Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

arbarnes This last edition to the That's Entertainment family of films celebrating MGM is a magnificent coda, and pays particular tribute to a number of those MGM stars who were somewhat neglected in the other two. All the greats are there too though, like Fred and Gene and Judy and Frank, and there are some wonderfully unusual and fascinating clips and a number of very illuminating behind-the-scenes extracts and revelations.The editing and the sound editing is particularly well done, and the various introductions are all rather touching. Whatever your level of interest in musical films you should certainly make time to see all three "Thats Entertainment" movies. The talent on display is staggering, and the craftsmanship of all involved is so vividly apparent. Marvel at the costumes, lighting, choreography, direction, singing, art-direction and sheer energy of MGM film musicals.You are definitely left gasping for more ... My favourite bit? How does one choose? Gene Kelly's newspaper dance from the often overlooked film "Summer Stock" always excites me into immediately trying the same dance with whatever newspaper is at hand -and it is certainly not easy!

ccthemovieman-1 This last "Entertainment" installment offers a few different aspects that the first two "That's Entertainment!" packages didn't have, such as some song-dance routines that never made it on screen (and should have) or a behind-the-scenes look at cameramen filming a particular number. The latter is interesting to see as they filmed an Eleanor Powell dance ("Lady Be Good")It also was interesting to see some of the stars in the early '90s when this was made, as they host certain segments of this 113-minute tribute. I am referring to June Allyson, Cyd Charisse, Lena Horne, Howard Keel, Gene Kelly, Ann Miller, Debbie Reynolds, Mickey Rooney and Esther Williams. I'd say the person who most looked a lot like they did when they were much younger was Horne.I also appreciated the fact they showed quite a bit of numbers in the widescreen format, something we never saw viewing these great musicals on VHS. We also see a very early edition of "Singin In The Rain," with the likes of Jack Benny and Joan Crawford.Overall, a worthy edition to the "That's Entertainment!" package.

jotix100 Having seen the previous two installments of this series about MGM's great years, we hadn't seen the last one, but thanks to TCM, which showed it recently, we now have completed the cycle. The documentary, directed by Bud Friedgen and Michael Sheridan, brings us back to the golden years of the studio that boasted it had more stars than any one else in Hollywood.This new version concentrates on the singing and dancing stars. Its 113 minutes running time flies by without noticing because of the quality of the material selected to be shown.There is a magnificent black and white sequence showing Eleanor Powell performing a number and at the same time on a second screen we are taken to the actual filming of the routine as the technicians worked on it. Even for the time when it was filmed, it was revolutionary. Also, we see a dance routine by Fred Astaire with two different costumes and the same music shown on split screen where the "master" himself performs the exact same steps in both sequences. Amazing!The only sad note of the documentary is to see how Lena Horne, a talented and gorgeous black woman who was employed by the studio, but was never given a starring role on films that involved other white actors. In fact, it's a shame she lost a plum role in "Showboat" because of the discrimination at the time.It was great to watch the MGM stars narrating the different segments. Thus, we saw June Allyson, Cyd Charisse, Ann Miller, Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, Esther Williams, Howard Keel introducing the different production numbers in the documentary.Without a doubt, Hollywood was a factory of dreams and MGM was the best place where they came true.

gaityr Every THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT film has a hook to draw new viewers in--the first film had the sheer novelty of these film giants talking to us about the work they did in that glorious, music-filled period of movie-making, although these legends were reduced to reading off pre-written scripts. The second movie had a more intriguing main attraction: only two narrators, but when those two narrators were Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly actually dancing and singing their way through the gorgeous clips stacked up? Fantastic.Well, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT III sure tries its best to live up to its predecessors. Retaining the narration technique used in the same film, albeit with the second generation of MGM musical stars (and only Gene Kelly, sporting enormous glasses!, retained from the first two films), the film's hook is the rare special footage it boasts--from a background tracking shot showing the vast amount of money and manpower invested in just one Eleanor Powell number, through to valuable outtakes such as Debbie Reynolds' 'You Are My Lucky Star' number (cut from SINGIN' IN THE RAIN but available on DVD now) and the Indians number in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN as originally performed by Judy Garland. There are other little treasure nuggets as well, all deleted scenes, such as Judy Garland's song 'Mr Monotony', meant for Easter Parade; and Lena Horne's risky bubble bath chanson filmed for CABIN IN THE SKY. And I do wonder what was so bad about Ava Gardner's lost vocals for SHOWBOAT--I thought she sounded pretty darn good myself!I personally thought the best thing about this film was the way some of this rare footage was displayed--the split-screen technique was quite the stroke of genius. It was used to simply brilliant effect, for example, in showcasing two versions of a number filmed to the same dubbed vocals, the first starring Joan Crawford (for TWO-FACED WOMAN, in rather astonishingly Technicolour and camp blackface) and the second Cyd Charisse (for THE BANDWAGON). No guessing which number SHOULD have been retained (hint: Charisse is one of the best dancers of any time; Crawford is... not), but it was hilarious watching the very VERY different ways in which the same song was approached in the two different films. My favourite part of the whole film was a number similarly presented, except this time it pitted Fred Astaire against himself. The sand-enhanced song-and-dance, to the tune 'I'm Just A Dancing Man', was filmed once, but deemed not classy enough. So there are two versions--one of Fred in top hat and tails, the other in overalls. Guess what? Astaire keeps to his own internal rhythm perfectly, and proves in this juxtaposition of the two scenes that he is his own best partner. It's pretty damn amazing, and probably the best and most jaw-dropping part of the film.The rest of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT III is pretty run-of-the-mill in comparison. It's not stuff we haven't seen before (we've seen better clips in the previous two films), and there are still the prerequisite sections dedicated to Fred Astaire, Judy Garland and Gene Kelly (oh yes, and Esther Williams, of course). It's a shame that there wasn't a Cyd Charisse segment, or one dedicated to Ann Miller. Considering that both these dancing ladies were presenters during the film, it'd have been nice to recognise the great contribution their long legs made to film musical history. I did enjoy the clip from THE KISSING BANDIT that had Charisse and Miller pitted against each other in a catfight slash dance-off, which was very cool, very intense and great fun to watch. But otherwise, it's all stuff that would work better in the original films.So while THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT III again succeeds in doing what it sets out to do (leave the audience in a happy glow), it's less accomplished than its predecessors. It's not as engaging to new viewers as either of the first two (showcasing lesser-known numbers and films), and is of only average interest to the hardcore classic film buff. It's a hard line to straddle, and the film manages to do it, don't get me wrong. But well. You can't go wrong with this film, but it's all been done before, and dare I say it...? Done better. 7.5/10