Your IP has been blocked. Please perform the action below to regain access.
75.126.130.58-
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
-
Family fare
I had seen My Fair Lady as have most people and enjoyed it. We went to the recent stage play and I wanted to see again Audrey and Rex. It was great. I recommend it to all who love to be uplifted when they see a movie.
Rating: -
One of those movies where there is a reason it's a classic
Sadly, I had never seen this movie before purchasing it here. And this comes from a girl who adores Audrey Hepburn! But the moment the score began I was hooked at this humerous, enchanting tale of an very unusual Cinderella and Fairy Godmother. The music is perfect, suited to every emotion felt by every character, making for a bright, fun, and touching musical experience. The setting is grand, even for the streets of London (though it is probably not a good thing to romanticize poverty) but in the guise of the theatre it works perfectly. The direction is different, slightly wild, and dare-I-say incredibly imaginative. The very motions of the actors are brilliantly thought-out. The acting is spot on, especially by the great Audrey who rids herself of charm to play the most obnoxious street urchin you will ever meet. Even as she rises through the process of becoming a proper lady she never quite loses that earthy charm. It's a touching story full of vivid, wild characters and plenty of heart. As for the second disk, the geek in me loved the features that added plenty of trivia to my first "My Fair Lady" experience.
Rating: 
-
BRILLIANT MUSICAL SATIRE OF BRITISH SOCIAL CLASS SYSTEM IS NOT AS "LOVERLY" AS IT SHOULD BE IN FILM VERSION.
"My Fair Lady" is one of the greatest musicals of all time. Lerner & Loewe's score never violated the wit, elegance, and sophistication of George Bernard Shaw's "Pygmalion." The songs enhance the story; lifting it up into the heavens! The 1964 film version won eight Oscars; including "Best Picture." Cecil Beaton certainly deserved the Oscar for his sumptuous costume design. But "Fair Lady" is about more than clothes and glamour. It is a brillant satire of the British social class system. All the great scenes and songs are intact in the film version. Still, the viewer is likely to feel emotionally detached from the fascinating relationship between haughty Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) and Cockney Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn).
The film version loses its true sense of purpose in all the splendour of the visual design. There is very little impetus. "My Fair Lady" has been preserved here as a museum piece. I keep waiting for a spark of excitement and pace that seldom materializes. Everything is terribly static. The film is obviously shot entirely in a studio. I wish Warner Brothes had put out even more money so director George Cukor could have shot at least some of the film on location in London-- as Robert Wise did in New York City (partially) for "West Side Story" (1961) and Austria/Germany for "The Sound Of Music" (1965). Cukor won the "Best Director" Oscar for "Fair Lady," but this is far from his best work. That would be his masterpiece "A Star Is Born" with Judy Garland in 1954; or almost any of his films with Katharine Hepburn (see 1938's "Holiday" or 1949's "Adam's Rib"). So it is easy to see that Cukor had, indeed, earned his long-overdue Oscar by 1964.
Rex Harrison also earned an Oscar for recreating his Tony-Award Winning stage role. But he is merely "walking through" the role of Higgins here. Similarly, Stanley Holloway, recreating his stage role as Alfred P. Doolittle, looks tired. I'm comparing Harrison & Holloway with their own much more inspired performances on the "Fair Lady" Broadway and London Cast Albums.
Jack Warner did not invite Julie Andrews to re-create her Broadway and London stage triumph as Eliza Doolittle, leaving Audrey Hepburn to deal with the inevitable critical slings and arrows. Audrey was not allowed to sing the songs herself. Why somebody at Warner Brothes didn't transpose the songs into a different vocal range for Audrey is beyond me! A look at Audrey's own performances of "Wouldn't It Be Loverly?" and "Show Me" (on Disc 2) clearly demonstrates that she sang with more expression and deeper understanding of Eliza Doolittle in her own thin, whispery voice than Marni Nixon's soprano. Every time the voice switches from Audrey's own unforgettable voice into Marni Nixon's "California Cockney", I am disturbed, dismayed and lost! The documentary on Disc 2 features an interview with Marni Nixon, who comes off as EXTREMELY DEFENSIVE, desperately seeking to "Justify" herself in this instance, I am not finding any fault with Audrey or blaming her at all. Indeed, the film comes alive whenever Audrey is on screen. The great irony is that ("Just You Wait, Jack Warner, Just You Wait!!") Julie Andrews achieved great cinematic success, in short order, with "Mary Poppins" and "The Sound Of Music." And Audrey and Julie, both very "fair ladies," became good friends just a few years later.
Sad to admit, but I feel that, as cinema, the story is better served in the outstanding 1938 B&W film version of "Pygmalion," starring the superb Wendy Hiller and Leslie Howard. If you want the glorious Lerner and Loewe songs, I highly recommend the 1959 London Cast Album in Stereo starring Harrison, Holloway, & Julie Andrews.
Rating: -
Excellent sound (played at the correct speed)!
After reading all these reviews, there's nothing else left to say about the story or the acting. Definitely everyone on this planet adores 'My Fair Lady' - it's a classic! Now, about this DVD edition (the first one): The restoration job is great. The quality of picture and sound is excellent. If you care about the soundtrack, the US edition has the right pitch. Most European movie releases do not use the right pitch. Dialogs and music (or songs) are played at a higher speed so they don't sound natural and the European DVD edition of 'My Fair Lady' is no exception. However, the US DVD edition maintains the correct sound and the audio part is exactly like on the movie soundtrack CD.
Rating: -
I adore this film, forever.
I've noticed in reading the reviews already posted that most people want to debate the casting of the film, and that's fine. Others want to debate whether or not George Bernard Shaw would be angry at the ending (which he actually did pen for the 1930s version of Pygmalion.)
That's all fine.
But here is my honest opinion of the film, and it's romantic plotline. First of all, it's beautiful. The scenery, the costumes, and the music. But the ambiguity of the Higgins/Eliza "sort of romance" has always been one of my favorite things about this film. Why? Because the one thing good ol' George Bernard Shaw got right about this script (be it his original theatrical ending or the film ending) is that it shows us the different types of love between men and women. Not all love is eros and passionate. It is more subtle.
At the age of 10, I found this ending incredibly frustrating. Now as I approach my mid-twenties, I find it real and heartfelt. Perhaps, Higgins and Eliza remain platonic. Or, maybe Higgins and Eliza decide to marry? Maybe she does run off and marry Freddy. This sort of thing is best decided by the individual. But one thing is certain, they are most wonderfully in love, be it conventional or unconventional.
And that's just loverly.
