Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

l_rawjalaurence As several reviewers have remarked, the chief attraction of Sidney Lumet's film lies in its evocation of New York in the mid-Fifties. From its opening tracking shots of Broadway, showing the popular shows of the time (including SEPARATE TABLES), to the regular establishing shots of the cars and taxicabs moving endlessly up and down, the film makes us aware of the fact that the action will take place in a confined location, wherein everyone knows everyone else.In this kind of environment, egos are both fragile yet inflated. Joan Greenwood's Rita Vernon offers a prime example - someone who believes in her abilities as an "ACTOR," yet perpetually haunted by the belief that she could somehow lose her stardom. Hence her relentless pursuit of producer Lewis Easton (Henry Fonda). The sequence where they negotiate her future contract, while locked in a passionate embrace, is masterly, revealing how personal and professional issues are inseparable.As the would-be star "Eva Lovelace" (the falseness of the name reveals how artificial Broadway life actually is), Susan Strasberg represents a breath of fresh air. While certainly not possessed of the acting- skills of her illustrious costars, she possesses a sincerity of purpose that proves extremely attractive. Her rendition of the balcony-scene from ROMEO AND JULIET at Easton's first night party is strangely haunting. Director Sidney Lumet understands this, which helps to explain why he shoots the sequence in a series of close-ups, focusing our attention on Strasberg's open countenance as she looks straight into Easton's face.The story is a familiar one, as Lovelace takes over from Vernon in the lead role of a new play written by Joe Sheridan (Christopher Plummer) and shoots to stardom after the first night. Lumet wisely chooses not to focus on the performance itself, but rather on the backstage reactions: Strasberg's wide-eyed expression of disbelief at her achievement is contrasted with the superficial reactions of miscellaneous theatrical hangers-on, who come to congratulate her with the usual platitudes ("Dahling, you were marvelous, always though you'd make it"). The film's ending is perhaps too drawn-out, consisting of an extended dialog between Lovelace and Easton, but what emerges most tangibly is the fact that Lovelace has no real need to go and celebrate at Sardi's (as directed by theatrical custom). She is happy just to stand on the stage, looking out at the auditorium and reflect on what happened during the last two hours or so. Although very much implicated in the world of Broadway falseness, Easton comes to understand her state of mind and blows her a kiss ("just from me"). Sometimes sincerity can triumph over artifice.STAGE STRUCK is full of intertexts: Eva's name is a direct sonic reference to Joseph L. Mankiewicz's ALL ABOUT EVE (1950), another classic exposé of Broadway hypocrisies. At one point elderly actor Robert Hedges (Herbert Marshall) advises Lovelace to complete her education at the Actors' Studio, which just happened to be run by Strasberg's real-life father Lee Strasberg. The basic plot of STAGE STRUCK might be familiar - as other reviewers have remarked, it is a remake of MORNING GLORY (1933) - but there are plenty of ingredients within the ninety-minute running-time to interest all types of viewer.

80334080 I was lucky enough to find this movie on TCM. There isn't any other way to see it since there are no DVD or VHS copies made as far as I can find. I found it amazing. Kaherine Hepburn has pretty much owned this story with her 1933 Acadamy Award winning performance of "Morning Glory" but I have to say (and I yield to no one in my admiration for the late Ms Hepburn) Susan Strasberg's performance was better. First allowance has to be made for changes in acting styles between 1933 and 1958 but looking at both versions now Katherine was good but Susan's performance was better and more compelling. As a matter of casting, Katherine isn't as good at portraying the vulnerable ingenue perhaps because her personality was so sharp even in her 20's. Anyway, keep an open mind, see both versions and decide for yourself ! You will enjoy them.

dannywolo I happened upon this movie and found it so moving. Mostly it was the performances but a large part of the reason I loved it was the pictures obvious love for the Theatre. A love I share. In the film, Fonda is amazing. Complicated and 3D, subtle and larger than life. Ms Strassberg, though vocally somewhat stiff and mannered is so alive and vibrant, young and beautiful. I thought her Juliet speech was again vocally stiff, but inside of that was an amazing, young, excited, perfect Juliet. Every word was felt and communicated in an immediate sincere way that is hardly ever achieved in the role. The detail of THEATRE in NEW YORK in the 50's is wonderful. The Stageheands reading the paper as they flip switches, the STAGE DOOR, curtain calls, the adrenaline of opening night. I could go on and on, but as one who loves backstage type melodrama this one is a feast.

Rod Evan Along with "All About Eve" this is one of the finest films dealing with the American theatre. I don't understand why it is a lost film and would urge anybody who enjoys great acting to hunt this film down any way they can. It is also about time it was released on video. Susan Strasberg was clearly one of Hollywood's casualties and it's tragic that the films she made after this were perhaps determined by the mediocre reaction at the time to this film.