Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

hannahma57 I confess I haven't seen this flick but it got a Gold Turkey Award from the National Lampoon's terrific book of the same name, calling this movie one of the worst ever made. S.J.Perelman once dismissed a silent version of The Admirable Crichton with the phrase, "I won't bother with the plot, which was paltry, or the acting, which was aboriginal" and the Lampoon was pretty similar. They quoted Cicely Tyson as complaining that Russian cinematographer didn't know how to light black actors, so her face simply disappeared into the shadows. They concluded that Maeterlinck's famous tale was unfilmable and that all the movie versions were awful. I look forward to seeing this gobbler someday.

johnstonjames i love fairy tales, folk lore and children's literature, but let's get real. most of it is more than likely going to mess up your noggin. even Disney couldn't really homogenize much of traditional folk lore or stories. a lot is spooky or disturbing. most all of it is lost and bogged in archetypal imagery and all Disney helps to do is glamorize it to a facile and surreal perspective. it's pretty hard to keep a lid on the unconsciousness of most of the stuff. children's stories are almost inherently queerish and odd. but i suppose no more convoluted by the mess that teenagers and adults create for themselves with comic book super heroes or violent action plays. people just get naturally kind of weird when they let their imaginations go and entertain with stories. fine. as long as the recipient can handle the complexity or possible idiosyncrasy of it's thought processing.'The Bluebird' is one of my favorite fairy stories and folk lore legends because it is the most realistic message conveyed. by almost any story really. simply put. spiritual journeys are often found from within and cannot always be obtained in a physical sense. and you should often question what your basic concept and definition of happiness pertains. sort of like "click click there's no place like home", but a little less literal and concrete than that.i really love Disney films. but more often than not, Disney's concept of happiness is dumbfoundingly literal and concrete. Disney was a strong willed, ambitious shaker and mover who evidenced happiness much in physical pursuit and proclaimed his fantasy kingdom "the happiest place on earth". well, Disneyland IS a happy place, but i'm not sure that isn't a flat out statement that will confuse and distract you from true happiness rather than help you understand what happiness means to you. wherever you go, you are responsible mostly for your happiness. and searching for it in a certain place is futile and childish. not that a little change of scenery once in a while doesn't help, i just don't think you always need the keys to a earthly kingdom to be happy. love Walter E, but he doesn't know everything.often Disney films make for much better cinema than this joint Euro-Russian production. even the Shirley Temple version is probably better cinematically. but this is a good production, if not somewhat overblown a bit, but not so much as to loose the important directions of the original story. Elizabeth Taylor gives a very sweet performance here. "sweet" was something she really hadn't done since 'National Velvet' or 'Father of the Bride'.i don't think it's really the cinema that so many find hard to accept here. certainly people like and accept a lot of junky, horrid, commercial tripe and stuff. i think it's the message here of no guarantee. like the fairy of the tale that informs, "many have gone looking for the bluebird, but few have found it." i suppose if Disneyland had a motto of that kind of uncertainty, Disney probably could'not have sold annual passes.

moonspinner55 This musical version of "The Blue Bird" is highly reminiscent of those awful, English-dubbed "Pippi Longstocking" movies from Sweden, where everyone is manic, grinning, out of step and out of tune. The same clueless qualities are on display here, only this picture was directed by George "My Fair Lady" Cukor and co-stars Elizabeth Taylor, Ava Gardner, Cicely Tyson and Jane Fonda! Filmed in Russia (with the assistance of a Russian crew and Russian rubles), it's a remake of the Shirley Temple chestnut from 1940, adapted from the play by Maurice Maeterlinck, and literally defies explanation. Amateurish--and yet fascinatingly so--the movie is heavier than bricks and is never seamless; it feels patched together by a child's hands. I remember watching this on HBO many years ago several times, always in stunned, mind-numbing shock. Taylor (in four roles!) goofs around a little and she's fun to watch, Fonda has a pithy few seconds as Night, and Robert Morley is energetic without camping it up as Father Time; everyone else is out to sea. Forgettable, needless songs by Irwin Kostal and Andrei Petrov. Connoisseurs of bad cinema should feast on this for ages. Hey, terrible flicks can be fun, too. ** from ****

Glenn Andreiev The first co-production between USSR and Hollywood would have to be this strange kiddie film that is so icky sweet, it makes "Barney" look like "Penthouse Forum" in comparison! Some kids meet up with their fairy Godmother (Elizabeth Taylor dressed like a Mafia wife gone insane). With a wave of her magic wand, household pets, and inanimate objects come to life. The most disgusting has to be what happens to a pitcher of milk! It turns into a ballerina. To remind audiences of its milk origins, whenever the ballerina dances, we hear milk splash in a pitcher. It sounds as if the poor ballerina has a stomach disorder! The story goes that the production of this film was very rough. It went on forever. Jane Fonda supposedly kept on pestering the Russian workers, and it became an expensive mess.