Yes, Giorgio

Hi, Everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Willett

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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