'Lost in the Stars' is notable for it being one of only two musicals in the American Film Theatre series, which was my main reason for watching. The other being 'Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris'. The musical itself is worth getting to know and should be better known in my view, the title song particularly is wonderful and the story based on 'Cry the Beloved Country' is poignant. Brock Peters was always worth watching as well and will always be missed.
The film also is worth watching. While it is not one of the very best of the American Film Theatre series, it to me is in the better half and deserving of more credit. Between this and 'Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris', 'Lost in the Stars' is infinitely better. Actually being good, the other getting my vote for the worst film in the series. Is 'Lost in the Stars' perfect? No it isn't. Is it bad? Not in my book it isn't, as has already been indicated a couple of sentences ago.
Here and there there are dull patches when the story is thinner. The action could have been opened up more and been more expansive, but other films in the series were far worse at being guilty of this.
Did feel that the omission of the reconciliation scene was a big mistake, that's a crucial scene and searing in its emotion. Its omission made the ending stages feel anti-climactic and anaemic.
On the other hand, there is a lot to like about 'Lost in the Stars'. It is a lovely and professional looking film, with the photography not looking too simple while not being overblown and it doesn't feel too claustrophobic. The music is very good, with "Lost in the Stars" being wonderful and very powerfully performed.
Script is sincere while not taking itself too seriously, while the story has lost none of its poignancy despite the aforementioned omission. While it is more than competently directed and the actors all portraying their roles without any questionable decisions, the reason to see 'Lost in the Stars' is Peters. Whose performance is superb and intensely moving.
Good on the whole and underseen. 7/10.
The film also is worth watching. While it is not one of the very best of the American Film Theatre series, it to me is in the better half and deserving of more credit. Between this and 'Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris', 'Lost in the Stars' is infinitely better. Actually being good, the other getting my vote for the worst film in the series. Is 'Lost in the Stars' perfect? No it isn't. Is it bad? Not in my book it isn't, as has already been indicated a couple of sentences ago.
Here and there there are dull patches when the story is thinner. The action could have been opened up more and been more expansive, but other films in the series were far worse at being guilty of this.
Did feel that the omission of the reconciliation scene was a big mistake, that's a crucial scene and searing in its emotion. Its omission made the ending stages feel anti-climactic and anaemic.
On the other hand, there is a lot to like about 'Lost in the Stars'. It is a lovely and professional looking film, with the photography not looking too simple while not being overblown and it doesn't feel too claustrophobic. The music is very good, with "Lost in the Stars" being wonderful and very powerfully performed.
Script is sincere while not taking itself too seriously, while the story has lost none of its poignancy despite the aforementioned omission. While it is more than competently directed and the actors all portraying their roles without any questionable decisions, the reason to see 'Lost in the Stars' is Peters. Whose performance is superb and intensely moving.
Good on the whole and underseen. 7/10.