Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

soleilsmile Wendy Whalen's performance as Coffee is the best that I've seen. I recently the San Francisco's Ballet rendition of Coffee and although entertaining, it was not as awe inspiring as Wendy's caressing of the earth with the soles of her feet in this film version of the Nutcracker. I am on a quest to find Coffee performed as a pas de deux, which I was told in fantastic. I will continue to see different versions of the Nutcracker performed by various troupes until I am satisfied. Thank you Ms. Whalen, for the inspiration! I hear there is a Barishnikov version of this film recorded in 1976 that is really out of sight. Barishnikov has such a boyish charm to him that I am sure that I am in for treat. Also, for those of you who live in San Francsico, try to see the Yuan Yuan Tan as the Queen of the Snow. Her lines are so perfect that they scythe time and space. Chinese Tea accompanied by the dragon is also a show stopper. However, I do have one criticism that the dancers from act one do not return to the stage to take their bows at closing curtain. Anyhoo, if this film film proves anything, it that the performing arts is still worth attending. Furthermore, theatrical effects can be far more imaginative and innovative than CGI special effects.

MrWall21 I have seen many, many productions of The Nutcracker. Now perhaps I viewed this movie from the tainted point of view of a theatrical director, but I was disappointed. I'm sure people in the specific business of ballet choreography find this production impressive but from a purely theatrical perspective I found everything from design to choreography to be lackluster and unbefitting of a "motion picture". None of the traditionally "weird" and impressive costumes looked like what they were supposed to be (i.e. the candies didn't look like candies, the rats didn't look like rats but rather like chocolate kisses,) the acting was weak, perhaps toned down too much for the screen, and the choreography just didn't do anything for me. This makes the entire show very satisfactory (at best), as if it were intended to not set itself apart from any other production. But remember, again, this is from the artistic perspective of a theatrical director, not a dancer or a choreographer, but a straight male theatrical director.

Ed I'd seen parts of this production before but I wanted to refresh my initial reactions and see if they were correct. I think they were!I've always thought Balanchine was very old-fashioned in his attitudes, particularly in the ballerina-and-her-cavalier prototype. But this is, of course, what Russian ballet is all about.I was mostly interested in seeing if Balanchine would keep the music up to speed and I find he has. After seeing the traditional performances where everything is slowed down to a glacial pace to accommodate the dancers, this is most refreshing and as a record of Mr. B's approach, this video production is invaluable.Others have mentioned the music-tampering but this is not unusual in the dance world or even in Balanchine. One glaring example of this is his "Serenade" where Tchaikovsky's last two movements are reversed; the "Elegy" is the last thing heard instead of the fast finale. In all fairness, Balanchine assumed that his own works would be forgotten with time and would not become the monuments they have.Is the 12 year old Culkin as bad as all that? In context, his star power has proved a liability here and this is at least partly due to his overall awkwardness in the nephew-prince role. Smiling or smirking professionally in that dreadful pink Lord Fauntleroy suit he can often look downright sinister. (He later used that quality in "Party Monster" for example.) And, with almost nothing to do except lend his presence to the second part, whenever they show him in passing I find the effect jarring.Mack aside, the photography is good in general though awkward in the pan-and-scan version close-ups. The narration really shouldn't have happened but it's not too disturbing.the DVD: It's a two-sided DVD with no real labels. (Watch your fingers!) The second side is the letterboxed one which I think is more successful than the pan-and-scan first side. The extras are informative but sparse.6 or 7 out of 10.

DK Bengel To begin with, let me first say for the record that I understand that this film was made with the non-Ballet-going public in mind, much as 'E.R.' is made for the non-medical public. This may explain how so many people I have spoken to really loved this film. I, however, must protest. As a professional dancer for many years and, now, a choreographer and director of Ballet, I can not add my voice to the choir of approval that this film has received. Indeed, I have found the production, from front to back with rare exception, to be an ineffectual copy of a classic ballet. The Horror that is Macauly Culkin (who was obviouly cast to bring the film "star-power" rather than talent) aside, the wrongs against Ballet abound aplenty in this film. The choreography is tipical Latter Balanchine (for the un-trained; make it fast, make it sharp and remove any and all elements of Emotion, the core of dance, in favor of a technicality that will highlight the flaws of even the best dancers), the score (considered by many to be their favorite Tchaikovsky piece) is so badly edited and re-arranged that I doubt if the composer would regognize it, leading to the re-arrangement of the staging into a non-linear hodge-podge of dances that tells no deffinite story, but simply ambles through the remains of a once-great narrative and the camera work, while professional and clean, is more distracting than helpful, always cutting away at inopportune moments in favor of another vantage point. One of the wonderful things about watching ballet on tape is being able to see a variation continualy without edits, there-by showing our hero or heroine actually completing a difficult step or combonation, there-by showing off their talent. When one cuts away from a dancer after three fuete turns and then shows them from another angle doing another three fuetes, how are we, as the viewers, to know if the dancer completed all six in one attempt or did she simply do three and WE saw them twice? With the continuity cut from the dancing, much of the magic of ballet (&/or dance in general) gets lost in the mix. And then, there is the Culkin child. Now, I understand that Young Mr. Culkin is rumored to have grown into a very respectable and nice young man. And I also understand (although reports are sketchy) that he received instruction from the School of American Ballet (SAB), the accademy arm of the New York City Ballet (NYCB), for a short time. But does this really qualify him to play the Nutcracker? His obviouly lack of balletic talent or grace and the ham-handed choreography imposed on the child makes his scenes painful to watch and an embarrassment to not only Mr Culkin and the NYCB, but to the entire dancing world. Would it have not made better sense to have cast an actual dancer in the role and let the art form speak for itself rather than trying to "glam" it up with a familar face? The one shining moment in other-wise waste of video tape is the Soldier Doll Variation performed in the first act Party Scene. Brilliant and incredible!Needless to say, however, I was disappointed the first time I saw this film and continue to be so now, years later. If you are interested in seeing a quality production of "the Nutcracker", I would like to recomend either the classical and technically perfect Royal Ballet's version or the more visially oppulant Pacific Northwest Ballet's production, both available on video.