Let's be realistic.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

I have always been a fan of the American musical, but never got hooked on Oklahoma! until I saw the 1999 version with Hugh Jackman. Performed as a stage-to-screen version of the West End production, almost every aspect of the performances are enhanced with simplicity, innocence, and pure talent. The standout performances are by Hugh Jackman (as Curly) and Shuler Hensley (as Jud). Jackman's voice is as pure and strong as his character is (produced before he became an international star, this is no bit of stunt-casting to bring in audiences), and Jackman brings more to the character of Curly than Gordan McRae did, in my opinion. His Curly is strong, handsome, and confident, but more fun-loving than McRae's, and he has a certain charm and vulnerability that has been lacking in most previous productions. He obviously loves Laurey from the beginning, and seems as aggravated with himself as she is at him for the fact that he can't seem to help teasing her. Words are hardly enough to express the brilliance of Hensley's take on the dark, brooding farmhand, Jud. In most productions I've seen, Jud may seem a little creepy at worst, until he snaps. Hensley, however, plays Jud as near-psychotic from the beginning, so that the threat seems very real when Curly confronts him ("Poor Jud is Dead") and when Laurey is alone with him. I am also thrilled that the song "Lonely Room" was included, as it not only shows off Hensley's hauntingly beautiful singing voice, but brings depth to Jud's character and story. I absolutely love the changes made to the traditionally prim and proper character of Laurey. It's always annoyed me that a young woman on the frontier has always been costumed in fresh, clean, floor-length gowns. The decision to play Laurey a little younger, in overalls and a ponytail, is more realistic, and I believe it makes Curly's attraction to her and their constant ribbing more realistic. This Laurey is spunkier, but with a vulnerable side, and it's refreshing. Like her male counterparts, Gabrielle delivers some beautiful singing, dancing, and acting. One of the things that impressed me most about the leading performers was that, unlike almost every other professional production, they perform the dream ballet sequence at the end of Act I themselves, instead of using stunt doubles, and they dance it well. The decision to use the actors we're familiar with instead of so-called lookalikes vastly improves the flow of the show. The supporting cast is wonderful as well, particularly Maureen Lipman and Vicki Simon as Aunt Eller and Ado Annie, respectively. I was particularly glad to see an expanded, more believable portrayal of Ali Hakim (Peter Polycarpou). The only dim light in the supporting cast is Sidney Livingstone as Andrew Carnes. For some reason, he apparently could not be bothered to develop the necessary regional accent, and delivers every one of his lines with a strong British accent that seems jarring. Overall, I think this is one of the best stage-to-screen versions of a musical I've ever seen. The close camera shots and simplicity of the sets and staging gives the sense that you're simultaneously watching a stage play and a movie. Very entertaining and a refreshing twist on the standard musical.

I have some trouble adapting to stage musicals when I see them on the stage. There's something about the fact that the audience is there for pure — absolutely pure — entertainment in the form of singing and dancing, and somehow need a narrative to make it palatable. Opera is even worse for me in this regard. Oh, I know that the narrative can set up the emotional context for a song, so that it can be more effective, but the whole construction seems to reflect some fundamental flaw in our makeup, like our affection for sugar.When a stage musical is filmed, the problem gets worse. Most of these simply take what works on stage and tries to recapture it using the same techniques and values. "Seven Brides" is my touchstone for this. The result is bunch of clumsy stagecraft that does not translate to cinema, combined with those radical shifts from the story to the songs. Usually the older shows have this problem, because the later ones though made for stage are informed by cinema.This avoids all that, by reimagining one of the old horses in a new mold. Apparently, it was quite an effort because the "Foundation" that has a stranglehold over how the material is used had to negotiate every nit. This idea that some survivors of an artist should benefit from something they had no hand in is vile enough; that they can smother its very artistic soul by legal means is worse.Anyway, what we have here is stage presentation reimagined for modern tastes. That means solving the integration of the songworld and the stageworld. The extras explain how this was nurtured, essentially by honing the show by forcing the actors to speak the lines. There's some clever thinking about the dances along the same lines.Then that is restaged for the camera. It pretends to be a performance in front of an audience, as shots from a real performance are spliced in. But the (valuable) extras reveal the rework to bring it to the camera. This is about as good as it gets unless we have something born out of the camera like Taymor has done.I came to this because "Australia" is sticking with me. I learned that Hugh Jackman (unknown to me) is famous for his musical stage presence. Even though this is quite old in this context, I searched it out and was rather amazed. He sings, he dances. He has presence. In fact, his presence is so strong, he gets away with being not excellent in those areas. Presence.That's what he brought to "Australia" that mattered; it seems to be indicative of the national character. The very same scope of presence as Wolverine grates, because it is a substitute. There is some considered colorwork here too.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

OKLAHOMA! opened on Broadway in 1943 and became a classic - not only because the Rodgers and Hammerstein score was so strong, but also because Agnes De Mille was brought in to introduce serious choreography to the Broadway stage. For the past 64 years this musical comedy/drama has been on the boards both professionally and in high schools, colleges and community theaters and always meets with audience acclaim. In 1999 Trevor Nunn reshaped the work, added choreography by Susan Stroman, beefed up the orchestrations, and re-staged the old warhorse in London and the result is an entirely fresh look and appreciation for an 'American classic'.Nunn opens the inner conflicts of the story and emphasizes some of the more minor characters, a move that adds to the dramatic flow of the work. Yet his biggest asset is the presence of Hugh Jackman as Curly, a handsome stage presence who also happens to possess a strong baritone singing voice and is an agile dancer. From the opening bars of 'Oh, what a beautiful morning' he has us in his back pocket. The remainder of the cast is strong, with special kudos to Maureen Lipman as Aunt Eller, a woman of such plainsman power that she holds the story together with ease. Josefina Gabrielle as Laurey is a fine dancer and has a supple if monochromatic voice and brings a different kind of life to her role. And for once the sinister Jud Fry becomes an understandable villain in the fine work by Shuler Hensley.For those who don't like audible applause from an audience during a show the technique of making the film appear like a live production will disturb. For this viewer seeing the British audience become involved in the response of this musical made it that much more fun. This is a very fine performance and film of an old American treasure. Grady Harp

I really enjoyed this movie,in fact I loved it. At first I wasn't to sure I would like this movie because I hadn't known it was a musical when I had pick it out. If I had to con-pair to a movie which of course would have to be another music movie. I would say it's pretty daron good compared to Sing In The Rain and with Gene Kelly. Wow.....Hugh Jackman can really sing and act....and all that. The story keep me interested and I want to see more and what was going to happen next....and if it would have a happy ending. I like movies with a happy endings. It did have a happy ending and it also had drama a romance which are both good for me in a movie. I would watch over and over again.