Yes, Giorgio

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.

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.

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.

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.