Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Applause Meter This is a story of a man, his music and the era when he achieved his greatest success. What we get is a lackluster movie, purportedly, the biography of pianist and bandleader Eddie Duchin whose heyday was the 1930s. Duchin was primarily a "society" favorite—his piano style and manner appealing to the upper crust patrons who were habitués of the swank venues in which he performed. Yet, the most glaring deficiency of this film is its failure to re-create the cultural energy and social vibrancy of 1930s New York City. No attempt has been made to credibly resurrect or even provide the viewer with a reasonable facsimile of the world that was Eddy Duchin's milieu. In essence, the art production is totally inept, the costumes, make-up and hair styling barely referencing the time period. Kim Novak is particularly inauthentic in both appearance and character portrayal. She couldn't get me to buy into the belief that she was the celebrity debutante and heiress, Marjorie Oelrichs. Novak's short, blonde, severe helmet hairdo is completely identifiable as her familiar 1950s screen look, seen over time in numerous films in which she appeared. Tyrone Power, as Eddy Duchin, looks weary, and he and Novak as a pair of young, madcap lovers, just don't mesh.The musical performances may be the only entertaining element in this movie, yet they can barely sustain interest in the storyline. Here we have, yet again, a film representing what movie makers were putting out in an attempt to lure the public away from their TV screens: pure 1950s Hollywood schlock.

MARIO GAUCI A popular branch of the musical genre during the 1940s and 1950s was the biopic of composers (of both classical pieces and popular tunes), singers or musicians/bandleaders; this belongs to the latter category. I can't say I was familiar with Duchin's history or style and, in any case, despite numerous musical numbers (where star Tyrone Power's piano-playing is obviously dubbed by a professional), the film seems much more concerned with the man's turbulent and tragic life. Ironically, both the star and his subject would suffer an untimely death – for the record, when Power's passing was announced, the film under review was (belatedly) on general release locally! He does O.K. in eliciting both Duchin's wholesomeness (which endeared him to audiences) and his ambivalent feeling towards a son he blamed for the death of beloved first wife Kim Novak. Nudged by manager James Whitmore, however, Duchin's ready to make it up to the boy following his war service in the Pacific; here, he also meets, falls for and marries young war orphan Victoria Shaw (following some initial sparring when Duchin Jr. is seen preferring her company!). Just when it seems that his domestic problems could be surmounted comes a fatal blow: he's diagnosed with a neurological condition which even curtails his career. At the end of the day, THE EDDY DUCHIN STORY is far from a highlight of its subgenre or, for that matter, the filmography of its matinée idol star; nonetheless, it was deemed serviceable enough to garner 4 Oscar nominations (not to mention landing director Sidney a surprising DGA nod).

urbisoler-1 . . . that begs for answers to unanswered questions. I keep reading that Eddie was a decorated Navy man during WWII but can't find out what those awards were. I've read Peter Duchin's "Ghost of a Chance" but the answers aren't there either. Can't find much on Majorie Oelricks either including photos. Peter was raised by the Harriman's while Eddie was on tour to South America and then WWII. Peter then goes to live with Eddie after the war. The nanny, Chiquita Wynn, straightens Eddie out on how to handle his son and they ultimately fall in love and marry. When Eddie dies of leukemia (sp?), Chiquita drops out of sight and we are left to wonder what happens to her. It's rather frustrating not knowing what happens next - not that I expect the film to answers these questions. But I should and do expect that a biography would. Peter's does not and I believe it should have. The film is marvelous if for no other reason than the music. Carmen Cavallero has been given much of the credit for his virtuosity. I don't doubt it but this is Eddie Duchin's story not CC's. Also, if I read the story correctly, C.C. was greatly inspired by Duchin. That's why there is a film about Duchin and not one about Cavallero. If anyone has information to fill in the blanks I would like to hear from them. Ciao!

tedg Wow, what a mix of bad and good. The good is the music and the amazing period shots of New York. The bad... well just about anything else; its all rather poorly done. The script is particularly offensive; more about that in a moment. The acting is that goofy type which is unnatural, but not quite the unnatural stage style, more of a "read to the camera" style. Novak is pretty, but moves gracelessly.The story they have chosen to tell is a simple one: we learn to love a man through his ambition, gains, losses, sorrow and regaining of humanity after the war. This is about America after the war, not some pianist. Then sorrow strikes again and he handles it so wonderfully you applaud while crying. At least that's the goal and it probably worked for most viewers when this was new and America was trying to cope with post war loss.Something closer to the real story would have made a killer movie. Duchin was made famous by his recording that was the first use of the F-work in that medium. His first wife did die, but he was hardly grief-stricken — a famous womanizer. He did leave his boy with Averill Harriman's wife when he went to war. But that was because he was sleeping with her, while her husband was off in England sleeping (and finally marrying) another man's wife. The son of Winston Churchill in fact, so Harriman hardly cared about his wife's affair with a New York celebrity.Harriman was an amazing character through the period of this story. He, Dulles and Marshall shaped the world after the war in a liberal mold, essentially reforming Europe as a unit and building NATO, which for many decades was a very good thing. His presence through this movie as sort of an avuncular figure would be like having John Kennedy as a butler. The loss of the power-as-sex game and music-as-power thrust sort of waters down the whole thing.Why do I care? Because Harriman was particularly concerned about rebuilding France, a country that had humiliated itself and had no means to rebuild. It was, as now, an agricultural economy and Harriman couldn't see Americans subsidizing French farmers for decades. So he (his staff, yes Democrats) came up with the ideas of romanticizing Paris and Rome. Make them romantic cities that tourists would visit. They surely were not before the war. Paris had had its day as a center of art but never ever of romance.The plan was pulled off flawlessly, primarily through subsidies to Hollywood to make films that portrayed Paris romantically. Many of those films were from the same period of this film, an extreme irony. Extreme, you know.Harriman's first wife, the one playing with Duchin, had cheated on and left her first husband as well, an extremely wealthy fellow who just happened to be the financier of Technicolor which we find our self enjoying in this very film.Oh well, there is the music, How can you fault any film that starts with Chopin?Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.