Le chanteur de jazz

Yeah, Neil Diamond wasn't really much of an actor here, but Lucie Arnaz was great. Not only fun and charming, but she really showed she could act. Great screen presence-- you just wanted to hang out with her!

I wish more people had seen her in this.

Between his duties and responsibilities, and his dreams and love. For those who want to pick the movie apart, without looking inside the story it tells, skip this comment.

Given the choice between one's responsibility to family, parents, religion, tradition, and duty, or choosing love, dreams, goals, and the pursuit of happiness through following our heart, which choice would we make?

The movie tells a story of strength through failure, of living versus wasting away in a life spent pleasing others, and of giving our heart and our dreams sway over the path we take in life.

It's taken me 41 years to watch this. It's nothing amazing, but it's a nice story with decent music. It entertains, and that's what movies are for, no?

If you've never seen it then give it a go.

I agree with one other comment I saw here, Lucie Arnaz, I'm surprised she didn't become a bigger star!

I like to see remakes, because in many cases you experience two films at once: the film you are watching of course, and the one you recall. Usually that prior one is pretty good. In this case, it IS pretty good, and historically important too.

It was the first popular talkie, and not all talkie either. It was pretty amazing in depicting New York Jewry in a way gathered from the reality of the era, and on that score alone is fascinating. It was perhaps overly melodramatic, but suitably severe. And its "message" though simple wasn't quite dumb: that "jazz" music can be sacred work if delivered so. Along the way, we got (still!) entertaining songs.

Now this. I do not know what prompted the remake. It seems that they simply had Neil Diamond and saw a fit. He is Jewish. He has a fantastic portfolio of songs, some of which seem written for the project, and he is at least a credible actor. So they tromped through the old script, modernizing as they went. They shifted the focus to the music and the self- discovery of the musician. The rift with the father is recast as upset over sex rather than jazz, something I think is a big mistake.

And the script and production values (other than the songs) is horrible, Laurence Olivier embarrasses himself and us all every thing he speaks with some sort of faux stage accent. he is truly dreadful. Everyone is, save one, but he is the worst. The only good actor is on screen only a few times: he is the booker, played by Sully Boyar, and every time he shows up to speak, the sun shines. Doesn't kill the mold though.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Okay... all these submissions below? Ignore them. Here's the real scoop.

The biggest problem most folks have with this film is that they're comparing the two male leads' acting ability. BIG MISTAKE.

One is Neil Diamond-- one of the greatest singers of all time. The other is Sir Laurence Olivier-- one of the greatest ACTORS of all time. Think of it this way: if Sir Larry accompanied Neil in a recording of "Cherry, Cherry"-- people would rave about Neil's performance, but then spend an hour going on about how much Olivier sucks.

The fact is this: neither of them suck. Everything is great! Neil Diamond is a fine actor. (Not an AMAZING actor, mind you... but a fine actor.) He'd even beaten out Dustin Hoffman for the role of Lenny Bruce in "Lenny", but turned it down... leaving the door open for Hoffman.

I made the mistake of reading all of the below jeers and whines about Neil Diamond's "terrible acting performance" in this movie. I then watched it over at my girlfriend's house with very low expectations. But I was very impressed, and greatly enjoyed the film. Granted, there are some times when Neil's performance isn't exactly as dramatic as it should be... (i.e., when his father shrieks "I HAVE NO SON!!", Neil doesn't exactly seem to be heartbroken.) But then, there are times when he manifests a great deal of emotional power... especially in the scenes where he gets angry.

Okay, so I'm a huge Neil Diamond fan, yes. I love his music, and I think it's cool that he's had a lead in a major motion picture. BUT-- from an acting perspective, he has my respect. From one actor to another. (YES, I consider him an "actor" too... and so does the IMDb.)

I only have two complaints: one is that this is the only movie he's been in until Saving Silverman-- where he had just a cameo. That sucks. I want to see Neil in more movies.

The other complaint is what everyone else doesn't like: "The Jazz Singer". AL JOLSON sung Jazz. NEIL DIAMOND sings Pop. Soooooo... couldn't it have been called "The Pop Singer", and had an addition in the credits that read, "Based on 'The Jazz Singer' by Al Jolson" or something?

Anyway... the music is great, (even "Love on the Rocks"-- and I'm not a big ballad fan... as they depress me. But I can't dislike a Neil song.) the movie is a great story, and the acting is FINE. Watch it. If you're a fan of Neil's, or even just a fan of 20+ year old movies that have good stories.... check out "The Jazz Singer".



--and by the way.... neil diamond rules. thank you.