KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

TxMike I was 14 when this movie came out. I never saw it back then but thanks to the marvels of modern TV I was able to catch it on the "Movies!" channel. Watching it is fun to see how much movie-making has changed over my lifetime. Even though most of the characters are Parisian French they speak in American English. Filmmakers just wouldn't do that today.Frank Sinatra, about 44, was in the featured role as Durnais. But my favorite is Shirley MacLaine, about 25, as Simone Pistache. She was the owner and operator of the Parisian nightspot where lady dancers did the illegal, they raised their skirts while dancing to reveal the petticoats underneath. So much of the story is local puritans trying to prosecute and close down the nightspot, while François was trying to romance Simone.One of my long time favorites, dancer Juliet Prowse, has a role as Claudine, and of course she is the featured dancer in production numbers. But MacLaine also shows us that she can dance also, because that is how she got started in show business.All meaningless fluff but good entertainment. It was good to also see great French actors, Maurice Chevalier and Louis Jourdan.

Steven Torrey The performers do not sing Cole Porter the way the best of singers can sing Cole Porter. Doris Day in "Lullaby of Broadway" sings "Just one of those things" wearing a tuxedo in a way that outshines Maurice Chevalier. Bob Hope singing "You do something to me" excels in a way that Louis Jordan cannot. Frank Sinatra and Shirley McClain singing "Let's do it" ends up as tepid as it gets as compared to almost anyone else's rendition. That these are all masters of the singer's craft makes for an astounding realization--the knack for singing a Cole Porter song is not for everyone or for every vehicle. One wonders how other singers handle interpretation of these songs in the same play. The movie was disappointing because the performances were disappointing.

MartinHafer Reading through the reviews for "Can-Can" is a strange experience as they are all over the place. Some loved it and give it glowing reviews and just as many hated it. It's a bit unusual to see such divergent reviews and my assessment of the film is somewhere in the middle--it's not a good nor a bad film--just a second-rate musical that isn't bad as a time-passer.When the film begins, most viewers will probably be surprised to see Shirley MacLaine and Frank Sinatra in the leads. This is because the film is set in Paris and they are about as French as gefilte fish! This inappropriate casting is made more obvious since Louis Jourdan and Maurice Chevalier are 3rd and 4th billed! So, automatically, the film loses a point for such poor casting. It's a shame, but Hollywood SHOULD have been more focused on appropriate casting than on getting big-name stars--problems that did NOT plague a much better musical from the same period, "Gigi" (which starred Jourdan and Chevalier among others).MacLaine plays Simone--a woman who runs a night club in Montmartre (a district in Paris known for its adult entertainment). Her place has gotten in trouble for having Can-Can dancers*--and police have vowed to arrest her if they put on that wicked dance again. Well, eventually this does occur, although the charges are soon dropped by the prosecutor, Philipe (Jourdan). Why? Because Philipe has fallen in love with her and wants to marry her. This is a VERY weak aspect of the film, as the upper-class Philipe doesn't even know this lady--so why would he be willing to destroy his career for a dance hall girl?! Eventually, Simone agrees to marry Philipe. However, Philipe's friend (Chevalier) and Simone's ex-lover, François (Sinatra) don't want the marriage to occur and so they conspire to break up the couple. They invite the cream of society to an engagement party, get Simone drunk and get her to entertain her guests. Well, although Philipe STILL inexplicably wants to marry her, Simone is determined to end this relationship.As for François, his character is...well...annoying. He wants Simone but is very honest in his wicked intentions. He has no desire to marry her but wants her, so he breaks up her marriage. This is pretty sleazy and the song he sings about this is pretty nasty as well. So, because of this, the film's ending REALLY made no sense at all...none.In addition to a confusing and occasionally unbelievable plot, the film features a very mixed bag of music. Some is great--such as "It's All Right With Me" and "You Do Something to Me". However, much of the rest of the music is sub-par--particularly the lyrics. It's like they got Cole Porter's second-best not his best for this movie.As for the dancing, this was VERY odd. Despite the title of the film, there is almost no Can-Can dancing in the film. However, and this just shows you how out of touch Hollywood could be, there is LOTS of modern dance--the sort of stuff you'd NEVER see in 1898. In particular, the violent dance number involving the knife is pure Hollywood and has no place in the film, though there are several other numbers that just don't belong in the movie.Overall, the film is a seriously mixed bag. The plot isn't terrible but it often makes little sense, the songs range from awful to terrific and the dance numbers often aren't appropriate to the film. I think it's a tepid little film that SHOULD have been much better.*According to IMDb trivia, the reason the Can-Can was so scandalous was because the dancing girls did NOT wear underwear. Although Wikipedia can occasionally be unreliable, it insists that this is an urban legend and the dancers certainly DID wear underwear.

drednm Interminable film version of the hit Broadway musical, Can-Can is as flat as the fake champagne they drink in scene after scene. Even the several Cole Porter standards come off as boring, slow dirges.Frank Sinatra walks thru his part of the playboy lawyer who at one points opines "Ring a Ding Ding," in 1896 Paris yet. Shirley MacLaine is shrill and gives a lousy performance. Louis Jourdan (a dead fish as usual) and smug Maurice Chevalier sing a dreadful song, "Your Business is Your Business" TWICE. Juliet Prowse is a so-so dancer and lousy actress.So the question is WHY was this a hit on Broadway? The set designs here are terrible and defeat the good costumes. The direction is bad because this should NOT have been allowed to go on for 131 minutes.Even the big production number with MacLaine as Eve and Prowse as the serpent is okay at best. MacLaine's outfit was shocking in 1960 but not now. Endless scenes of talking in offices, court rooms, etc. TALK TALK TALK and no humor or wit---just TALK.And this is the musical that made Gwen Verdon a star? This ranks as one of the WORST film musicals I've ever seen.