User Reviews

The opening scenes of Irwin Winkler's "De-Lovely" are hardly promising: Kevin Kline--in old man's makeup--playing songwriter Cole Porter, being led somewhat reluctantly by a friendly guide through his colorful, extravagant life filled with friends, lovers, and his longtime wife and supporter, Linda (it smacks a bit of Dickens). Still, director Winkler and screenwriter Jay Cocks are able to tell Porter's story in a fluid and interesting fashion, starting about the time he met Linda, the most beautiful divorcée in Paris, in 1919. The musical numbers are interjected subtly--they're either part of a show or rehearsal, a nightclub performance, or a fantasy-twist on the scene in question--giving this biography an aural and visual kick. Kline and Ashley Judd manage to create a very nice rapport as husband and wife, she with failing health and he busy consummating affairs with other men. Their loyalty in friendship is tastefully handled. In fact, the whole movie is tasteful, and this is both pro and con. Porter's homosexuality is pussyfooted around in a playful manner (so as not to discourage heterosexual audiences), yet his fickle sexual nature is only reflected in Linda's ever-increasing dismay. Imagine this picture as directed by someone like Bob Fosse, who may have envisioned Porter's more decadent side with some grit. "De-Lovely" slides on and off the screen, with a blackmail subplot brought up and then forgotten about. It will no doubt charm those in the mood for a non-think, sweetly sentimental tale, though the finale is reminiscent of Fosse's "All That Jazz", and the collection of modern singers (Robbie Williams, Elvis Costello, Sheryl Cow, et al.) give the film an anachronistic bend which seems purely and inexplicably intentional. **1/2 from ****

Seeing De-Lovely is like being handed a great-looking Christmas present, and then finding the box holds socks. A let-down. At least it was considerably more honest about Porter's married and sex lives (they weren't the same) than the grotesque Night and Day. On the plus side was Porter's songs, lots of them, and performed well by singers like Elvis Costello and Sheryl Crow, who don't come to mind as Porter specialists. And there is the job by Kevin Kline, one of the most skilled and likable actors around. Ashley Judd did, I thought, a good job in a fairly thankless role.

But, oh, how strange the change from major to minor. The movie, to me, seemed leaden, with the direction heavy footed. Almost every meaningful moment that arose was underlined by an obvious song, or lighting, or staging. The framing device with Jonathan Pryce didn't work for me; it was too much "and then you did" kind of a thing. And I couldn't make up my mind if they were trying to make the old Porter look like Rod Steiger or Carl Reiner.

Then there is the matter of Porter's personality. Even his most complimentary biographers allow that he was a superficial, condescending social snob. He was witty and charming with those he considered his equals in "society" and those with whom he worked in the theater. But he thought nothing of humiliating or being publicly rude to those he thought didn't meet his social standards. At any rate, the personal angst of the rich and famous have never touched me deeply...even when J Lo and Ben broke up.

I give the movie high marks for Kline, the songs and the star performers. But I thought the rest of it was too heavy handed.

(If you're interested in seeing a top notch musical biography, check out Topsy-Turvy. It costars Allan Corduner, who plays Monty Wooley in this film, as the Sullivan half of Gilbert and Sullivan.)

This was okay. I meen it was far too long but it was good look on an era where certain things in society had to be hid away.

it was good to see Kevin Kline do a good performance of Cole Porter, sure the musical moments are brinking on embarrassing at times but he is a damn fine actor

The best performance though was by Ashley Judd playing Linda Porter by a mile.

I felt Jonathan Pryce's Gabe character was frankly stupid as did we really need to the Angel show him his life? No.

The support cast that includes a lot of okay performances of Porter's songs.

Not for the MTV Generation.

As a biography, De-Lovely is not historically accurate, but as drama and a tribute to Cole Porter, a prodigious talent in musical theater, it is sublime. Kevin Kline is perfectly cast in spirit as the songwriter extraordinaire who stormed Broadway as Hollywood beckoned. His marriage to Linda Porter (a terrific Ashley Judd) is a relationship of lasting love fraught with infidelity and heartbreak in which Porter is portrayed as an insatiable artist whose homoerotic dalliances were legend. The timeline spans the 1920's through the 1950's. This is not so much a simple biopic but, rather, an interesting depiction of Porter's constant struggle to find happiness in love and life and it proves to be an addictive intoxication. As his accepting and understanding wife grows increasingly frustrated with his lies and deception amid his growing list of male suitors, Porter's life and health begin to unravel.

Serving as a framework for the life events is a curious narration of sorts by an aged Porter and a mysterious host/angel (a nice theatrical turn by Jonathan Pryce). This bracketing narration is reminiscent of A Christmas Carol, and there are striking similarities to the classic All That Jazz in narrative and tone. The main story is told in a series of mini-vignettes; some scenes are almost too brief. Then there are the songs. It is truly phenomenal just how many wonderful Porter songs became standards. The recreations of many of his top hits are interspersed throughout the film and are performed often by top vocalists including some amusing cameos by Elvis Costello, Diana Krall, Alanis Morissette, and Natalie Cole. The songs serve to parallel and punctuate the life events throughout the story in much the same way paintings served as a co-narrative in Frieda.

Although production values are good for a period and location piece, it feels a little less grand in scope than it ought to be. Perhaps that works in the films favor as a more intimate story. Standout credit goes to the makeup effects especially showing the aging of Kevin Kline's character. The camera work and editing are imaginative especially in a series of circular tracking shots which seamlessly meld one timeframe with another. The music is timeless and enjoyable even when sung in pedestrian fashion by Kline. And regarding Kline, he deserves an Oscar nomination for a richly etched portrait of a tortured soul whose search for true love spanned his entire life. Perhaps in the hands of Bob Fosse or Baz Luhrmann, this could have really launched into a wildly imaginative send-off of a musical genius, but director Irwin Winkler (a respected producer turned director like Alan Pakula) has done Cole Porter proud.

The rarest of all birds, a serious musical. Presenting a not-always accurate look at the relationship between Cole Porter, his wife and muse Linda Lee Porter (who was actually older than him unlike Ashley Judd who is visibly younger than Kevin Kline portraying Porter) this is a great ride through some of the gems of the Great American Song Book, through musical vignettes that explore the background behind the music.

I was impressed by the obviously late-middle aged Kline portraying Porter as a younger man than Kline very evidently was. IT was a movie - right, details like that don't matter. He's great at it too. Will probably get at least ONE nomination.

The film weaves a complex thread between Cole's life, loves and music, the songs executed by Kevin Kline and a star studded cast of Jazz and pop performers - If you're into these contemporary singers - Elvis Costello, Alanis Morrisette, Sheryl Crow, Diana Krall, etc then sight recognition of the singers will all be part of the fun. I must confess I didn't recognize most.

There were also some costume and props blunders, but it was overall a better than average offering, even though I had to wrestle with self-discipline not to make smart aleck comments during the screening.

For instance the same stripy top worn by a principal character in two diverse scenes, and some obvious second hand crap rhinestones thrown in with finery but just looking dowdy and wrong, no way to they hold up next to Ashley Judd's mikimoto pearls...

It was lush and vivid though, and I really enjoyed the way time was telescoped during the passage of verses in the songs. It is a beautiful film, and not at all uneven -- which is most unusual by today's standards, all together very fluid and very expressive. Also: NO CGI.

This is an old fashioned full throttle silver screen 3 hanky picture.

For me especially, it was very meaningful, as in my own life I lived the experience of a very similar relationship to that of Linda and Cole's for better than a decade, so I have first-hand insight into their story. Beyond the music and the history portrayed, I bow down to the deft hand of Jay Cocks being able to do such exquisite justice to their complex relationship - so easily misunderstood or demeaned.

Neither I nor my friends knew much of anything about Cole Porter beyond the legacy of his music, so the experience of exploring his music against the backdrop of his lifetime was powerful. More than just another film, one has the sense of having been through something magic and amazing, which is really what movie-going should be.

Not sure how it's going to play in Peoria though. This will probably be a critical favorite, the soundtrack will do great, and in limited release, will become a cult classic.

This biography soars toward the Academy Awards on the backs of its producer, director and actors. Kevin Kline proves you don't have to look like the "Real Person" to bring his spirit to life and Ashley Judd (contrary to some unfair and plain wrong reviews) gives us a strong Linda Porter, a complex and vulnerable Linda Porter who, as is usually the case, finally succumbs to her life choices with an uncommon grace and courage.

Those people in the audience who had no idea about Mr. Porter's sexual preference, oh'd and ah'd in the beginning. Then they learned that all the talent in the world, all the money in the world, all the joyous hedonism of youth in the world - all of it falls in upon itself as age overcomes and destroys the arrogance of youth.

Irwin Winkler has given us an unflinching portrait of an unusually talented man, an unusual life, and a painful end to that life.

My palms were ice cold and I felt drained as this film concluded - not because it failed as a project, but because it succeeded so well.

DE-LOVELY is not an easy movie but it is a brilliant one.

I am 50 years old, and have been a professional musician most of my life. Cole porter's heyday was long before I was around, but I was instantly attracted to his music in my youth, and that love for his compositions has never ceased.

I know many here are bad mouthing the movie "De-Lovely", and they shouldn't be. There are so many unwatchable, ridiculously bad movies being released nowadays, that De-lovely looks like Gone with the Wind compared to many of them. We have several generations of young people that do not have the benefit of the diverse media many of us older people had when we were young. Back when radio and television use to thrived on diversity. They are now totally market driven toward youth, and offer little diversity. The re-birth of the musical these past few years, is introducing youth to a quality of art that most were not even aware existed. The influence movies like De-Lovely could have on young artist should not be under-estimated. I remember many musicals in my youth that greatly influenced my future career as a musician.

I found De-Lovely to be a delightful movie. I found both Kline and Judd to be excellent in their roles. While the story has taken some lead way with the facts, they got the majority of important points across, and with a lot of style in my opinion. The makers of this movie had to do a balancing act between biography and entertainment. Between telling the story of Porter's life, and paying tribute to his incredible talent as a song writer. I left the movie theater feeling upbeat and inspired. That told me they balanced the two very well.

While I might of chosen a few different singers to sing Porter's songs in the movie, I realize that using known, modern singers helps get youth into the theater, and that's important. The artist they choose to sing Porter's music in the movie, did a wonderful job. While some renditions are a little too modernized, any influence his music has on today's youth is a good thing. Our young people need to know that real works of art take skill, training, talent, and time. Much of todays music is aimed toward an audience with a very short attention span, wanting instant gratification, and to counter that with the music of Cole Porter is a wonderful gift to an entire generation.

This movie works on so many levels. The music, the period, the love affair, and the pain. The story is about Porter looking back at his life during his last moments on earth, he sees it as a theatrical production. Because of this, the songs are not all in chronological order. A few of the songs were placed out of sequence to fit the story line. This idea works splendidly, and it is beyond me why some reviewers seemed to miss this concept completely, and thought the writers messed up. The truth is we really don't know that much about Cole porter. He was not fond of the press, and the relationship between his wife Linda and him was very private. We do know Cole was gay, but loved Linda deeply his entire life. The movie raises more questions than it answers, as it should. Cole was a complicated person, and lived a complicated life. This is movie making at it's best, folks. I recommend this movie highly. I hope Hollywood keeps the musicals coming. It's about time.

Overall I enjoyed this flick. Perhaps this is because I knew very little about Cole Porter and so had no real reference point for the story, although I've often enjoyed hearing his songs.

Kevin Kline, an actor I don't usually care for, steals the show, and Ashley Judd is an able and most photogenic foil. The approach is inventive, the sets great, and the dialogue witty and perceptive.

A minor quibble - I agree that the presence of African-Americans in the chorus lines is anachronistic and jarring. It re-writes history with a vision of what we'd like to think was the situation rather than what really was, and by misleading audience members who quite possibly will know no better, does no service at all to the anti-racist cause.

A more serious flaw, though, is in the just-plain-inadequate performances of many of the songs, most notably an appallingly bad, tuneless rendition of "Begin the Beguine" by one Sheryl Crowe. What were the makers thinking of to allow such a travesty to escape the cutting-room floor? Are they all tone-deaf? I saw the film with someone who had never before heard the song, and no doubt like many other audience members she still has no idea how good it is. An unforgivable crime against good taste, in my book. And the less said about Elvis Costello the better, too.

The ending dragged, and the film would have benefited by having 10-15 minutes pruned from it. Either that, or replaced by (as pleaded for by the fictional Porter) one or two more numbers from "Kiss Me Kate". I'd have loved to see "Brush Up Your Shakespeare", for example, including the lines excised from the 1950s film (e.g. "If she says your behavior is heinous/Kick her right in the Coriol-anus...") Despite these reservations I enjoyed 90% of "De-lovely", and that's good enough for a 7/10.

...I did not have "Night and Day" as a comparison. I loved "Night And Day" starring Cary Grant because it focused on the marvelous music of Cole Porter and that is why I enjoy watching Night And Day whenever it's on Turner Classic Movies.

I was very disappointed with De-Lovely, which I had eagerly anticipated seeing because of Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd in the leads. However, although Porter's homosexuality was included in the film, it seemed to permeate the entire film as if this was all that mattered. His wonderful music took a back seat and that ruined the movie for me. Cole Porter was a truly amazing composer and De-Lovely seemed to totally forget about that, whereas Night And Day did not.

If I see De-Lovely scheduled on TV, I avoid it because of the lack of emphasis on the genius of Cole Porter. Cole Porter's homosexuality was part of him as an individual but it is his amazing music which is what made Mr. Porter so important. I don't believe anyone - not even the great John Lennon - wrote lyrics more clever than those that Porter came up with.

I generally hate biographical films and musicals, but this biographical musical is one I really liked. From the beginning with Gabriel (I always love Johnathan Pryce - I never got over "Brazil") and the old Cole Porter together in the empty theatre, I was sold on the film. Sometimes flashbacks annoy me. In this case, the interaction (one-sided, but still there) between the old Cole Porter and his past made the transition to his life magical and fun. It didn't feel like a biographical view of his life.

From the opening scene in the theatre, it just got better as it went along. Kevin Kline's portrayal of Cole Porter was rich and nuanced. He seemed to be truly in love with Linda, yet he still had his other side. Ashley Judd as Linda seemed perfect. When the old Cole Porter sees her again, he says, "My god, she was lovely!" and she was. I identified enough with her and with Kevin Kline that I was saddened by her death in the movie. They sold me on their characters. I ended up feeling empathy for Linda; the lovely, lovable and steadfast; and respect and admiration for the Cole Porter figure.

But, what made the movie fly for me was the music (go figure!). It was Cole Porter, release 1.1. A bunch of his great songs were re-arranged and presented by modern singers - all the way from jazz (Diane Krall) to varieties of pop (Elvis Costello). Each of the singers brought a new feel to the Cole Porter songs and really made the movie a pleasure.

When my wife and I finished the movie on the DVD we spent another hour watching all the special features. We both hated to see the movie end. We just wanted it to go on and on. Like the beat, beat, beat of the tom-tom.........

"De-Lovely" is a musical biography of Cole Porter, a GREAT American composer.

The opening scene is one of those scenes that is so good that it, alone, is worth seeing the movie for.

A darkened, high-rise apartment. Suddenly, one can see a man at a piano, in silhouette. Then, the photograph of a woman. Then, a desk with papers on it. Then, the smoke from a cigarette.

The man at the piano is Kevin Kline as an aged, alone, Cole Porter. Jonathan Pryce, as the angel Gabriel in a business suit, walks in. They say that at the moment of death our life flashes in front of our eyes. This being Cole Porter, his life flashes before his eyes as a musical.

Some viewers become upset with these kinds of games with narrative. I liked it. For the most part, the movie proceeds in chronological order. Every now and then, though, Gabe / Pryce and Kline / Porter lean in and comment on the action.

I think even viewers who don't like experiments in narrative could just ignore those few moments where Gabe and Porter comment on what is happening.

"De-Lovely"'s production values are very high. Porter and his wife, Linda, were very rich and fortunate people who lived fabulous lives. That's all on screen. You see the rich apparel, the sumptuous estates, the wild parties, even a tastefully done whorehouse where Natalie Cole sings "Love for Sale." A couple of the musical numbers were misconceived. Sheryl Crow does a great job with "Are You Strong Enough to be My Man," but here she sings "Begin the Beguine," and she doesn't have what it takes to put it across.

Diana Krall can knock a Cole Porter song out of the park, and she appears here, but the camera cuts away from her performance, and then shows her nibbling on Louis B. Mayer's ear, a completely pointless and insulting scene.

What didn't work so well for this viewer was what the movie was trying to say -- what WAS the movie trying to say? -- about Cole Porter's marriage to Linda Lee.

Cole Porter was gay. Linda Lee is depicted as loving him, and tolerating his homosexual affairs as part of her love for him.

Porter, for his part, is shown as feeling the only real love he feels in the movie for Linda Lee, to whom he sings his most poignant songs. His sexual activity with men is shown as rather cheap. He makes false promises to a dancer he only has sex with, and does not spend any time in the daytime with; he pays for sex with prostitutes, and also pays to keep that activity hushed up.

This handling of Cole and Linda Porter's sexual and romantic lives never worked for me on a deep level. Gay men can and do fall in love with other gay men; homosexuality is not just about isolated sex acts.

Also, it was never clear to me why Linda wanted to stay married to a man who the film depicted as frustrating and even humiliating her.

Obviously, there was something there. By all accounts, Cole and Linda Porter enjoyed a strong and lasting bond.

This film, though, did not offer me moments of insight where I could really understand what that bond consisted of.

Cole and Linda Porter, one commentator wrote, were great friends. That could have been a believable narrative, but that's not what the movie depicts. The movie depicts deeper, frustrated passions, the kind of frustrated passions that can erode a friendship. How did Cole and Linda Porter stay together for so long, given what this movie says about their relationship? That disappointment did not ruin the movie for me. Kevin Kline is wonderful here, and Ashley Judd is charming, and the film's evocation of a creative genius who lived a jet set life during exciting times was fun.

The device of using a mystical figure showing Cole Porter a retrospect of his life is just too stagey for a movie. Plus it's been done so many times before that it's trite.

The story line omits the struggle that Porter endured when he began composing professionally, when his melodies and lyrics were too original and too sophisticated for the public at the time.

For anyone who knows Porter's biography, you'll see how highly fictionalized this film is. In today's world, when the unvarnished truth about a person's life can be told, why must this film hold back? Why must dates, events, people and places be altered? Porter didn't "swing both ways". He was a ravenous homosexual. The story line of the Porters devotion to each other was pure hogwash. She was his willing beard at a time when a man needed a female escort for appearances. Obviously the, filmmakers felt that Porter's life had to be sanitized for the public.

It irks me to see songs taken out of chronological order and out of the context of the shows for which they were written. Two examples: at the beginning of the film, Porter is singing "Well Did You Evah?" as though the song were written in the 1920s, when it was composed much later; and singing "You'd Be So Easy To Love" to Linda in a Paris park, when that song was written for the film "Born To Dance" (1935), many years later.

The casting is wrong. As much as I like Kevin Kline, a 57-year-old actor (at the time) playing a 25 or 35-year-old Porter is just unbelievable. There is no amount of make-up that could make Kline look 25 or 35, or hide his sagging 50-ish jowls and neck. Furthermore, Porter was a small man and Kline is reputedly 6'2". This is like having Tom Selleck portray Danny DeVito.

Maybe someday someone will make a true biographical film about Cole Porter.

As I think of the many dimensions documentaries have taken recently, from the ersatz 'Fahrenheit' to the authentic 'Metallica,' I am pleased to report the biopic remains whole, with Irwin Winkler's ('Life as a House') 'De-Lovely,' the life in song about Cole Porter and his wife, Linda.

I say 'in song' because barely a moment in not accompanied by Porter's music so recognizable I can cite 'Night and Day,' 'In the Still of the Night,' 'Anything Goes,' 'Let's Misbehave,' and 'True Love' without research help or the least provocation. Kevin Kline plays Porter with 1920's tuxedoed charm embracing the true love of his life, Linda, and the many men who helped him fulfill his need to love everything. Kline's refusal to lip-synch or take singing lessons effectively evokes the voice-challenged Porter and the passionate melancholy of a composer who lived for love.

The difference between this version and the 1946 Cary Grant 'Night and Day' is in the hidden homosexuality of the latter and the overt acceptance in the former. Winkler recreates the moment when Linda acknowledges, accepts, and romanticizes Porter's alternative life. About men she affirms, 'You like them more than I do. Nothing is cruel if it fulfills your promise.' This is fine writing by Jay Cocks ('Age of Innocence') and is her love expressed on a plane only Plato could fully appreciate.

Thus Linda defines a story about love as music, a story attempted in 'Evita' and 'Frida' but never so well expressed as in 'De-Lovely.' Although 'Frida' parallels Frida Kahlo's artful life in her paintings, 'De-Lovely' so arranges Porter's music as to suggest each piece was written for that moment in his life. Judd's portrayal relies on her porcelain beauty, wry smile, and serene wisdom in the service of an unconditional love that cost Linda in embarrassment, extorted money, and time away from Porter.

Songs interpreted by Elvis Costello, Sheryl Crow, and Diana Krall, among others, bring the film into the present with the 'timeless' effect without compromising flawless period depiction of the Jazz Age and Tin Pan Alley. In the end this biopic helped me understand the rewarding and demanding life of Cole Porter, gave me over two hours of glorious song and dance, and made me see again the allure of true love that transcends sex and ego. 'De-Lovely' is 'music from a farther room,' as Eliot's Prufrock would have heard it.

Just a couple of points, the main one not apparently featuring prominently in other reviews.

At the first night parties there seemed a disproportionately high number of black people as guests, and also in other scenes. I doubt that this was historically correct but shown as an attempt to be inclusive now. I think it would have been better to deal with what was almost certainly a lack of black people in Porter's life, apart from probably as servants and occasionally performers, with a remark about it rather than a false representation that might give a misconception to audiences in fifty years time. We are still seeing 50 and 60 yo films nowadays so there is every reason to think that this sort of film might be brought out for historical reference.

It is a tragedy that the songs are not all sung by first rate performers, but it is still good to see the film for another chance to hear see the songs performed with different arrangements. My favourite was "Be a clown". Also I learned a bit about Cole Porter I did not know.

De-Lovely is an overlong, poorly structured biopic that works far better than it should, thanks to a diverse array of musical performances and an honest examination of its complex subject, composer Cole Porter.

The film follows Porter's life – from his carefree promiscuity in 1920s France, where Porter (Kevin Kline) woos wife to be, Linda Lee (Ashley Judd) – to his solitary death in the 1960s. Porter's cavalcade of memorable musical numbers are performed in a variety of ways by big name artists and segue between more conventional biographical development – introducing a structure which in some ways reflects the indulgent personality of the composer himself. When Alanis Morissette does a show stopping version of "Let's Do It, Let's Fall In Love", and Robbie Williams sings "It's De-Lovely" at Porter's wedding, the songs add colour to the story of Porter's life, and also serve to progress the action.

The music is a welcome distraction from the soap opera-style plot development and a stagy subplot. The latter involves impresario Gabe (Johnathan Pryce) showing the ghostly Porter a rehearsal for a musical based on his life. This is the least successful part of De-Lovely, but the scenes are short and improve in quality as the film progresses.

Unlike the sanitised 1955 Porter biopic starring Cary Grant, Night and Day, Porter's sexuality is centre-stage in De-Lovely. A man whose music is a reflection of his hedonistic personality, it's most likely that if Porter were alive now, he'd be gay, although it's clear that Porter had strong agape (affectionate love) for his muse Linda Lee. It's the music and the essential mystery surrounding the affections of this genial genius that make De-Lovely interesting, entertaining and worth the price of admission. ***/***** stars.

I am so touched by the beautiful film we have just seen that I'm almost too overwhelmed to talk about it.

The movie is 'De-Lovely' about the life of Cole Porter, his music and, most of all, about an amazing, unlikely and wonderful love. I don't know how much is true and how much is given to poetic license, but I don't care and I don't especially want to know. I just want to hang on to the heartfelt experience.

I was not alone in my reaction to 'De-Lovely.' In addition to the spontaneous applause at the end of the screening, an astonishing number of people in the audience were still in their seats, savoring the impact, when the last of the credits rolled. 'De-Lovely' is such an integrated masterpiece of movie-making that I will only reluctantly move on to crediting the pieces that contribute to the whole.

Kevin Klein delivers a superb performance playing Cole Porter from middle age into his advanced years. Ashley Judd provides an equally compelling performance as Linda Lee, the woman whom Cole meets and marries early in the film. The story starts in 1920's Paris and includes scenes in Venice prior to Cole and Linda moving on to NYC and the "Great White Way," Hollywood, and finally, Massachusetts.

The sets and costumes, together with direction by Irwin Winkler, transport the audience flawlessly to the time and places of Cole and Linda's experiences. (It was interesting to note that this movie was shot in England and Italy; apparently none of it was filmed in the U.S.A. at all!) 'De-Lovely' also achieves its spectacular success by way of the strong script from Jay Cocks. And, of course, there is the wonderful music of Cole Porter, sung by amateurs Kline and Judd, as well as an impressive, multi-talented array of young musical artists.

You could elect to see this film in order to learn more about the life of Cole Porter. You could go in order to enjoy the songs and show presentations of Cole's music. You could also go to experience the time and places in Cole's life. However, the best reason to go is because this is a wonderful if improbable love story. The story of love evolving and maturing as it is nurtured by Linda's full knowledge and acceptance of Cole's homosexual or bisexual proclivities. Yet, Cole says of his many love songs that they have always been for Linda and we never doubt that it is true. In the end, after their relationship and love has been tested by terrible adversity, they are still there for each other with an ever-deepening love and tenderness.

Rated A+, see 'De-Lovely' for the story of Cole Porter, for travel to a different time and to different places, for the music and mostly to experience the love story. In my opinion, the movie is decidedly de-lovely!

At one point Jay Cocks' script borders on the self-congratulatory when Cole and Linda are shown viewing the earlier biopic starring Cary Grant with obvious displeasure. This remake, of course, is going to tell it like it is, and indeed the script of "De-Lovely" strains to account for the (frequently) flawed face of artistic genius. Linda tells Cole that his music stems from his talent, not his behavior, whereas Cole tries to explain that it's all part of the same inseparable package: without the excesses, the disloyalties, the self-indulgences he wouldn't be who he is, he wouldn't be arguably America's greatest songwriter. In the end, "De-Lovely" is self-descriptive: not a pretty picture--more Asbury Park than Granada, to paraphrase a Porter lyric.

Perhaps today's audiences need more proof that he really was a great songwriter. Or given the moral correctness of our times, perhaps audiences are incapable of empathizing with those given to self-indulgences. Or they may think they know all too well "the wages of sin." Or perhaps the acting of Kline and Judd overwhelms the script's good intentions. They, indeed, come across as two people who, as each understands, ask too much of one another. He gives her gifts, love, sporadic devotion; she gives him gifts, his vanity (i.e., useless legs), and undying devotion. In the end, and in the still of the night, Linda's devotion cuts through the darkness--a flickering memory but all that Cole has left before the screen goes black.

We believe the characters, their relationship, and their deep if tenuous loving relationship--perhaps too much. The film becomes a frequently luminous and tuneful soap opera about a main character who is more pathetic than tragic, about a self-destructive songwriter who self-destructs for obvious reasons, but in a deliberate, slow, very sad and depressing manner. Orson Welles had in essence a similar character and plot framework in "Citizen Kane," but he also had the directing "style" (which above all should be foremost in anything related to Cole Porter's music and life) and a "motivator" to make Kane's willful and self-ignorant destruction a mutually shared obsession, inviting us at every moment to become adventurer-detectives searching for the clues that will lead us to "Rosebud."

By contrast, "De-Lovely" wallows in pain and misery for the last 30 minutes, insulting us with a momentary deus ex machina ("Blow, Gabriel, Blow") that not even the characters seem to believe and then attempting to rescue everything with that flickering, potentially powerful, image that is the film's final moment. Too little, too late--and too soon, moreover, after we've endured the spectacle of our subject reduced to a pay-for-play "John," a victim of blackmail (triply so, because Linda is included, as is their relationship and mutual trust). The soundtrack plays "Love for Sale," but what we witness is a love that's far more than "slightly soiled."

The project needed to be rethought. Most of today's viewers are totally unsympathetic with the private lives of artists (one would think the writers would pay attention to politics) and, for that matter, unfamiliar with Porter's songs. The film would have done a great service had it opened viewers' hearts and minds to the "obsessions" (an apt term used in the film) of others, the personal mind-images and different objects of desire that motivate the passions of the artist in ways that move us all. (What's the gain in portraying Monty Wooley as a pimp? ) Or it would have done an equal service had it launched a whole new wave of interest in the music of Cole Porter. Sadly, it fails there, too, for reasons too numerous to mention. (As a musician, I have no answers for the film's complete re-harmonization of "Begin the Beguine." Was this an historically accurate albeit early, inferior attempt by Porter to write the song?)

This is a movie/DVD that few people will care too watch more than once. If you count yourself in that number, and if you're wondering why someone would bother to make a movie about Cole Porter, pick up any recording by Sinatra and Nelson Riddle with "I've Got You Under My Skin" ("Songs for Swinging Lovers" is a good start) or "Night and Day." If you tire of either song (virtually impossible), try the inspired, absolutely scintillating version of "In the Still of the Night" on the first disc of the recent "Sinatra-Vegas" box. And if that's not enough, there's plenty more from the same source, or from Ella Fitzgerald on the "Cole Porter Songbook." Or listen to Mabel Mercer explaining how it (in Porter songs, love is frequently an "it" or "thing") was "Just One of Those Things," or to Dinah Washington actually selling it on "Love for Sale," or to any singer who imparts to these timeless, immortal songs the life that is theirs, allowing them to become the magnificent obsessions that deserve to belong to yet another generation of listeners.

To be honest, while all the criticisms are very understandable, and I actually agree with them, I was expecting something worse than how De-Lovely turned out. It is a long way from a great film, or even a good film, but to me it wasn't terrible.

De-Lovely does have a good deal of good things. The film looks fabulous, the period clothes are just exquisite, there was evidently a great deal of care and attention to detail in the scenery and settings and the cinematography sparkles. The ageing make-up is very well done as well. Cole Porter's songs are wonderful, the best of them gold standard classics and while some of the songs deserved better treatment than they got others are very well performed, the best being John Barrowman's Night and Day, Natalie Cole's beautiful Every Time We Say Goodbye, Alanis Morissette's Let's Do It, Let's Fall in Love and Kevin Kline's sublime So in Love. The first half is suitably witty and sophisticated, the aftermath of the riding accident is movingly done(an improvement over how it was depicted in Night and Day with Cary Grant, which I found superior actually despite its flaws) and Porter and Linda's relationship is well-depicted. Ashley Judd plays Linda with dignity and Jonathan Pryce enjoys himself but other than the production values the best thing about the film was Kevin Kline's brilliant performance as Porter, a witty, charming and moving performance.

Unfortunately, De-Lovely takes a nose-dive in the second half, feeling like a different film altogether, the pacing becomes leaden and the narrative becomes very jumpy with some ideas touched upon and not explored enough. Due to the gross number of inaccuracies and the change in chronological order of the songs and events makes the storytelling hard to follow. There is some really sloppy editing, and in general Irwin Winkler's very stylised direction becomes increasingly self-indulgent and manages to be hectic and ponderous. In the second half the wit and sophistication the first half had is completely lost with a lot of the writing becoming incredibly trite and awkward, Porter's sexuality is much too overt(the opposite effect of the glossed over effect Night and Day had) and the film overall is lacking in emotional connection narratively and stylistically. Too many of the song renditions don't work, Elvis Costello's singing style is ill-suited to Let's Misbehave(he also does little with the wit of the lyrics), Lemar is completely out of place and worst of all Begin the Beguine is execrably arranged and performed to the point of being unrecognisable, with tuneless and emotionless singing from Sheryl Crow, sounding like she isn't even listening to the music.

In conclusion, not that bad but should have been much better. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Being a heterosexual male under the age of 70, I normally don't like musicals, but I like to keep an open mind. Typically, I will only see a musical if either the movie would be just as good without the music (e.g. "My Fair Lady", "Fiddler on the Roof", "O Brother Where Art Thou", all Marx Bros films), or the music is so good that I don't care about things like acting or plot (e.g. "On the Town", "An American in Paris", "Pal Joey", all Beatles films). Of course, since I have several older female friends and relatives, I've seen quite a few musicals where both the movie and the music are just awful (e.g. "Rose Marie", "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", "Chicago", all Andrew Lloyd Weber films).

But "De-Lovely" is the first musical I have seen where both the music and the film-making are so good as to be great. Of course, it doesn't hurt that all the songs are written by Cole Porter, Broadway's finest composer and the subject of the movie. Although the plays and movies he composed for have mostly been forgotten, the songs from them remain immortal in the hearts of true music-lovers of all ages.

And as far as the movie's concerned, it's near perfect. It gives a sly wink to the conventions of the typical movie musical (i.e. never start or end with a ballad; the hero is more articulate when singing than when speaking), but it does not give short shrift to things like plot, acting and emotional resonance. We are treated to tremendous performances by Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd in the lead roles, and sparkling dialog by Jay Cocks. The cinematography is lush and frankly astounding. And the make-up people did a tremendous job. Only when we see Porter at 90 do we think anyone has dyed their hair or is wearing prosthetics.

The premise of the film has put some people off: Cole Porter (Kline) is sitting at his piano at home, preparing to die, when an omniscient director (Jonathan Pryce) tells him he needs to get ready for the show. The show, of course, is the story of Porter's life, strewn with Porter's songs throughout, sometimes done by the characters in the film as part of their dialog, and sometimes done by professional singers as straight performances.

Porter himself, watching the show, complains that this device is too avant-garde for his taste.

Actually, the previous paragraph is not quite right. The show is not about Porter's entire life, only the parts having to do with his wife Linda (Judd). What we see is not the story of a great composer's professional ups and downs. We get some of that, but that is secondary to the story of a gay man who loves his wife as much as he can, and a woman who stays faithful to her husband despite knowing that he prefers having sex with anonymous men than with her.

For literal-minded people, there will be some problems. The real Cole Porter was short, ugly and couldn't sing; whereas Kevin Kline is tall, reasonably good-looking, and a fine singer. Also, although there is no doubt that Porter is having affairs with men, we never see much more than a few lustful glances. And they cut out the more risqué verses of Porter's songs. We do not hear "Roosters with a doodle & a cock do it" (from "Let's Do It") or "I get no kick from cocaine" (from "I Get a Kick Out of You"). And perhaps Elvis Costello and Alanis Morisette don't have the best voices to sing these songs. But these are mere quibbles compared to the movie's strengths, especially as we are treated to Natalie Cole, Vivian Green and Diana Krall doing superb renditions of Porter's music.

"De-Lovely" is the first musical I have seen that I really liked and where I also found myself humming along to the music. Hopefully, there will be more musicals like it in the near future ("Ray" looks promising in this regard. "Phantom of the Opera" does not). And maybe--just maybe--the genre will be once again embraced by people other than older women and gay men. 10 out of 10.

I nearly didn't rent the DVD, because most of the reviews were so bad. I'm glad my love for Cole Porter led me to disregard them. I really don't care whether the movie is an accurate representation of Cole Porter's life. I don't care whether the sequence of the song performances was the same as when Porter wrote them. The movie is nice to look at, has a reasonably pleasant story, and contains absolutely fabulous music. I particularly enjoyed Robbie Williams singing It's De-Lovely and Alanis Morissette singing Let's Do It. The only thing I disliked was that the director (or Kevin Kline or someone) decided to keep the verisimilitude of Cole Porter's lack of singing talent. Kevin Kline can sing very nicely--too bad he didn't in this movie. And, as a big fan of Fred Astaire, it would have been nice to see some recreations of the collaborations between Astaire & Porter in introducing those terrific songs.

Recommended for those who are not purists, but who enjoy Cole Porter's music.

This was one of the most disappointing movies of 2004. The two main things wrong with this movie are as follows: the screenplay is NOT true to Cole Porter's life story, and some of the vocal and musical performances are truly terrible.

Cole Porter was homosexual. Yes, we are aware that, for a huge bulk of his adult life, he was married. To a woman. The film "De-Lovely" attempts to make out the married life of Cole and Linda Lee Porter as if this were some classic Hollywood love story. The whole POINT of their marriage, was that it was a platonic marriage of convenience. Linda Lee had escaped and divorced her physically abusive husband, which was major scandal territory in the 1910's, and married Cole with the sole intention of escaping her murderous, and physically violent ex-spouse. Linda Lee was nine years OLDER than Cole. In the film, Ashley Judd appears to be at least thirty years YOUNGER than Kevin Kline, and the entire film makes out their marriage to be some never-ending romance in the fading sunset. This WASN'T the case! This wasn't the true story! "De-Lovely" makes Cole Porter out to be bi-sexual, which he wasn't. Linda Lee, in real life, was probably fully aware of her second husband's sexual extra-marital entourages, and in real life, she probably couldn't have cared less. In the 1910's and 1920's, this marriage of convenience meant a new life to Linda Lee, and that was the extent of it.

Apart from Natalie Cole and Robbie Williams, the majority of the musical performances are dreadful. Natalie Cole sings a lovely rendition of "Every Time We Say Goodbye," and Robbie Williams likewise sings a fine noteworthy performance of the title song, "De-Lovely," but the rest of the singers are anywhere from barely tolerable to truly dreadful.

My advice is - check the soundtrack out from the public library. This flick is for die-hard Kevin Kline fans only.