OllieSuave-007 This is Warmer Brothers' film version of composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's famous ballet, The Nutcracker, filmed at New York City.It tells the story of Marie, who dreams about her Nutcracker Prince. They journey to the Enchanted Forest after defeating the Mouse King. There, the Sugar Plum Fairy honors Marie and the Prince's presence by hosting them a number of dances - Spanish Dance, Arab Dance, Chinese Dance, Russian Dance, Dance of the Clowns and Waltz of the Flowers. These sequences are probably the highlight of the entire Nutcracker Ballet.The special and visual effects were great and the costumes were colorful. The film's coda was brilliantly done, with the neat carriage in midair and all the dancers coming out to dance in one extravaganza number.Tchaikovsky's music is rich and beautifully performed by the New York City Ballet Orchestra. While the adapted story line was interesting, the film in general starts off really slow, with too much focus on the children and their greedy personalities. The female lead, the girl named Marie, was a little too much in the zone - trying to act too prim, proper, and theatrical. The overall acting didn't do it for me - a little too overzealous and artificial.If I have to compare, I would choose MGM's 1986 Nutcracker: The Motion Picture over this one.Grade C+

TheLittleSongbird This 1993 Balanchine version is not as good as the 1985, 1989, 1994, 2001 and 2009 productions, all of which are just magical and entirely captivating. It is however superior to the self-indulgent Maurice Bejart, incoherent Mariinsky(the worst version) and dull 2012 Mariinsky productions. I found myself rather mixed on the whole on this version. There were things I didn't like, all of which have been said before. The sound effects really do distract from the music and quite frankly were not needed. The Nutcracker's make-up and costume looked ridiculous, I actually asked myself was there any particular reason for it to be this particular colour scheme? Macaulay Culkin is rather stiff as the Nutcracker(and I do agree he overdoes the smirking too much), and there is some overacting from Drosselmeyer. However, I did like the rest of the costumes,- well maybe except for Sugar Plum Fairy's tights- the production is well lit and the sets were enchanting. The photography was fine I thought, I highly doubt there'll be a Nutcracker production as poorly shot as the 2012 Mariinsky version. The effects are not the best I've seen but are serviceable. The music has a lot of tinkering but is still timeless and beautiful, typical Tchaikovsky really. It is lovingly performed by the orchestra and the tempos are well chosen. I do love the story, always have, and on the most part the production is faithful to the ballet, with some touches like Marie sneaking downstairs, falling asleep on the sofa and then dreaming of Nutcracker and Drosselmeyer. The choreography is outstanding, with Balanchine's musicality and style all over it, the standouts being the Soldier Doll, Snowflakes, Arabian and Waltz of the Flowers dances. Culkin aside, the dancing was exemplary complete with an impeccable Corps De Ballet. Overall, problematic but does have a number of things to warrant it a partial recommendation. 6/10 Bethany Cox

josh_mckenzie The Nutcracker has always been a somewhat problematic ballet. It bears little resemblance to ETA Hoffman's original story on which it is based.In the ballet, the story is essentially over by the second-half when Clara (or Marie in this version) travels to the Kingdom of Sweets to watch a series of character dances.There's an infinite variety of stage productions that re-interpret the story in myriad ways (not always successfully) to compensate for the ballet's weak libretto.Balanchine's version doesn't really have any sense of drama or story at all (despite the fact that there is plenty of drama and mystery in Tchaikovsky's wonderful first-act music). The result is a completely forgettable first-half Christmas party where hardly anything happens and where even the dancing (the little that there is of it) isn't particularly memorable.The pantomime over-acting, particularly of Drosselmeier, which might look passable on the stage, just looks silly filmed for the big screen.Unfortunately, things aren't much better when we get to the Kingdom of Sweets (Act II in the stage version). Although there are a few choreographic highlights, most of the choreography is bland and uninspiring. This certainly isn't vintage Balanchine.Balanchine is widely regarded as a master of abstract dance, but I have always felt he was less successful as a creator of narrative ballets. Watching this film version of his stage production of The Nutcracker has only re-affirmed this view.

Albert Sanchez Moreno Those who have given this production such a low rating probably have never seen the celebrated George Balanchine production live onstage, or are letting their disdain for the star casting of Macaulay Culkin influence their judgement. The Atlanta Ballet was fortunate enough, from the 1960's to the 1980's, to be the first ballet company authorized to stage this production other than the New York City Ballet, and I have seen it live onstage several times. I can assure readers that the film is a quite accurate rendering of this production, and that the use of a child with limited dancing abilities in the title role is not a cheap stunt dreamed up to showcase Culkin; it was Balanchine's idea to use a child in this role, just as it was his idea to use a child for the role of Marie. The "heavy" dancing is left to the adults in the story.This is deliberately a stagebound film; in a way, it resembles Laurence Olivier's "Othello". Exactly as in that film, the sets of the stage production have been enlarged to the size of a movie soundstage, but not made any less artificial, and the ballet is straightforwardly photographed with discreet closeups, and without the distracting "music video" quick cuts featured in the 1986 overrated Maurice Sendak-Carroll Ballard version. There are only two false steps in this 1993 film. One is the addition of distracting and completely unnecessary sound effects (mouse squeaks, the children whispering "Ma-gic!" to Drosselmeyer,etc.). Those sound effects are never heard in any stage production of any "Nutcracker", and they have been put in as a cheap concession simply to appease unsophisticated audiences who may not relish the idea of watching a ballet on film.The other false step is Macaulay Culkin's nutcracker make-up, which looks absolutely ridiculous. When he is on screen as the Nutcracker, rather than wearing a huge mask (as is always done when the Balanchine production is performed onstage), Culkin is actually made up as the toy - he wears what looks like a bald cap, as well as a white wig, whiskers, and a beard. He also has his face rouged up somewhat, and the worst aspect of his make-up is that it is still recognizably his face, amateurishly transformed in a manner similar to Ray Bolger, Jack Haley and Bert Lahr's makeups in "The Wizard of Oz" (that film's makeup results though, worked spectacularly, as this one's does not). And a comparison with Baryshnikov's nutcracker in *his* production shows how wonderfully creative Baryshnikov's nutcracker mask was - the "jaws" actually seemed to move whenever Baryshnikov tilted his head back.The dancing itself in the Macaulay Culkin version is excellent, of course, except for Culkin himself, whose dancing, as I said, isn't meant to even be spectacular. (The Sugar Plum Fairy and her Cavalier are the prominent dancing roles in Balanchine's production of "The Nutcracker".) The film's colors, though, could be a bit brighter since this IS a fantasy. The choreography is also brilliant, and the adaptation of it is so faithful as to include the sequence that features additional music from Tchaikovsky's ballet "The Sleeping Beauty" - as Marie sneaks downstairs, falls asleep on the sofa, and dreams that Drosselmeyer is "repairing" the broken Nutcracker (this sequence was, of course, never included in Tchaikovsky's original ballet---it is the only sequence in this production which features music from a work other than "The Nutcracker").Those who have missed out on this film, or those who despise (or loathe it) should give it a chance, despite its two big drawbacks. It is far better than it seems when one first hears that Culkin is in it.