Such a frustrating disappointment

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

disgusting, overrated, pointless

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Gene Kelly was one of the most talented and charismatic performers in classic musicals, some of his dance routines being among cinema's most jaw-dropping. And George Cukor was a fine director with a filmography that contained a number of favourites.Both have done better films than 'Les Girls', in fact everybody involved pretty much has, but the film is definitely well worth watching and is entertaining in its own right. To me, what came off least successfully is the story, which is basically a musical version of Akira Kurosawa's 'Rashomon' (except that film handled its story structure much better). It is certainly intriguing, and it is difficult to resist its often risqué and disarming nature, but it does struggle at times to sustain momentum and material for a running time that feels over-stretched, making the latter half pedestrian narratively. And while interesting the flashback structure doesn't always feel as smooth as it could have been, some of it clumsy and disorganised.Cole Porter's songs have been criticised for reasons that are understandable. None of the songs are bad, Porter was too good a composer/song-writer to write bad music, and are reasonably pleasant, but this is not one of Porter's better song scores. Pleasant enough, but nowhere near as memorable or as inspired, apart from some witty and naughty lyric-writing (though there are instances where they are over-shadowed by some distracting stage business in the choreography), as they could have been, disappointing for a great composer/song-writer who should have gone out on a high note but didn't. Jacques Bergerac is also insipidly dull in a role with practically nothing to it, basically the sort of role that's there for the sake of being a plot device but nothing more.Despite how this all sounds, 'Les Girls' does have a number of merits that it is difficult to be too hard on it. The best assets are the production values and the performances of the ladies. 'Les Girls' is simply a stunning-looking film, the colours are eye-poppingly ravishing, the sets are lavish, the costumes are beautifully chic and the cinematography often dazzles. The ladies manage to steal the show under those who most would naturally see the film for (Kelly, Cukor and Porter). Particularly note-worthy is the perfection that is Kay Kendall, who is charming and hilarious and would have had a bigger career if it hadn't been cut short so early and tragically. Mitzi Gaynor also has fun with her role and makes the character sympathetic too, while Taina Elg is suitably sultry.Kelly is always watchable, and dances with charisma and his usual polish and technical meticulousness in routines that, while not exactly career highlights, do show off how incredible a dancer he was, even if his character is one of his least endearing (though he does bring wit and charm). Cukor makes the most of the production values and there is enough elegance and lightness of touch, but it does seem in the early parts especially that he wasn't in complete control, or entirely trust or was comfortable, with the material. The script is wonderfully witty and also has a risqué boldness and sexiness.On the whole, not a great film, and doesn't see the enormously talented people in front of and behind the camera doing the best work of their careers, but absolutely worth watching for the production values and Kendall. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The plot for this film is a lot like taking the Kurasawa film "Rashomon" and combining it with "An American in Paris". The final product, while pretty to look at, it pretty dreadful--overly long, overly familiar and amazingly slight.The film begins with Angèle (Taina Elg) suing Sybil (Kay Kendall) following the publication of Sybil's tell-all book "Barry Nichols and Les Girls". What follows is a Rashomon-style plot where each of the particulars in the story tell their account of what happened back when they were a successful dance team--and each has a completely different idea of what has really occurred--and each thinks they were Barry's one love. So why wasn't I in love with this film? The biggest problem is that the characters are generally unlikable--especially the very manipulative Barry (Gene Kelly). As for the dancing, I hated it but it all depends on what style music you like. If you like big production numbers and lots of very modern dance, you'll probably like it. I prefer musicals where the singing and dancing are more integrated into the plot-- such as in the infinitely more successful film from this same period, "Gigi". Also, the film just lacks originality, as it did borrow so heavily from "Rashomon". But most importantly, I just found the film overly long and pretty dull. Pretty to look at...but dull.

While I really do like this film, every time I hear "Ca C'est L'amour", I'm reminded how similar it is to "C'est Magnifique". Anyone else notice the obvious similarity in the music and the lyrics between the two songs? "Love is wonderful. When love goes away, it's terrible. When love comes back, it's wonderful again." I think Porter simply did a rewrite of "C'est Magnifique", and hoped nobody would notice.Otherwise, I think this is a well-done film. Although the music isn't the best, it is serviceable. One disappointment is that the "Ladies In Waiting" number has so much peripheral stuff going on (Elg trying to hide her face, Kendall drunk), that you don't get the full impact of Porter's "naughty" lyrics.

Cole Porter's score is far from his best and you probably would never guess that George Cukor directed it and Gene Kelly, although he dances as well as ever, isn't well served by either the script or indeed the choreographer, (it's virtually a supporting role). But what it has in spades are the Les Girls of the title; Mitzi Gaynor, (she's the 'sassy' bundle of fun), Taina Elg, (the gold-digger) and that great leggy British comedienne Kay Kendall who is not particularly well served by the script either but who is so graceful and witty and sophisticated she can lift the material. She isn't as good here as she was in "Genevieve" but she is better than anyone else in the movie and she won a Golden Globe for it, (though Elg, too, is a duplicitous little spitfire and is probably better here than in anything else she did). It looks fabulous, (Orry-Kelly's costumes won an Oscar), but, as we know, looks aren't everything. Nobody's finest hour, then, but neither is it totally negligible.