bbmtwist Seeing this for the first time since its original release fifty years ago, I can gain perspective and see what holds up and what doesn't. So I want to concentrate on what is excellent and then look at what fails.First off, the choreography by Gillian Lynne is extraordinary - there are six dances associated with six of the songs and the dancing is some of the best ever filmed, yet who has ever heard of Gillian Lynne??? And why not??? Second, there's Grover Dale as lead dancer, and is he ever fine!!!! Wish we had more of his work on film, but sadly for posterity he was devoted to the stage and made few films.Third, the songs - the good ones - are all from the original show and there are five of them - All In The Cause of Economy, Half A Sixpence, Money To Burn, If The Rain's Got To Fall, Flash! Bang! Wallop!There are eight others, three of them new for the film (I Don't Believe A Word of It; The Race Is On; This Is My World) and they are negligible. Five remaining flop badly: Long Ago; I'm Not Talking To You; She's Too Far Above Me; A Proper Gentleman; I Know What I am.Now to the problems: Primarily Tommy Steele is an acquired taste. The Brits adore him, from rock star to song and dance man. He is a bit over the top - enough energy to light the entire electric world grid, and a smile with piano teeth that can be off-putting at times. Face it, he is quite homely, bordering on the ugly, but so sincere, and trying so hard to be entertaining, we must forgive him for his excesses. Then there is Julia Foster's Ann, a cruel, selfish, self- centered bitch we are supposed to care about. No, sorry - bad writing and acting there.The musical at 147 minutes, timed from the DVD release, is unforgivable in one instance: it is dull, dull, dull beyond belief. The libretto is tres boring, the plot is limp, the one conceit seeming to be "don't try to rise above your station in life." Don't tell that to Eliza Dolittle, please!The libretto condescends, but it does keep the British Upper Lip solidly in place! Nasty, that!The DVD release in widescreen has not been "restored" digitally, so it looks fuzzy and out of focus. Someone didn't want to spend the money to give it a proper refurbishing.I am keeping it for the half dozen brilliant song/dance numbers and will simply use the chapter feature to show these off to friends. They watch the entire film after that at their own risk.

dglink "Half a Sixpence" was a product of the age of big budget musicals that began with the success of "The Sound of Music" and died when such clunkers as "Mame" and "Man of La Mancha" appeared. As such, the film both benefited and suffered. The benefits were a generous budget that is apparent on screen in the period costumes and sets, the lush photography of the English countryside, and the large cast. Just renting all the antique cars as background for one short scene must have cost a fortune. However, the film also suffered as it was lost in the glut of these big budget musicals, which were often mediocre, and its star, Tommy Steele, did not have the name or the charisma to carry it alone as the cast is largely unknown. The film also suffered from the obligatory over-length and intermission, which were required at the time in order to justify reserved seat engagements for these "event" films. The movie has been seldom seen, at least in the U.S., which is unfortunate because "Half a Sixpence" is a lively family film with a tuneful score, energetic choreography, and an engaging cast. Also, director George Sidney is a veteran of MGM musicals, and he knows how to stage a number. True, the story of how boorish, snotty, and unhappy the rich are, while the poor are fun loving, generous, and content with their lot, has been done to death (see "Titanic"). However, the film's assets lie where a musical's assets should be: in the songs, the dancing, and the performers. On those counts, the film is a winner.

rube2424 HALF A SIXPENCE on the London stage was good. When it came to Broadway,trimmed and faster paced, it was better. The film, therefore, was keenlyanticipated by anyone, myself included, who loved one or both versionsof the play. What a disappointment. Bloated and overlong with new andinferior orchestrations and arraingments, the film loses all the charmthat made the musical so delightful. Filters are used for no purpose (ala Josh Logan with SOUTH PACIFIC), lyrics are dumbed down to inanity,cameras are moved in and out for no reason and dance numbers areunimaginative and fall flat! The only saving grace of this mess is thedelightful Tommy Steele who starred on stage and brings his charm andcharisma to the big screen. Without him, HALF A SIXPENCE would be adisaster; with him it is simply a dreary mis-fire at the end of thegolden age of musical films.....

MonkeesBeatles4 I remember seeing this movie alot when I was little. They used to show on Tv here in NY in the late 60s and early 70s. I think the first time I first saw it was like in 67 or 68 I was like 5 or 6. The music is great most of the numbers are uplifting and Tommy Steel delivers them wondefully and so does the rest of the cast, especially the the ones with all the dancing like when they sing Money to Burn and Flash Bang Whallop. The one thing I didn't like about this movie was it had a great storyline that should of been developed stronger. The whole thing about the love between Artie and Ann and how it was almost destroyed because of new found wealth and the way it changed him and caused a rift between them and also between him and the boys he worked with could of been emphasized a little stronger. Other than that this movie is a gem, a wonderful, romping musical that you can watch with your whole family because theres's no excessive violence, sex or crude humor o