SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

kairos00 I have this version of the DVD, and in spite of the warnings of the'technology of the day', if enough finances and talent were thrown at restoration, it would make a fantastic experience. Others have stated the short comings. I am distracted by the poor video and audio quality.I have just finished watching the movie version, with Angela Lansbury. Again, others have noted the short comings of the movie VS the Central Park production. I must say, though that Ms. Lansbury did a very decent job.So, which one is better, in MHO? This version, by far. For one thing, which has not been mentioned, in the movie version many songs were shortened or eliminated all together. This stage version is COMPLETE! You get all the wonderful words and music created by G & S. The movie also seems a little 'over the top'. Now I realize that this play is meant to be hammed up, but the actors mugged it up a lot more, and there were disturbing sound effects inserted when all you really needed was the actor's expressions. So, bottom line, in spite of the poor production, i'll keep my Central Park production, and forget the movie version.

Chris Williams (chrisw-3) This is a very bad recording of a very good performance.The show was obviously professionally shot, and the credits list a multi-channel sound recording crew. But the sound on this is in mono and has very audible "time code" noise, a high-pitched audio signal that was used to link the videotape to a simultaneously recorded audiotape. Given the vintage of the shoot, it was probably shot on 1" videotape and 2", 24-track audiotape. As few video productions facilities still have 1" playback equipment, and judging by the video quality, this was made from a 3/4" "safety" copy.Why? The suppliers cheaped out. They didn't spend the time or energy to find the original tapes, or if they had them, to transfer them, or to do a mix-down of the 24-track master audio.It is possible to make an excellent DVD from this material. The DVD currently available is not it.

Blueghost I saw this production of "The Pirates of Penzance" in and around 1982 in San Francisco. The only member of the cast not accounted for was Kevin Kline, who I believe was off filming "Sofie's Choice" at the time. His role was assumed by James Belushi during Kline's absence, who did a superb job of portraying the Pirate King that year. I had a great time seeing this production, and seeing this preserved performance brings back warm and welcomed memories.This version of Pirates is exceptionally well acted, but, as the foreword on the DVD states, the print is limited by the technology at the time. I've seen the DVD on both high-res (definition) and on regular NTSC monitors, and, believe it or not, it actually looks better on older TV's (for which the technology of the recording was made). The result being that on a high definition TV set the hot-spots and washed out colors look even more distorted than they actually are on the master. Even so, on a regular television the image quality bounces from good to not-so-good, depending on the camera being used. The center camera (number 2 camera?) wasn't properly white balanced, and the washed out brights show, giving a real unprofessional look to the TV production. In fact, during the performance, the operator tries to stop down the camera, but the only result is sloppy camera work, forever preserved on DVD. Whoever coordinated this thing clearly didn't do their homework.The same goes for the audio. For some reason the high fidelity of today's top of the line audio systems, for all their bells and whistles to enhance music and general audio, just don't deliver a clear sound of the performance. For some strange reason (probably because contemporary audio components try to "create fidelity" in source material where there is none) the regular old TV speaker delivers a clearer sound. Note; it's not a higher quality sound, but sound where both lyrics and dialogue are easily understood. On a digital stereo or home theatre the cast sounds very muffled by all the tonal enhancements, making the songs sound unintelligible. If you must view it on your home theatre system, then do yourself a favor and grab a book of lyrics. Otherwise you'll be left high and dry when the songs roll around.But, if you can get by all the video and audio shortcomings (a lot to ask for) you should have a good time watching one the most memorable productions of Gillbert and Sullivan's Light Opera (or operetta, whichever term you prefer). Linda Ronstadt as Mabel plays the innocent young waif, who falls for the young dashing Frederick, played by Rex Smith. The performances are perfectly melodramatic, with a couple of contemporary nuances to make them really stand out for modern audiences. Each set of characters delivers an excellent performance; the daughters, the police troop/pirate-band, and of course the leads.There're two mis cued gags, but the fact that they weren't laughed at is more the fault of the audience than the actors: Ronstadt's vocal competition with the local birds, portrayed by a flautist, seemed to fly over the head of the audience. And Tony Azito (the Police Sargeant) failed to get a laugh on his "...most perplexing" line, again probably because the audience's mind was on something else, or they didn't understand the context of the reference.As you may know this particular production was so popular that a film was made, using most of the original cast. That is save for Patricia Rutledge of "Keeping up Appearances" and "Hetty Wainthropp Investigates" fame, who was replaced by Angela Lansbury (God knows why... most likely because Lansbury was probably a name the American public could identify with, and hence haul in more movie goers for more box office dollars). The film, from what little I saw of it, did little to enhance or give credit to the stage performance. The stage production was popular for a reason. The film bombed for similar reasons.Part of the reason for that is because plays, particularly ones like "The Pirates of Penzance," really need an audience that can appreciate good theatre. That, and the era of the musical was dead back in the 70's and 80's (one or two exceptions). "The Pirates of Penzance," and specifically this production, was a smash hit on the theatre circuit. It was a thing that really couldn't be reproduced in a cinematic venue.Fortunately the good folks at Kutlur Video have put together what is probably the only surviving TV broadcast version of this light opera, onto VHS and DVD. If light opera isn't your thing, then you may want to scope out the "teen-sexploitation" comedy version, starring Kristy McNichol, entitled "The Pirate Movie." That version lacks both music and charm of, what was then, THE NUMBER ONE stage production to see. "The Pirate Movie" is okay, but is more or less an attempt to cash in on teenage dollars (and cheaply, I might add).Unfortunately the DVD of this legendary production of "The Pirates of Pezance" is priced around thirty smackers. A bit pricey for a reprint of a twenty-year-old 3/4" broadcast master, but, if you're like me and saw the original 1980's production, the performances more than worth the money.

terrydo I have just watched this film for about the 20th time ,and I can assure you Ruth was played by Angela Lonsbury not Patricia Routlidge The one I watched I taped off the tv , all the other cast were the same. is this another version ?many thanks T J Careless