A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

BEWARE OF BOGUS REVIEWS & REVIEWERS. SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW. WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE PRODUCTION. NOW I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 400 Christmas MOVIES. I HAVE NO AGENDA. I AM FARE.The director of "Dirty Dancing" could have done a better job in filming this production. The is not the first feature film to showcase the world's most beloved ballet.This is a huge chore to watch this interpretation of the holiday classic ballet! The Nutcracker tells the story of a young girl whose love for a toy turns it into the handsome prince Macaulay Culkin ("Richie Rich," "Home Alone"), and together they are brought to the Land of Sweets, where an enchanting spectacle awaits them. Directed by Academy Award-winner Emile Ardolino ("Sister Act," "Dirty Dancing") and narrated by Academy Award-winner Kevin Kline ("Dave," "A Fish Called Wanda"). The lack of closeups and static shots hinder the viewer from fulling embracing it. The 1986 Nutcracker: The Motion Picture is a better viewing experience!

The best thing about this movie was the Orchestra and the incomparable Tchaikovsky score. A few of the dancers were literally amazing and virtually all of them were superb. The staginess of the production was very evocative of a live performance. However,the production as a whole detracted from the art we should have gotten. We ordered the DVD in hopes of showing it to our grandchildren, but the score, story and name alterations were so disconcerting that we decided to not introduce them to the Nutcracker this way. Of course, inserting a non-dancer into a ballet is like asking Rosanne Barr to sing at the Met. It is sure to elicit the exclamation: "What WERE you thinking?!?!" and it did. The major complaint about the production as a whole is hard to pin down, but the DVD was disappointing nonetheless. It just lacked the essence of great art. We simply were not "swept away." In general, some performances leave you feeling they were not up to snuff, but this one left us with the feeling of having been affronted. I would love to see it re-shot with a standard plot line, all dancers (no current heartthrobs), and more drive via the editing. One final whine: as the music was the best part, why don't they include the names of the musicians in the end-title roll? It wouldn't take up that much time.The violin solo was one of the high points of the entire performance, yet we got the names of all kinds of tradesmen whose output was indiscernible to us, but not the names of the musicians.

I'd seen parts of this production before but I wanted to refresh my initial reactions and see if they were correct. I think they were!I've always thought Balanchine was very old-fashioned in his attitudes, particularly in the ballerina-and-her-cavalier prototype. But this is, of course, what Russian ballet is all about.I was mostly interested in seeing if Balanchine would keep the music up to speed and I find he has. After seeing the traditional performances where everything is slowed down to a glacial pace to accommodate the dancers, this is most refreshing and as a record of Mr. B's approach, this video production is invaluable.Others have mentioned the music-tampering but this is not unusual in the dance world or even in Balanchine. One glaring example of this is his "Serenade" where Tchaikovsky's last two movements are reversed; the "Elegy" is the last thing heard instead of the fast finale. In all fairness, Balanchine assumed that his own works would be forgotten with time and would not become the monuments they have.Is the 12 year old Culkin as bad as all that? In context, his star power has proved a liability here and this is at least partly due to his overall awkwardness in the nephew-prince role. Smiling or smirking professionally in that dreadful pink Lord Fauntleroy suit he can often look downright sinister. (He later used that quality in "Party Monster" for example.) And, with almost nothing to do except lend his presence to the second part, whenever they show him in passing I find the effect jarring.Mack aside, the photography is good in general though awkward in the pan-and-scan version close-ups. The narration really shouldn't have happened but it's not too disturbing.the DVD: It's a two-sided DVD with no real labels. (Watch your fingers!) The second side is the letterboxed one which I think is more successful than the pan-and-scan first side. The extras are informative but sparse.6 or 7 out of 10.

This was so beautiful. I am a ballerina and I have played both the Sugar Plum Fairy and Marie in numerous productions of this, but I have to admit that this is IT. This is the ultimate #1 version of this classical ballet. It was so beautiful. The music is absolutely marvelous and the scenery is gorgeous. The woman who plays the Sugar Plum Fairy is absolutely beautiful and does a fabulous job! I saw the Broadway version of this on a visit to NYC and I have to admit that this version was better than the one I saw there. George Balachine does amazing ballet, I wish I could study with him at his School of Ballet. And the composer(I know who it is, but I cant spell his name) is a musical genius. I give it 10/10.