Uma Voz para Milhões

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.

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

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. :)

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.

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.