Debbie's hammy performance
-
scottsteaux63-735-780576 — 10 years ago(December 29, 2015 11:44 AM)
As someone else on this thread observed, "It's Debbie Reynolds; what did you expect?" Reynolds was always an energetic performer, and especially in musicals. Someone else also referenced Betty Hutton, who made up for unexceptional acting and singing ability with pure unadulterated gusto and as often as not got away with it. Reynolds herself was a very fine singer and dancer and both of these talents are on display here.
To me Reynolds's performance is one of the film's assets, not one of it's liabilities. And she presents a grand contrast to Harve Presnell, who I think deliberately played his part just a little bit stiff to give the impression of opposites attracting (and I had NO idea until I saw this movie what a GORGEOUS singing voice Presnell had!).
My only wish is that they hadn't butchered the score. Nearly half of the songs from the Broadway show were thrown out, and in my opinion that may well be why some people find this movie a bit draggy. What they are seeing are the gaps where musical numbers should have been.
Still a fun little movie and Reynolds and Presnell are sweet together.
Oh God. There's nothing more inconvenient than an old queen with a head cold! -
plannine-2 — 10 years ago(January 26, 2016 08:17 PM)
Opinions are what this board is about.
Singing in the Rain and Citizen Kane (best ever to many) hold up. Of course.
But this movie is example of MGM inability to see the cultural changes during a time when they kept putting out musicals that were better suited to the 40's.
Debbie screams and shouts and that is tough to watch. Good acting is about nuance, see Albert Finney in Two For The Road. Ok acting is about yelling and screaming and getting angry, see Richard Gear and Natalie Wood. -
ObsessedMovieLover — 14 years ago(August 20, 2011 04:51 PM)
I agree with you. It seems like a lot of people don't know what the word "outdated" actually means.
Who said all silent films are out of date? What, just because there's no dialogue?
Fritz Lang's Metropolis is still a magnificent film to watch that can be absolutely breathtaking in moments.
Charlie Chaplin is still funny. Debbie Reynolds is not.
Her performance here is terrible. I realize it was a different time but she plays the whole things on one note.
Not to mention the terrible job that the editors did at her lip syncing and the "incomprehensible yelling dialogue" dubbing.
Today it does play as a little hammy.
Singin in the Rain and Citizen Kane are both still wonderful pictures.
Molly Brown is weak in many aspects but one of the main ones is Debbie's performance.
And it's sad that this is her only oscar nom. She was so great in so many other films.
A better signature. -
parillamilt — 13 years ago(November 16, 2012 11:12 AM)
Another "basher" here Debbie's performance in this particular movie (not all her movies, just this one) was played with such unabashed gusto that it became unbearably irritating. I was thinking that stage plays usually call for this type of over the top-ism to project out into an audience, but in a movie where one can get within feet of the action, then it's a bit too much in your face.
The songs were forgettable and we were snickering at the hammy song performed by Harve Presnell when he was singing into an echoing valley and hugging the dead tree for all its worth. -
don-lockwood — 13 years ago(November 22, 2012 09:44 AM)
I saw this when it aired last week and enjoyed it very much. I could only give it a 7; it's uneven, the only memorable song is "I'll Never Say No," and, yes, it's often over-the-top. But Debbie Reynolds is the main reason to see this. It was the role of a lifetime for her, to show she could do it all - comedy, drama, singing, and dancing. She definitely played it too broad for some scenes; on the other hand, her presence and multidimensional talent often carried the film since it's more comedy than musical, and yet thin in plot.
-
launlori — 11 years ago(January 25, 2015 12:29 PM)
I can appreciate it for what it was in its day. It is very over the top .. Sappy. I watch Gone with the Wind at least once a year. It's dated but great. Ben Hur, GiGi, North by Northwest All dated. If you watch a lot of films from this period they are all very similar. Either you're into old movies or your not. Once you get a feel for a certain era you have the ability to see past the quirks of that time in Hollywood.
I'm not really into Musicals but I still watch them. -
-
zoltan42 — 9 years ago(June 11, 2016 01:09 PM)
I've always liked the film ever since I first saw it as a kid, and that wasn't too long after it came out. I still like it, and I generally like her performance.
The generally part is that, to me, there are times that her performance was more of that of someone on the stage, trying to fill the theater and reaching the people in the back of the theater. Yeah, it may be in keeping with the real Molly, but the shout of the lines seemed more what I'd expect on Broadway and not a movie.
So, yeah, it is a bit hammy, but not so much that it really hurts the movie.
As that great philosopher Bugs Bunny said, "Something tells me I shoulda stood in bed." -
pontevedro — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 06:26 PM)
I certainly wouldn't put this movie in my top 10 (or top 50) movie musicals, but Debbie Reynolds is playing the character as written. If it's broad and over the top, that's Molly Brown, not Debbie.
For me, the major flaw is that the music is unmemorable. That's a big reason why Sound of Music, My Fair Lady, Mary Poppins and West Side Story are enduring classics. It's why Molly Brown, Thoroughly Modern Millie, and Dr. Doolittle are not.