Avis des utilisateurs

...for example, Bea Arthur as Vera Charles has one solo and parts of three duets--she steals the film easily, no contest. Robert Preston has one solo & is part of two other numbers, in limited screen time--he does his best to make Lucy look good in the title song and dance and succeeds. The instrumental music is so loud during Lucy's numbers it almost drowns her out, along with other cast members who can't sing.

Now for the bad - Lucy didn't have the range to sing the title part and shouldn't have been cast. She ruins her first two songs, then she and the kid cast ruin song number three. From then on she alternates between a very limited tenor range and talk-singing her songs, like Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady (1964). Also, all of the choreography seems slowed down--there is so much blurring of the camera lens one can barely see the pearls Lucy is wearing--they look to be dots. In the end the film just barely avoids disaster and today is considered a bit of a camp classic.

Critics at the time complained that "Mame" was overproduced, but you simply can't stage a musical version of Patrick Dennis' novel/memoir "Auntie Mame" and not have it be splashy with all the trimmings. Screen-adaptation of the hit Broadway show (previously staged and filmed without songs as "Auntie Mame" in 1958 and starring Rosalind Russell) had a lot of people in 1974 crying foul over the casting (they were "anti-Mame"). The by-passing of Broadway's Angela Lansbury for the lead brought nothing but slings and arrows for this new Mame, Lucille Ball, who--despite a sandpaper voice--is to be commended for giving her all to a distinctly old-fashioned presentation. Ball has several amusing scenes, particularly when she's due to be on stage with gal-pal Vera Charles (Beatrice Arthur) and can't stop primping in her vanity mirror. The plot is the same as before: an orphaned lad goes to live with his merry, madcap aunt in 1920s New York and learns about life. Robert Preston is well-cast as a romantic suitor, and Arthur is wonderful reprising her Tony-winning role as Vera. The picture has gauzy, gaudy razzle-dazzle, though not enough to justify a two hour-plus movie. Portions of it creak and sag with the weight of sentimentality; worse, an unnecessary montage of hugs-and-kisses at the finish line is grueling. Still, the cast works hard to keep things bubbling along and there are some choice highlights. ** from ****

I wasn't surprised to learn that Lucille Ball bankrolled this movie adaptation of the Broadway musical MAME -- that explains her miscasting. Don't get me wrong: Ball looks gorgeous in the spectacular costumes and her slapstick is still up to par. But even her bullfrog singing voice (which proves that even the worst voice can't completely ruin Jerry Herman's wonderful songs. They *could* ruin Cole Porter's songs in AT LONG LAST LOVE, but that's a review for another time :-) didn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that Ball is too old and, worst of all, too *COLD* to play lovable madcap Mame Dennis. It's comical in the wrong way to see Lucy in soft focus in her solo shots and everybody else photographed crystal clear. She looks more like she's modeling than acting, and she has all the warmth and tenderness of the iceberg that sank the Titanic. She also tends to look like she's trying to seduce Kirby Furlong and Bruce Davison as, respectively, the younger and older Patrick -- creepy! Moreover, it's obvious the dances have been slowed down considerably to accommodate Lucy's rusty dancing skills (notice how people seem to dance *around* her rather than with her). Madeline Kahn, the original choice for Agnes Gooch, should've been playing Mame, not Ball. Luckily, Lucy's miscasting is balanced out by the terrific casting in the other roles, especially the hilarious Beatrice Arthur and Jane Connell recreating their stage roles as Vera Charles and Agnes, Joyce Van Patten as Sally Cato, and Robert Preston as dashing Beauregard Jackson Pickett Burnside. Worth a look for both its good and bad points, if you stumble across it on AMC in its letterboxed form.

I saw this film when it was originally released in the theatre and I was too young to know that Lucy wasn`t exactly a great choice for Mame. I only knew that the music (Lucy`s singing aside) was wonderful. I`m talking about the orchestrations and the arrangements of the score. From the opening title when the firts strains of MAME are played I was hooked. Over the years I have come to realize that Lucy was miscast as far as the singing goes but having seen a video of Angela Lansbury in the role, I have to say that as far as acting the part, Lucy did an admirable job. Some things about the play were changed for the film but that happens in almost all transfers from stage to screen. It worked well for Cabaret and the Sound of Music and for the most part works well here. No, Lucy can`t sing like Angela Lansbury (who I think is one of the most accomplished actresses of film, theatre and television) but she has her moments, such as MY BEST GIRL with Kirby Furlong and BOSOM BUDDIES with the wonderful Bea Arthur and she brings all her years of experience to the role. She also has a wonderful cast around her to help the film along. My favorite part is the title song sung by Robert Preston and the plantation crowd. A great arrangement of the music and a wonderful adaption of the stage choreography (and Lucy dances wonderfully as well). All in all, if you like musicals and can get past Lucy`s minimal singing talent, then I think you`ll love Mame

I love this movie. I'm not sure why it got such bad reviews. Maybe it's because movies are so bad lately that Mame looks good now, or maybe I'm just in love with Lucille Ball. Whatever the case, this movie isn't as screamingly bad as some make out to be. Bea Arthur is a delight a Vera. Robert Preston is dashing and charming as ever. The songs by Jerry Herman will make you want to get up and dance. While Lucille could have put a little more "Lucy" in Mame Dennis, she looks like she's having a good time dancing, and singing as best she can. You must admire her will to do all the dancing after the horrible skiing accident left her with a broken leg just months before.

Lucille Ball was a mighty power in television throughout the 1950s and 1960s, but she still made an occasional film, most notably THE LONG, LONG TRAILER and THE FACTS OF LIFE. Although her television career remained strong, as the 1970s began her movie career seemed to be winding down--but Ball was determined to have one last big screen fling, and the project she selected was the 1966 musical MAME.

In many respects the role seemed tailor-made: based on the popular novel which gave rise to two different Broadway plays, Mame Dennis is a wacky, wildly uninhibited woman who "inherits" her orphaned nephew Patrick--and leads him on a wild tour of life's possibilities, bouncing from one comic spree to another. The music, which featured such songs as "Open a New Window" and "If He Walked Into My Life Today," was among Jerry Herman's best work. The supporting cast, which included Robert Preston and Bea Arthur, was the best of the best. Expectations were high; opening night fanfare was tremendous; the film was a disaster. Critics were aghast and audiences sat slack-jawed.

No matter what hardcore Lucy fans may say, MAME is a fiasco, so much so that it is hard to know where to start. It is badly directed, badly filmed, badly performed, and there Lucille Ball is at the center of it all, unable to dance, unable to sing, and grinning like a waxworks dummy while incredibly bad choreography swirls around her. But the disaster is hardly of her making alone; the supporting cast fares no better. Bea Arthur and Jane Connell recreate their stage roles of Vera Charles and Agnes Gooch; the former is stagey, the latter is dismal. Robert Preston manages to sing with a smile, but he's pretty much on his own and clearly none too happy about it.

The DVD brings the film from the VHS pan-and-scan release to widescreen, but that only means there's more awfulness to see. Everybody loves Lucy, but only the least critical fan could love Lucy's MAME; while I wouldn't say it's bad enough to make you want to gouge your eyes out, you may wish you had. Not recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

There is far too much criticism of this Lucy-MAME musical ... it is a fantastic and beautiful production with it heart genuinely in the right place and with great casting and music orchestrations. ....and the new DVD is spectacular and great to see in widescreen. I just do not get the complaints others moan about on this site. MAME is a good comedy and a funny musical... and in the 70s there was many not as well accepted either: AT LONG LAST LOVE and THE LITTLE PRINCE are two others of the same time that are much maligned but turn out to be nowhere near as 'bad' as purists howl (who are not creative and do not make anything). Robert Preston and Lucy make a fine couple and Bea Arthur is absolutely hilarious. I would love to have seen Madeline Kahn in the Gooch part if my research is correct. The honeymoon sequence especially with the song "Loving You' is just perfect. I like Lucy's off singing and found her to be a good MAME. As with most of these beautifully made 60s and 70s films they often out-run their counterparts today and are genuine comedies and great musicals of the first order. I am championing films like MAME because they are well made and with good intentions. And MAME is really funny. Today's woeful comedies and crass CGI junk is actually boring. MAME and the films mentioned above are entertaining and professionally produced... and for fun. And at least you can remember them the next day. Just enjoy and be grateful they were made. I am.

Yes, Lucille was filmed in soft focus. No, Lucille did not play Mame exactly like Rosalind Russell. Yes, Warner Brothers was foolish in rejecting Angela Lansbury. But if you are willing to look past that, you will find a WONDERFUL motion picture.

Although Paul Zindel perhaps changed more than necessary in his script rewrite, this is still some GREAT material. And one could not have asked for better direction or supporting cast. Gene Saks did a wonderful job on all counts...the cinematography is marvellous (if you can find the wide-screen version) and the whole film is delightfully theatrical. The art direction is to die for; Ball's singing notwithstanding, the musical arrangement is superior to the Broadway recording (possibly excepting "It's Today" and the title number [although it's still very much enjoyable]); and Wayne Fitzgerald's title sequence is one of the best in film history. Although there are a few notes here and there that may make one wince, Ball's singing is really NOT THAT BAD.

Folks expecting a musical duplicate of AUNTIE MAME, however, are in for a surprise. Rosalind Russell's performance, which I love, was outrageously campy; Ball interprets Mame quite differently, and plays her much less flamboyantly. Her portrayal is not as inherently funny as Russell's, but Ball is still a grand actress, and she shows real human emotions very well in MAME. Did Angela Lansbury deserve the film role? Most definitely. Lansbury, of whom I am an enormous fan, devoted years of her life to perfecting the role on Broadway (and she DID perfect the role), and she was more than willing to do the film. It is indeed a tragedy that we have no film record of her performance, but that should not be a factor in judging the quality of this film. Ball was perhaps older than the role called for, but she was an able Mame. Everyone around her, especially the great Bea Arthur and the superb Jane Connell (undoubtedly one of the most underappreciated comic actresses alive), is brilliant.

What was Ball doing in this picture in the first place? Although she had wanted the part badly ever since AUNTIE MAME was released, it was NOT her financial backing that took this part away from Lansbury. Initially she avidly pursued the role (not even her confidante Desi Arnaz could talk her out of it), but after she broke her leg in 1973 she had a sort of reality check. Realising that she was not in any kind of shape for the part, she told the producers that she was backing out of the movie. Warner Brothers promptly flew a representative out to see her and insist on delaying production for her, saying that she was the only reason the picture was being made in the first place. Lucy was a somewhat insecure person, as well as a person always concerned about others' jobs; feeling that dropping out of the picture would leave everyone else working on it out of a job, she acquiesced. Even when the director begged for Angela Lansbury, Warner Brothers refused on the basis of "star power." It was balderdash, of course, but the business side of show business unfortunately is always in the way of the artistic side.

This is one of the great classics. The main character, Mame, is played by Lucille Ball, who is fabulous. Lucille plays this character to the "t". The comedy is great and the use of "fun" language keeps you laughing.

I usually don't care for musicals but "Mame" didn't make it painful to sit through. Most of the songs were humorous if you paid attention. All in all "Mame" was a great movie for a lazy afternoon. I highly recommend you give "Mame" a chance. You won't regret it.

Don't get me wrong, I love musicals, most of them I grew up on, and I always find myself singing a tune from one. However, Mame is a contender for the worst movie musical I've seen, and I have seen quite a lot of movie musicals, old and new, good and bad.

Are there any redeeming qualities? Yes there are actually. They are the songs and score, which are excellent- I was particularly taken with We Need a Little Christmas and If He Walked into my Life, and the support playing of Jane Conell, the dashing Robert Preston and especially Bea Arthur, for me the only members of the cast who try to breathe life into the film.

The main problem with Mame is the miscasting of Lucille Ball as Mame. She does try hard with the slapstick, but her singing was to be honest painful to the ears especially in It's Today and she was too old and too cold for the role. Madeline Kahn or Angela Lansbury would have been better in my personal opinion. Kirby Furlong doesn't work either, as others have said he turns Patrick into a wimp, while the film is really quite dated with some curiously garish close-ups. The film is also too long, and suffers further from a weak and predictable story, confused script, poor pacing, sluggish direction and very sketchy characterisation.

So overall, as a fan of musicals this was a complete disappointment. 2/10 for the music and some of the supporting cast. Bethany Cox

I love this movie from start to finish, always have. I think those who have heavily criticized this film are either anti Lucille Ball (oh my) or have first impressions of the Auntie Mame character by Rosalind Russell and Angela Lansbury. When I watch a movie, I want to be entertained. The first time I saw "Mame" back in the Seventies I just loved it. It's a great story, the songs are memorable, and Beatrice Arthur almost steals the show as Vera (she should have received an Oscar nomination as Best Supporting Actress). I am not looking for perfection as so many of the reviewers here seem to. Lucy does a fine job as far as I'm concerned. She has me totally enthralled for three hours and I am sure that's exactly what Miss Ball set out to do. Way to go, Lucy!

I admit that this is not one of the landmark filmed musicals of our time, but it's not, as Maltin says, a BOMB! Bea Arthur's performance alone (which is much better than the Vera Charles character in "Auntie Mame") is worth 3 stars. The remainder of the elements shouldn't drag this film down beyond 1.5 or 2 stars. And I hate to sound unintelligent, but I just don't see what everyone finds so bad and embarrassing about Lucille Ball's performance. I just watched "Auntie Mame" and didn't think Rosalind Russell was much if any more convincing. That's not a criticism of Russell. Just comparing the two performances, I don't see how Ball's performance is much worse. As far as style and visual appeal, the 1958 version is much better.. but this is not an unworthy or "embarrassing" remake at all!

"Mame" is a disgrace to many things--to Lucille Ball, to a story which has been told better many times over, and to the musical genre altogether. Ms. Ball does not understand her character at all and she seems to be heavily sedated. Bea Arthur is good, but it is not enough. The production is very shoddy and cheap looking, the songs are sub-par, and nearly every joke misfires. Also, Lucy couldn't dance well, so the music had to be slowed down to a funerial pace. Avoid at all costs, but DO see the delightful "Auntie Mame."

Nearly 40 years later, this musical looks better than ever.

First off, the music and lyrics of Jerry Herman make this one of the great Broadway musicals, which happens to be based on a great play. The 1950s play and film version starred Rosalind Russell in one of the great roles of her estimable career.

The 1960s Broadway musical was a smash hit for Angela Lansbury, but Lansbury wasn't a big enough name to star in a lavish film version of the musical. In 1974 there were probably a lot of "middle-aged" stars who could have put this over, but Mame was a role Lucille Ball chased for years.

At the end of her long film and TV career, MAME should have been her crowning achievement, but nothing could mask the fact that she couldn't really sing, although in the final version they were able to piece a vocal performance together, Ball doesn't do Herman's music justice.

That aside, the 63-year-old Ball looks great and easily carries the comedy of the role, and she's in nearly every scene. The sets and costumes are lush and loud, and Ball gets great support from Beatrice Arthur and Jane Connell (Vera and Gooch from the Broadway show) and Robert Preston as Beau.

The rest of the cast is serviceable if not memorable. Don Porter and Audrey Christie as the Upsons, Bruce Davison as the grown Patrick, John McGiver as Babcock, Doria Cook as Gloria, Joyce Van Patten as Sally Cato, Lucille Benson as Mother Burnside, and George Chiang as Ito.

Ball and Arthur won Golden Globe nominations. Te film earned no Oscar nominations. The film opened to big numbers but fell off after a few months. Usually considered a bomb, the film did not lose money.

This movie was so awful, so boring, so badly miscast -- it took a lot of work to make what should have been a sure thing into such a travesty. I love Lucille Ball, but she absolutely stunk in this movie. Too old, couldn't sing, sounded like a truck dumping gravel even when NOT singing -- and the biggest sin of all -- SHE WASN'T FUNNY. EVEN A LITTLE. The studio shot themselves in the foot with this one, and for ruining what should have been a fabulous screen version of a fabulous stage musical, some other body parts deserve to have been wounded as well -- or perhaps they were already lacking those parts. That might explain it. But for Lucy to think she was right for a part that required SINGING -- well, that's the saddest thing of all. It's a very good thing to know your limitations. Even a legend can't come out of a stinker like this and still smell like a rose.

Up until around 1970 Lucille Ball was one great comedienne. She was such a perfect clown I only wish more people could have seen her with Bob Hope in "The Facts of Life" because she could do dry deadpan, too. as well as slapstick.

Yep, Lucille Ball was wonderful . . . until "Mame."

Trying to see Lucille Ball in "Mame" is physically impossible because there is so much Vaseline and filters on the camera lenses that you'd need Windex to see her face in some scenes. So even if you see Lucille Ball in "Mame," you can't really see Lucille Ball in "Mame". Which is a blessing.

That's about the nicest thing I can say about "Mame," the movie of the Broadway musical of the movie version of the play (this could go on, but it started with a perfectly funny book called "Auntie Mame"). Giving this a bad rap is like beating a sponge. So it does not matter that the music is croaked rather than sung. Most of the songs weren't much, anyway. There isn't any difference in the first three. "It's Today," "Open a New Window," and "We Need a Little Christmas" are all the same song. (Celene Dion should do an album with them, they're so big and dull. ) The killer ballad "If He Walked Into My Life Today" needs a confident voice (Edyie Gorme won a Grammy for doing it in 1967) that poor Lucille Ball did not possess when she made this movie. (True, Elaine Stritch can't carry a tune in a bucket, either, but at least Stritch can put over a song.)

If you still feel your life is not going to be complete unless you see Lucy in "Mame," notice how there IS dancing in it, but whenever Lucy/Mame starts to do anything beyond a palsied shuffle the camera cuts away, then returns right when the number is over and the star poses with the dancers. Again, it's just as well. Jane Connell got to reprise the role of pathetic Agnes Gooch after Lucille Ball had Madeline Kahn fired to ensure no comic originality would upstage the star. Connell is a stage performer who, like Carol Channing and Ethyl Merman, can't scale down her performances for films, so she joins Lucille Ball in being embarrassing, though for different reasons.

The lavish gowns are by Theadora Van Runkle (Van Wrinkle?) and they provide the color missing in all but one of the cast.

Bea Arthur as the actress Vera Charles, Mame's best friend, ignores everyone and does her own fun thing. If only she was in more scenes. She's too old for her role, too, but at least she didn't maim it.

I thoroughly enjoyed 'Mame', though I admit to being a biased Lucille Ball fan.

Set during the late 1920's and early 1930's, an orphaned nine year old boy goes to live with his wealthy and highly eccentric socialite aunt (Lucille Ball), who delights in teaching him to live life to the fullest. A repertoire of spirited, memorable songs accompany a complex story chronicling the relationship between a boy and his aunt.

Unfortunately, the darker side of human nature dominated within the hostile critiques of 'Mame' at the time of it's release... offensive reviews which deeply hurt Lucille Ball personally. Indeed, 'Mame' was maimed by the critics in 1974.

Had 'Mame' been released in the 1940's, 50's or even the 1960's, (with Lucille Ball in the leading role), this delightful musical would have been a major success and Lucy would have won critical acclaim. Unfortunately, by the 1970's the golden era of the Hollywood movie musical was over (in my humble opinion, the film musical died not long after 'Thoroughly Modern Millie' in 1966 ... hopefully, ' Moulin Rouge' will bring it back, or at the very least restore it's dated image, fingers crossed!).

Techniques and tastes had changed by the time 'Mame' hit the screen. Audiences were no longer accustomed to leading characters bursting into song spontaneously, ('Cabaret' in 1972 being the only memorable success of this period, complete with it's own different musical style). Therefore, 'Mame' was doomed from the very beginning.

To make matters worse, Lucille Ball had been (and remains) solidly typecast as a comedienne [albeit a highly talented one], and would always encounter difficulty in winning over hostile critics who refused to positively endorse her as anything else. Yet Lucy could act, (as had been proven within her touching portrayal of a homeless woman in 'Stone Pillows'), and despite being judged from her somewhat deeper, slower vocal renditions within 'Mame', she **could** sing (her musical talent was showcased within 'Sorrowful Jones' in the 1940's). I personally believe she would have been awarded a 'lifetime achievement' academy award had she survived past 1989, (also, I believe she would have done justice to the portrayal of the older 'Rose' character in 'Titanic', but I digress)...

The sets and costumes are sumptuous. In fact, after viewing the film I decided to re-decorate my home in the art-deco style which was the height of fashion within the period in which 'Mame' was set.

I first viewed 'Mame' late at night, when I was half asleep, on the ABC (that is, the Australian Broadcasting Co-operation) about three years ago and mistook it for a much earlier production owing to the filming techniques. Of course, a much older Lucille Ball gave the age of the film away, but the filming technique gives this film an 'authentic' feel. Because Lucy happened to be in her 60's at the time of production (somewhat older than Angela Lansbury, who starred in the Broadway stage production and, to her credit, would have also made a *great* Mame), the 'soft' lens was used in some of her close-up shots to make her appear younger. While criticised from time to time, I found the lighting and image texture to closely imitate similar techniques commonplace within the 1920's and 1930's. The film comes across 'authentic', complimenting the art-deco sets and flamboyant costumes.

In short, I **love** this film. Don't let the critics rain on Mame's parade. Even the stuffiest cynics *must* concede that the film has it's moments...

The 'moon lady' sequence had me in stitches, (as Lucy ascended upon a stage before a theatre-going audience clumsily perched on a cardboard crescent moon). And who can forget Mame's demands for "straight scotch" when shocked by her nephew's [proposed] in-laws and her revolting, belching Southern 'mother-in-law'!? Bea Authur (a one-time 'golden girl'), also steals a number of scenes before the memorable finale.

A must see... indeed, let Lucy's Mame "coax those blues right out of your heart"

This is a terrible movie, and I'm not even sure why it's so terrible. It's ugly, for one, with that trendy 1970s visual style that maybe seemed like a good idea at the time but which now enables one to instantly recognize a film from that time period as being a 70s product. The film retains the story and songs that made the stage version of the musical such a hit, but the songs sound lifeless on screen. But mostly, the movie sucks because of the wan performance of Lucille Ball, who you'd think would be able to make something of this larger-than-life character if anyone could. She sleepwalks through the movie like a terrified actress choking on her opening night, and the film sinks with her. Even Bea Arthur, who I bet was hilarious in the best friend role onstage, can't breathe any life into this stinker.

Avoid at all costs.

Grade: D

It has been a puzzlement to me ever since seeing Mame in it's premiere run way back in 1974, that so many people have so many different views of this movie. It is either absolutely loved or positively hated by the people who see it. I believe Lucille Ball is, and always will be Mame. She plays the character exactly the way she should be played, hard, tender, funny, bitchy, loving, sophisticated and free-spirited.

This film has a bright cheery look and feel with big splashy production numbers which lovingly look back at the grand old Hollywood Musicals of the past. The production values are stunning, with beautiful sets and costumes that are truer to the period than the ones in Auntie Mame. The supporting cast is great, with Bea Arthur as Vera Charles and Jane Connell as Gooch. And concerning the complaints about the filming of Lucy through gauze, just go back to the MGM Musicals of the 40's and 50's and you'll see almost every major female star, young and old, filmed through heavy gauze.

I've come to the conclusion that this movie has been labeled a bomb for so long that some people already have their minds made up not to like it before the opening credits have ended. And the ones who see it for the first time without any idea of it's troubled history, end up loving it!

However, her voice had faded! Never a great singer but comedy she was tops. She bankrolled the entire movie and well it wasn't Auntie Mame but a good effort.

I love Lucy, but this movie is so wretchedly bad that I was squirming in embarrassment for all concerned within the first ten minutes . . . and it just got worse from there. Lucille Ball's "singing" is downright painful and the attempts to make her appear more youthful through the use of soft focus had me reaching for my reading glasses. It's bombs like this that give bombs a bad name.