Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 1956 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Roxy: 16 February 1956. U.S. release: February 1956. U.K. release: 21 May 1956. Australian release: 4 June 1956. Sydney opening at the Regent. 11,561 feet. 128 minutes.SYNOPSIS: The daughter of a carousel barker is ostracized by other children in a New England town at the turn of the century. NOTES: Second to "The King and I" as Fox's top-grossing domestic release of 1955-56. Fox's top box-office money-maker in Australia in 1956. Originally it was planned to shoot Fox's 49th CinemaScope movie in both 55mm CinemaScope and standard 35mm CinemaScope. Frank Sinatra, who had been signed for the part of Billy Bigelow (over the strenuous objections of Rodgers and Hammerstein), balked at making a print of every scene twice ("Everyone knows I've only got one good take in me!") and walked out. After MacRae had been signed, it was decided to shoot each scene on 55mm stock only and optically reduce to 35mm in the laboratory. The studio had intended to make 55mm projection prints available for roadshow engagements, but no cinema was prepared to pay the expense of re-equipping. So the movie was shown in 35mm CinemaScope everywhere. COMMENT: The lovely Shirley Jones is absolutely perfect as the vulnerable Julie, while critics with considerable justification predicted a big future for Barbara Ruick. (In fact she had no future in movies at all. This was her fifth and last film). Robert Rounseville, who had made his picture debut in Tales of Hoffmann (1951) was also deservedly praised, but he made no more pictures either. This was the only movie Claramae Turner ever made, but audiences were lucky enough to glimpse the entrancing Susan Luckey again in The Music Man (1962). The superlative dancing of Jacques D'Amboise was first seen in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. After this spectacular follow-up, Producer Henry Ephron signed him for The Best Things In Life Are Free, a somewhat disillusioning experience which soured D'Amboise from Hollywood forever — except for the 1967 A Midsummer Night's Dream.Yes, everyone else is so great — Audrey Christie as the jealous Mrs. Mullin whose relationship with Billy is so cleverly conveyed by her gestures as well as her reactive words; Gene Lockhart in one of his last roles as the philosophical doctor/starkeeper; Cameron Mitchell, judiciously cast for once as the truly repulsive Jigger; John Dehner as a patronizing local moneybags; Richard Deacon as an obsequious policeman — it's a shame MacRae is so lackluster. Mind you, as said, King's sluggish, very loosely-framed direction does little to assist. Nor does Ephron's unnecessarily verbose script.Despite its shortcomings, "Carousel" is still a wonderfully uplifting musical experience. Rodgers' music is at its most haunting, most tuneful, most electric. Hammerstein's lyrics are perhaps at times a little too smart-alecky. The most impressively unforgettable numbers are the two dance set-pieces: "June Is Bustin' Out All Over" and "Louise's Ballet". Really zestful choreography, really expressive dancing make these numbers truly outstanding cinema pleasures.

mysticnox I gave it a 3 due to the music and the incredible voices. Honestly, it doesn't even deserve that. I understand that it's supposed to take place in the late 1800's, but this is horrid. Even at the time the movie came out women's lib had already begun and I can't believe that any woman would have had the insane mindset of "If he hits you, it means he loves you" as a norm. It wasn't true even then.Considering that this is Rogers and Hammerstein, I can't believe how bad it really is.I love musicals, and the old musicals tended to be rather sexist but this took it to a new level.

Chris Mizerak My gut instincts are telling me that modern filmgoers aren't going to care for what I have to say about the 1956 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, "Carousel". Most of the people reading this will find my opinion completely unacceptable. And in many respects, I can understand where people are coming from if they say that they didn't like this movie. If you have a permanent hatred for musicals, then "Carousel" is definitely not going to change your mind about the musical genre. And to be fair, even those who are big musical fans seem to be split on "Carousel". As for me personally, there are significant flaws about "Carousel" that I see as clearly as crystal. But as a big sucker for musicals, there are things that "Carousel" does extraordinarily well both on a visual level and on a musical level that are enough for me to consider it a guilty pleasure. It's important to note that Frank Sinatra was originally set to star as the main character of this picture. But due to the fact that he wasn't impressed with filming the same takes twice for two different cameras, he backed out. This is where "Oklahoma!" star Gordon MacRae comes in and takes over the role. And right out of the gate, I must say that this role seemed tailor made for Sinatra because MacRae does a heck of a job unintentionally impersonating his voice through this character. "Carousel" centers on Billy Bigelow (MacRae), a carousel barker with a bad reputation and a young mill worker named Julie Jordan (Shirley Jones) who both get fired from their jobs after essentially paying too much attention to each other one night. After being acquainted with each other against the wishes of their highly strict bosses, they fall in love and get married immediately. Yes, just after they meet each other for the first time that night, they get hitched three times faster than a typical Disney princess. Well, okay. So from there, we see them develop a meaningful and identifiable relationship, right? No, their character development gets sidetracked as Billy becomes bitter for being unable to find work and hits Julie in frustration one night, which isn't shown on screen. We get a subplot involving Billy and his pal Jigger (Cameron Mitchell) planning a robbery of a wealthy person in town, which will later have significant consequences. There's also barely a subplot with Julie's friend Carrie (Barbara Ruick) and her boyfriend Mr. Snow (Robert Rounseville). Basically the plot of "Carousel" is about a newly married couple that experiences some sort of trouble…allegedly, with too many subplots added into the mix. And all of the plots, including the central love story between Billy and Julie, are so hastily rushed that any trace of character development is completely missing. Yeah, I would say to go ahead and just fast forward through anything resembling a plot since it's so messed up and very sloppy structure wise. But the problem is that the film practically did that for us before we even though about it! That is exactly how unconfident the director and writers seemed to be in terms of the plot to "Carousel". For that crucial aspect alone, I shouldn't be recommending "Carousel" especially considering the controversial developments that occur later in the plot. And yet here I am confessing that I have a soft spot for this flick. But to be fair, my recommendation is solely based on two things: the soundtrack by Rodgers and Hammerstein and the cinematography. Now you're thinking to yourself: that's not a good enough excuse to recommend a picture of this nature. But in this case, I'm making an exception. Whatever jaw dropping plot holes "Carousel" provides is made up for with the effort the filmmakers put into making this as great as it possibly can with everything else. The film's producer Henry Ephron really took advantage of the film's settings and made it as visually bright and atmospheric as possible for the big screen through the widescreen CinemaScope cameras. Say whatever you will about some of the settings being filmed on stage as opposed to on location. Any way you slice it, even the on stage sets have a specific beauty to them. I liked the setting where the "If I Loved You" number took place with the traces of blue light against the mountains, lake, and buildings along with the little pond that shows the character's reflections. But of course, the cinematography on location in Maine and California are magnificent. The "June Is Bustin' Out All Over" and "When the Children Are Asleep" numbers stand out when naming scenes at the top of my head where the on location cinematography is put to its best use. In both of these numbers, the skies look sensational, the sun is clearly present and shining on our stars and dancers, everything seems to be really happening. With "June Is Bustin' Out All Over", I got the sense that the dancers were really scaling that building back and forth without breaking a sweat. Amazing! And as for "When the Children Are Asleep", I never got the sense that it was all green screened. I was sold that Carrie and Mr. Snow were really controlling the boat the whole time. Nowadays, with all the green screens and CGI in the world and with barely a hint of movie musicals being made anymore, it's refreshing to look at a 1950's musical like "Carousel" to remind me of how magical movies during that era truly were. Though its plot is messy, I give it credit for at least not being another backstage musical. But above all, I love how everything else right down to the singing seems to be really happening on screen. Even if you end up not caring for this, just remember that "You'll Never Walk Alone". Boy, that closing song was awesome!

vincentlynch-moonoi First, I've got to get something off my chest. I was reading in the discussion section the thread entitled "This film is an atrocity". Some of the dumbest comments I've ever read on IMDb. We have some reviewers who can't differentiate between "I didn't like this film" and "This is a horrible film". There is a difference. I personally can't stand opera, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize its beauty and the talent it takes to perform one. And in fact, that's one of the things some of our reviewers don't get...more than some musicals, this film is -- in a sense -- an opera.Second, thank god that Frank Sinatra walked away from this film. First, it would have been type casting. But second, he was all wrong -- including physically wrong -- for the part of Billy Bigelow. Having said that, I see Sinatra's Reprise recording of "Soliloquy" to be the definitive recording of the song.Now, more directly to the film. I can see why modern audiences might not enjoy this film. It has a slow pace in a few places. Some of the modern interpretive dance, which really is quite good, might not appeal to many. And, the film excuses hitting women.On the other hand, when you think about it, the film tackles more substance than musicals often do. The plot is a little thin, but that's so you can fit in the music. And the music here is truly notable: "Soliloquy", "If I Loved You", and the stunning "You'll Never Walk Alone" (although I was a bit disappointed with the orchestral arrangement here, particularly in the first appearance of the song).Shirley Jones's performance was -- once again -- virtually flawless. It's a travesty that her type of film virtually disappeared from movie screens, relegating much of her later career to weak films, few of which are notable.Gordon MacRae is excellent here, and I say that as no fan of his.Claramae Turner's part gets little screen time, but her nearly-operatic performance of "You'll Never Walk Alone" is timeless. Cameron Mitchell...well, I never quite saw what Hollywood saw in him...and still don't. Gene Lockhart is worth mentioning here. He was a character actor with a long and substantial career, and this movie was filmed just about a year before his death, although he performed in 2 films after this, including "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit".All in all, despite what some of our reviewers have written, this is a significant film, though it may not be entertaining to modern audiences. It will be remembered more for several of its musical pieces, rather than for its plot. I'm glad I finally watched it -- once -- but I probably will not view it again. That era has passed, and personally I don't feel this is the best of the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. However, still recommended from an historical point of view in film history.