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.

Judging from what was said about 'Yes Giorgio' at the time of its release, this reviewer was expecting utter rubbish and a film bad enough to be among the worst films ever made.

Finally watching it, as a singer myself, a life-long opera enthusiast and as someone who likes Luciano Pavarotti very much, 'Yes Giorgio' is not a great film, or even a good one. However, to me it was not that bad. Taken for what it is, which is essentially a vehicle for Pavarotti, it's okay, with some huge flaws but also enough charms to make it worth a one-time-only watch.

Starting with the positives, 'Yes Giorgio' is beautifully shot and contains some positively gorgeous scenery, particularly towards the end. The music, which contains operatic favourites "Nessun Dorma" (Puccini's 'Turandot'), "Una Furtiva Lagrima" (Donizetti's 'L'Elsir D'Amore'), "Cielo e Mar" (Ponchielli's 'La Gioconda') and "La Donna e Mobile" (Verdi's 'Rigoletto') and popular classical songs "Ave Maria" (the Schubert version) and "O Sole Mio", is enough to transcend even non-opera fans to heaven, while the charming music score and the justly Oscar-nominated "If We Were in Love" complement beautifully.

Pavarotti as ever sounds absolutely glorious throughout the whole duration of 'Yes Giorgio'. All the operatic arias (especially "Nessun Dorma" and "La Donna e Mobile", "Una Furtiva Lagrima" is also quite heartfelt) suit him perfectly as do "Ave Maria" and "O Sole Mio", his endearing personality too shines. Eddie Albert gives his usual solid performance, he's understated but looks as if he's having fun too. Although Pavarotti is the thing that people will remember, Albert gives the best overall performance in the film.

Unfortunately, although Pavarotti sounds glorious and there is no doubting that he has a personality that radiates, his acting (which admittedly, with some exceptions, never was a strength of his) looks awkward and the amount of preparation and polish that went into the singing doesn't translate in the line delivery. He surprisingly (although he was not the best of actors, he always did have a charming rapport with his leading ladies) shares very little chemistry with the female lead Kathryn Harrold, or at least not a very natural or obviously amorous one. The romance is not very well written, being contrived and cloying, and Harrold's unbearably obnoxious performance is an even larger part of the problem, her character being written and performed in a way that makes one wonder what did Pavarotti's character see in her.

The script has some sweet and amusing moments, but too many forced and nauseatingly sugary ones as well. The romantic dialogue was particularly squirm-inducing, so much so it beggars belief how it was approved beyond first draft. With the story, the predictability- with a very old-fashioned premise that worked just fine before with the right execution but not so much now- isn't the issue, but the erratic pacing and thin structure were issues and even worse was that it felt more an excuse to string along arias and classical favourites to show off Pavarotti's voice and talents. Sure the Mario Lanza films can be seen as guilty of this too, but the acting was more consistent in those films with better leading ladies and while the stories were among the weaker assets of most they were handled with more charm and emotion and easier to relate to, never did they feel exploitative in the way 'Yes Giorgio' sometimes did. With the acting, the only really consistently good performance came from Albert, the rest of the supporting roles are underwritten and the rest of the performers can't do anything with the material.

Overall, okay for what it is and not as bad as its reputation but at the same time not particularly great or good. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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.