years that the film version of The Fantasticks was "un-watchable and un-releasable". Who spreads these rumors?? The film was a wonderful, old fashioned musical and I REALLY enjoyed it! It is not a perfect film musical, but given the crap we have been forced to endure this past summer, it is truly a breath of fresh air! I sincerely hope it gets a wide release because people need to see it on the big screen. I have to admit there are some problems...the editing on a couple of musical numbers is unfocused and too choppy. And the man playing El Gallo would not have been my first casting choice. However, Joey McIntyre and Jean Louisa Kelly are wonderful! I hope the film cynics out there don't chew this one up and spit it out. There has to be room out there for nice,non- animated, musical films that make you feel good when you exit the theatre. I, for one am tired of leaving a contemporary film feeling depressed or dirty for visiting the dark side of life. Please give this film a chance! It's a charmer!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
