Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

OllieSuave-007 This is MGM's film version of composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's famous ballet, The Nutcracker, filmed at Burbank Studios in California.I would watch this movie when it is aired on TV during Christmas time for several years in a role. It tells the story of Clara dreaming about her Nutcracker Prince while The Pasha tries to win her heart and delight her with musical dance sequences - Spanish Dance, Arab Dance, Chinese Dance, Russian Dance, Dance of the Clowns and Waltz of the Flowers. These sequences are probably the highlight of the entire Nutcracker Ballet.Except for the narrator, there is no spoken dialog in the movie. It is just the cast of characters dancing around the huge stage through Tchaikovsky's rich music, performed by the London Symphony Orchestra. Maurice Sendak did a terrific job on the art and costume design - vibrant and brilliant and not too flashy. The story is told through the unspoken actions of the cast, which I thought were brilliantly done. While no dialog, it is still pretty simple to follow the story, even if you are not familiar with the original concept of the Nutcracker Ballet.Though a majority of the movie is shown on a typical theater stage, the special and visual effects made the setting much larger than it really is and it gives you the impression you are right on stage with them. The water scene with the "floating ship" is my favorite effect. I also like how the entire movie is told from the perspective of the toymaker; the plot of the movie begins after he falls asleep on his desk and the figurines begin to dance in a large music box he just designed, which then leads to the main story. The only problem I have with the movie is that some of the dancers were not in sync with the music, especially during the "Waltz of the Flowers" sequence. Other that that, this is an overall terrific film that brings back the nostalgia and spirit of past Christmases and today.Grade A

GreenSparrow8 Very disappointing that for a great deal of the film you cannot see the dancer's legs or feet. Whoever did the photography, camera work, editing or all of the above, had absolutely no idea on how to film a ballet. You don't sacrifice the feet, legs or body when filming a dance/ballet. What a waste of film.This would have received a higher score otherwise. Incredible that whoever put this film together had no idea of what they were doing and did a great disservice to the dancers.You just don't do that to a ballet! I hope they feel very embarrassed and they either have educated themselves on filming ballet or that they never attempt it again.

TheLittleSongbird Thinking of all the great productions of The Nutcracker I've seen, I thought back to see if there was one I'd forgotten from childhood. I realised I had, this film version by Carroll Ballard, responsible for directing the brilliant Black Stallion. I knew I wanted to see it again, as I love the ballet so much- the story and ballet are among my all-time favourites in regard to anything- and would watch any production or film version. I was intrepid though as well, as I remembered that it was quite dark, darker than the usual production of The Nutcracker. And unfortunately not all the productions that take a darker edge have been particularly good, Maurice Bejart's production was a self-indulgent mess and the 2008 Mariinsky one was incoherent and ugly managing to waste the talented performers. But I watched Ballard's film version anyway for the first time since I was 10, in two minds of what to expect, and I am glad I did. Whether it is the best version of The Nutcracker I am not sure, seeing how much I love the 1977, 1985, 1989, 2001 and 2009 productions. But it is for me the most underrated one, and a long way from the worst. Considering some of the reviews I'd read beforehand(Ebert, Maltin, RadioTimes) I was expecting it to be bad. But it wasn't.It is as dark as I remembered, as well as quite serious with some sexual tension perhaps in the mix. But unlike Bejart and Mariinsky, this dark approach is actually cohesive and come to think of it the Hoffmann story has some dark elements anyhow. The more somewhat sensual chemistry between Clara and Drosselmeyer in the party scene is not going to please everybody, I am not sure myself. But compared to everything else, it is something I could ignore easily. The sets and costumes do look stunning, those of the second act of the ballet have many vivid colours. Ballard's editing has been much criticised, I think overly-complicated was how it was described, true maybe there are a few too many shots of dancers' limbs but overall it didn't interfere that much with the dancing. Speaking of the dancing, aided by the truly magical choreography(some of the best I've seen for any production of The Nutcracker), it is impeccable, not only does it look so elegant and graceful but the dancers don't forget to emote. The Pas-De-Deux brought tears to my eyes, the party scene is joyous with a very Christmassy feel and the divertissments in the second act are characterfully danced. The dialogue is only in the narration, and I was really impressed by how colourfully and affectingly the story was told without words spoken, narration excepted. The narration is thoughtfully delivered also.Summing up, not all my childhood favourites have held up, most have and this is one of them. While not my favourite Nutcracker ever it is an underrated one and much better than I'd heard it was. I'm glad that other people have a fondness for it also. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Spleen I'm one of those people who think classical ballet is dull, dull, dull. It's not the music. I never get tired of listening to Tchaikovsky's ballet scores - `The Nutcracker' is something I can enjoy in any mood - and I have different kinds of fondnesses for Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Delibes, Khachaturyan, et al. But what's the deal with the dancing? If storytelling is the point, then the dance is a remarkably inefficient means to that end; if some kind of pure expressionism, it's too earthbound and formalised. I'd much rather watch an orchestra.In any event, transferring classical ballet to the cinema screen is a daft idea. (Not that I have a quarrel with a film ABOUT classical ballet - that's a different thing altogether.) It's like filming stage productions of Shakespeare. Shakespeare can survive, intact, in the cinema; but only if one throws out the whole apparatus of the theatre and starts thinking of the cinema screen. Tchaikovsky's ballet music, too, can work on the screen. For proof look no further than the Nutcracker sections of `Fantasia', which are so good I think they're the kind of thing the music was REALLY meant to accompany, all along.`Nutcracker' looks at first as if it will be a cinematic treatment of the score, with no connection to stage-bound dancing - but this hope is dashed within the first quarter hour or so. The second act in particular is just a stage presentation with extra-lavish effects. But then, unless one is prepared to be REALLY radical (the way Disney was), what else is there to do? The other thing that dooms the project is the disjointed nature of the narrative behind Tchaikovsky's ballet, the second act being just a succession of dances without a plot. Tchaikovsky had to push himself to wring any decent music out of the material.I'm not being hard on the dancers, the director, or anyone: I think they've done a first-class job, given the impossible task they've set themselves. But when I saw `Nutcracker' I'd already seen `Fantasia'. Nothing will now convince me that a screen version of classical ballet is a good idea.