GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

DKosty123 After watching this one, the main reasons to watch this are the musical moments. Those moments are topped by -Lena Horne is great doing 2 numbers.Judy Garland with and without Mickey Rooney is great in 2 numbers.Perry Como is excellent too, though today's generation is wondering who Perry is pretty much?As far as the story, yes it is creative fiction making Mickey Rooney act depressed when the real reason for being depressed is that the real person he is based on is gay, but that fact can not be revealed in 1948. Actually Rooney is the only person in the cast to get an acting role pretty much. Everyone else is kind of just there.The party reveals this as you see a bunch of people hanging out until 4AM and then going home. They appear to be a bunch of aimless vagabonds who are just at the big party to be seen.This is a great power cast, and Norman Taurog is a solid director who did some interesting work with a lot of films. Here though, it is a sequence to sequence driven film with music carrying the day and night.This film proves entertainment can be produced with just music but a classic film needs a better script. Since Gay is taboo in 1948, that could not happen. Maybe in a guts check move, a major studio could try to do the true story in one of these from back then? No, I do not think a studio will try to do that unless they can find a way to make money. In today's films, making money is the story.This big budget MGM film is all about making money by using a super star cast and great music to celebrate peace, but does not have the freedom to tell the true tale.

tavm After first watching this 20 years ago, I saw this again on DVD twice-once as it was and then again with commentary by John Barrios. He points out many of the inaccuracies depicted in the life of Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart, particularly the latter, on film. But as long as the musical performances permeate during most of it, I don't think that should be too distracting while watching it. And what great performances they are-June Allyson doing "Thou Swell", Lena Horne singing "Where or When" and "The Lady is a Tramp", Judy Garland reuniting with Mickey Rooney with "I Wish I Were in Love Again" before soloing on "Johnny One-Note", and the sensually beautiful dance number "Slaughter on 10th Avenue" with Gene Kelly and Vera-Ellen. That last number got me welling up in tears both times I just watched it! After that sequence, however, it gets a bit ridiculous as Rooney, playing Hart, suddenly collapses on the floor before being taken to a hospital and then doing it again, for good, in a later rainy scene-no matter how true to life that last one was. I also thought it was a bit silly for Perry Como to be playing someone fictional and then being introed as himself at the very end! Still, because of all those musical numbers of which Cyd Charisse also did some good turns, Words and Music was pretty entertaining most of the time.

Forn55 Oh, dear, dear, dear. What can one say about "Words and Music?" That it contains some boffo musical numbers? Sure. That it has cameo appearances by a whole galaxy of Hollywood musical stars? Check. That it keeps on going with a "and then this and this and this happened" rhythm that would make even the shaggiest of shaggy dog storytellers blush? Yup. Alas. This big, white-washed, no-expenses-spared movie musical has about as much to do with lyricist Hart's real life story as "Night and Day" had to do with that of Cole Porter. Rooney was (presumably) cast by the studio since he could sing and was a big box-office draw, but here he seems to be channelling the spirit of a chipmunk with Broadway aspirations; anyone seeing this movie would come away with the impression that Hart's fundamental problem was that he was short. Hart's alcoholism is (tastefully) glossed over; his homosexuality is never even mentioned.However... every time the viewer is fed up with the bland dialogue, or the inability of the studio to decide just what era to set the film in, along comes one of those boffo musical numbers to lull (or club) you into dewy-eyed attentiveness. My advice is to rent this movie and fast-forward through all the "drama", pausing only to enjoy the musical numbers. You'll have a good time and it'll cut the film's running time down to a sparkling hour plus change

caa821 This is a very typical musical biopic of its period. One can readily see why Richard Rodgers liked nothing about it (except casting of Janet Leigh), as indicated in note on this site.Lorenz Hart was far from the type of individual portrayed by Mickey Rooney. The scene with him at home with his mother and Rodgers, picking scraps of lyric notes from every pocket, is not only unrealistic and "over-the-top," but decidedly silly and unfunny.His collapse in the rain outside the theater towards the end, having come from hospital bed in only pajamas and raincoat, is positively ludicrous. Why do motion picture characters - both male and female, sick or well - ALWAYS, if in pajamas or nightgown, insist on going out with nothing but a raincoat or topcoat added? Ever seen this in "real life?"This flick rates a 2* mark for story, but easily 7* additional for the musical numbers and guest star roster. Might have been better simply as a documentary dedicated to the composers.