Oui, Giorgio

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :)