Mame

source: Mame

Perhaps if MAME had been filmed twenty years earlier, LUCILLE BALL might have done okay by the role. But here she is, garishly made up to look glamorous until those dreadful close-ups with Vaseline-smeared camera lens to give "soft focus" a new meaning. Her voice is smoky enough to suggest "the voice of the turtle" and she sounds like a foghorn when she tries to sing. The only classy performances come from ROBERT PRESTON as Beauregard, who climbs too many mountains (unfortunately), and BEATRICE ARTHUR as Lucy's cantankerous and gin soaked friend, Vera. When those two are on camera, at least there's some comfort in watching. Anyone who has seen Rosalind Russell play AUNTIE MAME or Angela Lansbury in the stage musical, is bound to find Lucy falls far short of the mark. Anyone except the stubborn Lucy fans on this board (with blinders on) who still insist that she gave "a fine performance". Badly in need of a reality check. It goes without saying that any discriminating fan of musicals will not find much to appreciate here apart from two fairly well staged musical spots, most notably the fox hunt scene during which "Mame" is sung. The rest is lame stuff indeed with a miscast Ball taking center stage spotlight too late in the game. Someone should have advised her against it.

I saw this film when it was originally released in the theatre and I was too young to know that Lucy wasn`t exactly a great choice for Mame. I only knew that the music (Lucy`s singing aside) was wonderful. I`m talking about the orchestrations and the arrangements of the score. From the opening title when the firts strains of MAME are played I was hooked. Over the years I have come to realize that Lucy was miscast as far as the singing goes but having seen a video of Angela Lansbury in the role, I have to say that as far as acting the part, Lucy did an admirable job. Some things about the play were changed for the film but that happens in almost all transfers from stage to screen. It worked well for Cabaret and the Sound of Music and for the most part works well here. No, Lucy can`t sing like Angela Lansbury (who I think is one of the most accomplished actresses of film, theatre and television) but she has her moments, such as MY BEST GIRL with Kirby Furlong and BOSOM BUDDIES with the wonderful Bea Arthur and she brings all her years of experience to the role. She also has a wonderful cast around her to help the film along. My favorite part is the title song sung by Robert Preston and the plantation crowd. A great arrangement of the music and a wonderful adaption of the stage choreography (and Lucy dances wonderfully as well). All in all, if you like musicals and can get past Lucy`s minimal singing talent, then I think you`ll love Mame

I love Lucy, but this movie is so wretchedly bad that I was squirming in embarrassment for all concerned within the first ten minutes . . . and it just got worse from there. Lucille Ball's "singing" is downright painful and the attempts to make her appear more youthful through the use of soft focus had me reaching for my reading glasses. It's bombs like this that give bombs a bad name.

Don't get me wrong, I love musicals, most of them I grew up on, and I always find myself singing a tune from one. However, Mame is a contender for the worst movie musical I've seen, and I have seen quite a lot of movie musicals, old and new, good and bad. Are there any redeeming qualities? Yes there are actually. They are the songs and score, which are excellent- I was particularly taken with We Need a Little Christmas and If He Walked into my Life, and the support playing of Jane Conell, the dashing Robert Preston and especially Bea Arthur, for me the only members of the cast who try to breathe life into the film. The main problem with Mame is the miscasting of Lucille Ball as Mame. She does try hard with the slapstick, but her singing was to be honest painful to the ears especially in It's Today and she was too old and too cold for the role. Madeline Kahn or Angela Lansbury would have been better in my personal opinion. Kirby Furlong doesn't work either, as others have said he turns Patrick into a wimp, while the film is really quite dated with some curiously garish close-ups. The film is also too long, and suffers further from a weak and predictable story, confused script, poor pacing, sluggish direction and very sketchy characterisation. So overall, as a fan of musicals this was a complete disappointment. 2/10 for the music and some of the supporting cast. Bethany Cox

Lucille Ball was a mighty power in television throughout the 1950s and 1960s, but she still made an occasional film, most notably THE LONG, LONG TRAILER and THE FACTS OF LIFE. Although her television career remained strong, as the 1970s began her movie career seemed to be winding down--but Ball was determined to have one last big screen fling, and the project she selected was the 1966 musical MAME. In many respects the role seemed tailor-made: based on the popular novel which gave rise to two different Broadway plays, Mame Dennis is a wacky, wildly uninhibited woman who "inherits" her orphaned nephew Patrick--and leads him on a wild tour of life's possibilities, bouncing from one comic spree to another. The music, which featured such songs as "Open a New Window" and "If He Walked Into My Life Today," was among Jerry Herman's best work. The supporting cast, which included Robert Preston and Bea Arthur, was the best of the best. Expectations were high; opening night fanfare was tremendous; the film was a disaster. Critics were aghast and audiences sat slack-jawed. No matter what hardcore Lucy fans may say, MAME is a fiasco, so much so that it is hard to know where to start. It is badly directed, badly filmed, badly performed, and there Lucille Ball is at the center of it all, unable to dance, unable to sing, and grinning like a waxworks dummy while incredibly bad choreography swirls around her. But the disaster is hardly of her making alone; the supporting cast fares no better. Bea Arthur and Jane Connell recreate their stage roles of Vera Charles and Agnes Gooch; the former is stagey, the latter is dismal. Robert Preston manages to sing with a smile, but he's pretty much on his own and clearly none too happy about it. The DVD brings the film from the VHS pan-and-scan release to widescreen, but that only means there's more awfulness to see. Everybody loves Lucy, but only the least critical fan could love Lucy's MAME; while I wouldn't say it's bad enough to make you want to gouge your eyes out, you may wish you had. Not recommended. GFT, Amazon Reviewer

I wasn't surprised to learn that Lucille Ball bankrolled this movie adaptation of the Broadway musical MAME -- that explains her miscasting. Don't get me wrong: Ball looks gorgeous in the spectacular costumes and her slapstick is still up to par. But even her bullfrog singing voice (which proves that even the worst voice can't completely ruin Jerry Herman's wonderful songs. They *could* ruin Cole Porter's songs in AT LONG LAST LOVE, but that's a review for another time :-) didn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that Ball is too old and, worst of all, too *COLD* to play lovable madcap Mame Dennis. It's comical in the wrong way to see Lucy in soft focus in her solo shots and everybody else photographed crystal clear. She looks more like she's modeling than acting, and she has all the warmth and tenderness of the iceberg that sank the Titanic. She also tends to look like she's trying to seduce Kirby Furlong and Bruce Davison as, respectively, the younger and older Patrick -- creepy! Moreover, it's obvious the dances have been slowed down considerably to accommodate Lucy's rusty dancing skills (notice how people seem to dance *around* her rather than with her). Madeline Kahn, the original choice for Agnes Gooch, should've been playing Mame, not Ball. Luckily, Lucy's miscasting is balanced out by the terrific casting in the other roles, especially the hilarious Beatrice Arthur and Jane Connell recreating their stage roles as Vera Charles and Agnes, Joyce Van Patten as Sally Cato, and Robert Preston as dashing Beauregard Jackson Pickett Burnside. Worth a look for both its good and bad points, if you stumble across it on AMC in its letterboxed form.

Let's face it: seldom in Hollywood does anyone ever start out intending to make a bad movie - however, it's obvious that bad decisions can lead to bad movies. MAME is a perfect example. Even before Lucille Ball was cast in the title role, Warner Bros. had spent millions of dollars for the screen rights to MAME, which was considered a a pre-sold sure bet based on its track record: it had started as a bestselling novel, became a hit Broadway play and smash Warner Bros. movie (all in the 1950s) and had then become one of the 1960s biggest musical hits, at last making a full-fledged star out of Angela Lansbury. (On Broadway, at least.) Film versions of Broadway hits used to be highly anticipated by the movie-going public, but by the time the movie of MAME was in preparation, movie musicals had taken a nose-dive at the box-office, with rare exceptions like FUNNY GIRL and CABARET. Who can blame Warners for feeling that they had to hedge their bet with a box-office name? Despite her huge success as MAME, Lansbury had seldom been a lead actress in Hollywood, and it was felt that she wouldn't draw crowds. It so happened that, at the time, the most recognizable and beloved star in the world was Lucille Ball. Never mind that Lucy couldn't sing or dance - lots of people had griped about Audrey Hepburn being cast as Eliza Doolittle in Warners' 1964 film of MY FAIR LADY, but the film went on to win an armload of Oscars and was a box-office sensation - Lucy was known and recognized all over the world. Countless millions of people would crowd theaters to see her kick up her heels as Patrick Dennis's madcap aunt. Or so the brass at Warners thought. We all know the result. MAME was a mis-guided effort - it had some gorgeous costumes and sets, some very good performances and musical numbers, but its leading lady just wasn't suited to it, and MAME simply can't survive a leading lady who can't carry the show on her shoulders. The sad fact is that the 1974 movie of MAME may remain as the permanent record of the show. Many people have seen the movie versions of Broadway legends such as A CHORUS LINE, HELLO DOLLY! and MAME and wondered what all the fuss was about, why these shows ran and ran AND RAN, delighting audiences all over the world. And therein lies the great gulf between the stage and the screen - the stage is electric and ALIVE - when we saw these shows, we left the theater humming and walking, no, dancing on air. Will MAME have a chance to coax the blues out of the horn again on the big or small screen? Who knows - several recents attempts have all stalled. And, really, and truly, I don't see anyone out there who could play it. (OK - MAYBE Catherine Zeta-Jones - but despite her musical experience, and great success in CHICAGO, have you heard anything about another Catherine Zeta-Jones musical?)

Some good set design. Good songs, though like the other guy said they aren't performed with much energy. Bea Arthur, trying her damndest to do something with the material, had an occasional good one-liner as Mame's friend Vera and helped move the song "Bosom Buddies" along. Other than that, there's nothing here that's worth your time. Slow pacing, incredibly bad cinemetography, not very good singing (except from Robert Preston), an awful script, bad acting (except from Bea), and a horrible lead actress. Who thought Lucille Ball would be good as the classy, life-loving Mame? The heads over at Warner Bros. were no doubt on crack when they decided to not use Angela Lansbury, who had done it so well on Broadway, and instead use Ball, who wasn't nearly as funny by then as she was 20 years earlier, couldn't act the part "the right way" at all, and used a painful croak as an excuse for singing. Even if (perhaps because) making the movie was painful for her to make and even if she financed it, she just isn't Mame. Auntie Mame is such a better film and the soundtrack of the Broadway musical with Lansbury sounds great. For the most part, there's nothing here that's great, engaging, or interesting at all. Forget it, unless you're a huge Lucy fan who thinks she could do no wrong. Hopefully after seeing this you'll realize she was only human.

This is a terrible movie, and I'm not even sure why it's so terrible. It's ugly, for one, with that trendy 1970s visual style that maybe seemed like a good idea at the time but which now enables one to instantly recognize a film from that time period as being a 70s product. The film retains the story and songs that made the stage version of the musical such a hit, but the songs sound lifeless on screen. But mostly, the movie sucks because of the wan performance of Lucille Ball, who you'd think would be able to make something of this larger-than-life character if anyone could. She sleepwalks through the movie like a terrified actress choking on her opening night, and the film sinks with her. Even Bea Arthur, who I bet was hilarious in the best friend role onstage, can't breathe any life into this stinker. Avoid at all costs. Grade: D