awj11

Although an interesting interpretation, the Stratford production of "Pirates of Penzance" failed to do the original material justice. Like most post-Papp productions, this one attempted to turn the operetta into a more traditional musical. What this amounted to was ultimately extended dancing and almost every number ending in a tableau. Much of the dialog was extended but added little. The dancing was decent, but few of the actors' voices were really exquisite.

Norman Campbell seems to be the major problem of the production. The actors look as though they'd been directed to milk their parts for laughs, and some of the genuinely funny parts of the libretto seemed considerably less humorous after the many other effective, but cheap laughs. Campbell also falls into the category of directors who don't believe an audience can sit through an overture and feels the need to place dancers on stage throughout the overture, sometimes even talking over the orchestra.

Of note, however, was Pat Galloway as Ruth, whose sometimes rough voice suited the character fabulously.

The quality of this specific taping was pretty dismal. Although the production was partly to blame, the camera operators didn't quite seem sure of what they were doing.

In conclusion, it's a mediocre production, but worth a look if you're interested in other version of the operetta.

Within the first ten minutes of this movie I was bored, insulted, and disgusted by the crude (even for a made-for-t.v. picture) cinematography, over-used stereotypes, and inconsistent characters. Then something incredible happened...the movie stayed the same through all the stupid jokes, bad puns, predictable plot-twists, and cheesy ending. The use of George Orwell's "Animal Farm" was obvious, and about as subtle as...I can't think of anything as obvious as this. The few good jokes in the movie only alienated the audience further, and the only remotely good thing about this picture was (some of) the acting...not of course, good enough to save it from a 1/10 rating. If the movie is ever played again on television, read a book. Might I suggest "Animal Farm?"

I've seen this movie several times (mostly because it's often on cable...) and, well, I've seen better. Much better. For a movie so dependent on special effects, there seemed to be absolutely no attempt to merge the actual footage with the special effects, seamlessly. I was so unable to suspend my disbelief for this film, that I spent the entire movie waiting for it to end. I'll admit, I liked the mermaids (although I was very annoyed by the very red hair. I understand that it's fantasy, but there is absolutely no excuse for that hair!), and Jason Isaacs played both of his parts well (although, in most productions I've seen where Mr. Darling and Hook are played by the same actor, the director has enough sense to capitalize on this. Here, it just seems like a money-saver), as well as most of the adult actors. The children in the film were totally miscast, in my opinion. I felt that none of the actors were cut out for their roles, and, cute as he may be, Jeremy Sumpter just didn't pass as Peter Pan. While I can understand those who don't agree with me, anybody who expects a film to include good direction, acting, and editing will be disappointed (I would suggest the silent movie version, which I think was far superior to this one). But if you don't care, help yourself to this film.