User Reviews

This 1993 Balanchine version is not as good as the 1985, 1989, 1994, 2001 and 2009 productions, all of which are just magical and entirely captivating. It is however superior to the self-indulgent Maurice Bejart, incoherent Mariinsky(the worst version) and dull 2012 Mariinsky productions. I found myself rather mixed on the whole on this version. There were things I didn't like, all of which have been said before. The sound effects really do distract from the music and quite frankly were not needed. The Nutcracker's make-up and costume looked ridiculous, I actually asked myself was there any particular reason for it to be this particular colour scheme? Macaulay Culkin is rather stiff as the Nutcracker(and I do agree he overdoes the smirking too much), and there is some overacting from Drosselmeyer. However, I did like the rest of the costumes,- well maybe except for Sugar Plum Fairy's tights- the production is well lit and the sets were enchanting. The photography was fine I thought, I highly doubt there'll be a Nutcracker production as poorly shot as the 2012 Mariinsky version. The effects are not the best I've seen but are serviceable. The music has a lot of tinkering but is still timeless and beautiful, typical Tchaikovsky really. It is lovingly performed by the orchestra and the tempos are well chosen. I do love the story, always have, and on the most part the production is faithful to the ballet, with some touches like Marie sneaking downstairs, falling asleep on the sofa and then dreaming of Nutcracker and Drosselmeyer. The choreography is outstanding, with Balanchine's musicality and style all over it, the standouts being the Soldier Doll, Snowflakes, Arabian and Waltz of the Flowers dances. Culkin aside, the dancing was exemplary complete with an impeccable Corps De Ballet. Overall, problematic but does have a number of things to warrant it a partial recommendation. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Those who have given this production such a low rating probably have never seen the celebrated George Balanchine production live onstage, or are letting their disdain for the star casting of Macaulay Culkin influence their judgement. The Atlanta Ballet was fortunate enough, from the 1960's to the 1980's, to be the first ballet company authorized to stage this production other than the New York City Ballet, and I have seen it live onstage several times. I can assure readers that the film is a quite accurate rendering of this production, and that the use of a child with limited dancing abilities in the title role is not a cheap stunt dreamed up to showcase Culkin; it was Balanchine's idea to use a child in this role, just as it was his idea to use a child for the role of Marie. The "heavy" dancing is left to the adults in the story.

This is deliberately a stagebound film; in a way, it resembles Laurence Olivier's "Othello". Exactly as in that film, the sets of the stage production have been enlarged to the size of a movie soundstage, but not made any less artificial, and the ballet is straightforwardly photographed with discreet closeups, and without the distracting "music video" quick cuts featured in the 1986 overrated Maurice Sendak-Carroll Ballard version. There are only two false steps in this 1993 film. One is the addition of distracting and completely unnecessary sound effects (mouse squeaks, the children whispering "Ma-gic!" to Drosselmeyer,etc.). Those sound effects are never heard in any stage production of any "Nutcracker", and they have been put in as a cheap concession simply to appease unsophisticated audiences who may not relish the idea of watching a ballet on film.

The other false step is Macaulay Culkin's nutcracker make-up, which looks absolutely ridiculous. When he is on screen as the Nutcracker, rather than wearing a huge mask (as is always done when the Balanchine production is performed onstage), Culkin is actually made up as the toy - he wears what looks like a bald cap, as well as a white wig, whiskers, and a beard. He also has his face rouged up somewhat, and the worst aspect of his make-up is that it is still recognizably his face, amateurishly transformed in a manner similar to Ray Bolger, Jack Haley and Bert Lahr's makeups in "The Wizard of Oz" (that film's makeup results though, worked spectacularly, as this one's does not). And a comparison with Baryshnikov's nutcracker in *his* production shows how wonderfully creative Baryshnikov's nutcracker mask was - the "jaws" actually seemed to move whenever Baryshnikov tilted his head back.

The dancing itself in the Macaulay Culkin version is excellent, of course, except for Culkin himself, whose dancing, as I said, isn't meant to even be spectacular. (The Sugar Plum Fairy and her Cavalier are the prominent dancing roles in Balanchine's production of "The Nutcracker".) The film's colors, though, could be a bit brighter since this IS a fantasy. The choreography is also brilliant, and the adaptation of it is so faithful as to include the sequence that features additional music from Tchaikovsky's ballet "The Sleeping Beauty" - as Marie sneaks downstairs, falls asleep on the sofa, and dreams that Drosselmeyer is "repairing" the broken Nutcracker (this sequence was, of course, never included in Tchaikovsky's original ballet---it is the only sequence in this production which features music from a work other than "The Nutcracker").

Those who have missed out on this film, or those who despise (or loathe it) should give it a chance, despite its two big drawbacks. It is far better than it seems when one first hears that Culkin is in it.

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!

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.

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 is Warmer Brothers' film version of composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's famous ballet, The Nutcracker, filmed at New York City.

It tells the story of Marie, who dreams about her Nutcracker Prince. They journey to the Enchanted Forest after defeating the Mouse King. There, the Sugar Plum Fairy honors Marie and the Prince's presence by hosting them a number of dances - Spanish Dance, Arab Dance, Chinese Dance, Russian Dance, Dance of the Clowns and Waltz of the Flowers. These sequences are probably the highlight of the entire Nutcracker Ballet.

The special and visual effects were great and the costumes were colorful. The film's coda was brilliantly done, with the neat carriage in midair and all the dancers coming out to dance in one extravaganza number.

Tchaikovsky's music is rich and beautifully performed by the New York City Ballet Orchestra. While the adapted story line was interesting, the film in general starts off really slow, with too much focus on the children and their greedy personalities. The female lead, the girl named Marie, was a little too much in the zone - trying to act too prim, proper, and theatrical. The overall acting didn't do it for me - a little too overzealous and artificial.

If I have to compare, I would choose MGM's 1986 Nutcracker: The Motion Picture over this one.

Grade C+

The Nutcracker is a 1993 adaptation of the Peter Martins's stage production of The Nutcracker which itself was adapted from the original Tchaikovsky ballet. Produced in conjunction with Warner Bros. And the New York City Ballet as then Time Warner Chairman Steve Ross had wanted to produce a film with the company, considerable time and resources went into adapting the ballet for the screen with Macaulay Culkin secured for the lead role. The final directorial effort of Emile Ardolino before his untimely death, the film while praised for the dancing and music was subject to criticism for not doing all that much to adapt the story for film. Produced on an estimated $19 million budget, the film only brought in $2.1 million. As essentially a repackage of the ballet I guess it does it's job, but as a movie it's pretty lazy and lacking in any sort of passion to the filmmaking.

As expected from a film featuring the New York City Ballet the dances are all fine including from Macaulay Culkin who had experience in Ballet playing Fritz in prior School of American Ballet productions. Many critics questioned Culkin's involvement in the film at the time as he isn't allowed to do much, but given the source material it's really not his fault and he does what he can with the role. Despite being a film the movie doesn't take advantage of the switch in mediums and instead just shows the dances and staging as they were on film which results in the production feeling cheap and rather empty despite the money involved. Given that The Nutcracker ballet barely had any story to speak of (the second half is more of a pageant than any sort of narrative) there is a feeling that something's been lost in translation from live-performance to stage recording.

I suppose if you're not inclined to get tickets to a live production of The Nutcracker maybe this filmed version will suffice, but it doesn't do anything to make the experience feel very cinematic with its steadfast adherence to the original staging more a hindrance than an asset.

As far as I can recall, Balanchine's alterations to Tchaikovsky's score are as follows:

1) The final section of the Grossvatertanz (a traditional tune played at the end of a party) is repeated several times to give the children a last dance before their scene is over.

2) A violin solo, written for but eliminated from Tchaikovsky's score for The Sleeping Beauty, is interpolated between the end of the party scene and the beginning of the transformation scene. Balanchine chose this music because of its melodic relationship to the music for the growing Christmas tree that occurs shortly thereafter.

3) The solo for the Sugar Plum Fairy's cavalier is eliminated.

It seems to me the accusation that Balanchine has somehow desecrated Tchaikovsky's great score is misplaced.

"The Nutcracker" is a Family - Fantasy movie in which we watch a little girl who falls asleep after a party and she is dreaming herself into a fantastic world where toys are larger than life. Her favorite toy Nutcracker comes to life too and works as a guard who protects her from the Mouse King. After the Nutcracker saves her life, he is transformed into a Prince.

I liked this movie because I have combined it in my mind with Christmas, a Christmas tree and hot chocolate as I used to watch it when I was very young. It reminds me of some beautiful memories of mine. I also enjoyed this movie because it has an interesting plot and follows some parts of the original Nutcracker. About the direction, I have to say that Emile Ardolino did a great job on it. Regarding the interpretations, I have to mention the interpretation of Macaulay Culkin who played as The Nutcracker / Drosselmeier's Nephew and he was simply amazing and Jessica Lynn Cohen who played as Marie and she was equally good.

To sum up, I have to say that "The Nutcracker" is a great family movie to watch, with great interpretations and an amazing direction. I recommend everyone to watch this movie because I am sure that you are going to enjoy it. If you have young children then I believe that you should watch this movie with them because they are going to love it.

I have seen many, many productions of The Nutcracker. Now perhaps I viewed this movie from the tainted point of view of a theatrical director, but I was disappointed. I'm sure people in the specific business of ballet choreography find this production impressive but from a purely theatrical perspective I found everything from design to choreography to be lackluster and unbefitting of a "motion picture". None of the traditionally "weird" and impressive costumes looked like what they were supposed to be (i.e. the candies didn't look like candies, the rats didn't look like rats but rather like chocolate kisses,) the acting was weak, perhaps toned down too much for the screen, and the choreography just didn't do anything for me. This makes the entire show very satisfactory (at best), as if it were intended to not set itself apart from any other production. But remember, again, this is from the artistic perspective of a theatrical director, not a dancer or a choreographer, but a straight male theatrical director.

After all the disastrous attempts at a live action nutcracker film, it makes me appreciate this stage production film even more! Not only is it the best dancing of the nutcracker, but also has the 90's flair of Macaulay Culkin as the adorable nutcracker prince! This is a Christmas classic that I've enjoyed ever since I was a little girl. Marie was perfectly cast and gives such emotion to the role even with no words spoken.

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'm not a ballet expert, but I love this production. It's interesting to dissect because there are two camps for this very famous 110 year-old ballet: those who like it as a children's story and those who like it as an adult's. It's been staged both ways in the past as others have already mentioned. This version allows the kids to be front and center, but it has some stellar, sophisticated moments in it as well: the Act 1 finale dance of the snowflakes is a stellar moment of beauty and style, with its ice-blue lighting and costuming and multi-racial Corps De ballet. In Act 2, there's no contest: amongst the innocent dances of the sweets, 'Arabian Coffee' soloist Wendy Whelan sexily attacks the stage in cat-like fashion. The pink-and-purple lighting and floating cinematography and the dancer's serpent-like movements do not resemble any other moment in this already polished film, and one can't help but think that director Emile Ardolino deliberately planned it that way. (It's like watching Ann Reinking or Carol Haney on the Broadway stage.) As far as the smirking Macaulay Culkin is concerned, his presence didn't bother me since he was the right age at the time of filming (and did have some ballet background) and frankly, he smirks in most films he's in. What're you gonna do?

If you're gonna do a movie version of a ballet, you need to do one of two things: utilize the film medium in ways that make the story unique from the stage version, or make sure the production is the absolute greatest version of the stage play possible. This is neither. It's merely an unremarkable filming of an unremarkable stage production.

I watched this earlier this year; around January 2019, just wanted to review it. The only things remotely good with this was Macaulay Culkin which wasn't much, the choreography was well done and I enjoy the music. Otherwise, in my opinion, this was one of the worst movies.

This movie is a perfect portrayal of The Nutcracker; the dancing is wonderful, the scenery in the background was excellent, and I LOVED THAT FLOATING BED.

Oh, and the costumes... I particularly loved Marzipan's, the tutu was adorable. The special effects were very well done (e.g. the tree, the bed, etc.), and I quite enjoyed the rats. I love how they didn't make them scary, but cute and huggable. Except for the king, I suppose.

If you're a thoroughly masculine person, you won't enjoy this, but this is a very good movie that's good for all ages - just not all levels of testosterone.

But I have a few complaints.

Firstly, why did they have to put the Sugar Plum Fairy's partner in those terrible tights? It would barely make a difference if he was butt naked! And secondly.. why on EARTH did they have to make Culkin's outfit PINK?

I love "The Nutcracker", I really do, but after seeing it live on stage so many times, I've come to expect more! First, Netflix classifies this movie as a musical! A musical! Ballet features no dialogue, and musicals feature people singing, so this classification makes absolutely no sense to me! Secondly, what was with the christmas tree angels? They are not featured in any other production of "The Nutcracker" that I've ever seen! And thirdly, why did they feel the need to zoom in on Macaulay Culkin's face all the time he's on screen? I know he was famous at the time, but I think they overdid it! All in all, not my favorite version of "The Nutcracker"!

Both visually and musically stunning. A treat for both the eye and the ear. The quintessential Victorian element of the opening sequences were completely enchanting, helping to create a Christmas scene of which Dickens himself would have been justifiably proud. Technically the production is visually stimulating and the special effects are both imaginatively devised and creatively achieved in a traditional stage setting. The dancing of many of the lead artistes is breathtakingly good. The photography and lighting are first class and the sound recording admirably matches the overall high level of technical skills employed. A great film for all the family at Christmas time and a most delightful discovery which will withstand multiple viewing.

This is a weird interpretation of a movie about a ballet that only involves about 5 minutes of ballet yet doesn't involve any dialogue? If you're going to make a movie about a ballet, either have it be ballet, or keep the story but change the presentation. And not sure why anyone would want to watch a Christmas Macaulay Culkin movie that's not Home Alone. It's just really weird.

To begin with, let me first say for the record that I understand that this film was made with the non-Ballet-going public in mind, much as 'E.R.' is made for the non-medical public. This may explain how so many people I have spoken to really loved this film. I, however, must protest. As a professional dancer for many years and, now, a choreographer and director of Ballet, I can not add my voice to the choir of approval that this film has received. Indeed, I have found the production, from front to back with rare exception, to be an ineffectual copy of a classic ballet. The Horror that is Macauly Culkin (who was obviouly cast to bring the film "star-power" rather than talent) aside, the wrongs against Ballet abound aplenty in this film. The choreography is tipical Latter Balanchine (for the un-trained; make it fast, make it sharp and remove any and all elements of Emotion, the core of dance, in favor of a technicality that will highlight the flaws of even the best dancers), the score (considered by many to be their favorite Tchaikovsky piece) is so badly edited and re-arranged that I doubt if the composer would regognize it, leading to the re-arrangement of the staging into a non-linear hodge-podge of dances that tells no deffinite story, but simply ambles through the remains of a once-great narrative and the camera work, while professional and clean, is more distracting than helpful, always cutting away at inopportune moments in favor of another vantage point. One of the wonderful things about watching ballet on tape is being able to see a variation continualy without edits, there-by showing our hero or heroine actually completing a difficult step or combonation, there-by showing off their talent. When one cuts away from a dancer after three fuete turns and then shows them from another angle doing another three fuetes, how are we, as the viewers, to know if the dancer completed all six in one attempt or did she simply do three and WE saw them twice? With the continuity cut from the dancing, much of the magic of ballet (&/or dance in general) gets lost in the mix. And then, there is the Culkin child. Now, I understand that Young Mr. Culkin is rumored to have grown into a very respectable and nice young man. And I also understand (although reports are sketchy) that he received instruction from the School of American Ballet (SAB), the accademy arm of the New York City Ballet (NYCB), for a short time. But does this really qualify him to play the Nutcracker? His obviouly lack of balletic talent or grace and the ham-handed choreography imposed on the child makes his scenes painful to watch and an embarrassment to not only Mr Culkin and the NYCB, but to the entire dancing world. Would it have not made better sense to have cast an actual dancer in the role and let the art form speak for itself rather than trying to "glam" it up with a familar face?

The one shining moment in other-wise waste of video tape is the Soldier Doll Variation performed in the first act Party Scene. Brilliant and incredible!

Needless to say, however, I was disappointed the first time I saw this film and continue to be so now, years later. If you are interested in seeing a quality production of "the Nutcracker", I would like to recomend either the classical and technically perfect Royal Ballet's version or the more visially oppulant Pacific Northwest Ballet's production, both available on video.

I absolutely enjoy this film every year before Christmas it's so beautiful the music the dancing it brings so much warmth and joy to the house. I enjoy watching this on YouTube sadly I don't have the film on DVD and nice to see Kevin from Home Alone bringing so much love to the screens

I love that in those days there was no phones or internet children and family talking to each other playing and 10/10 for the dresses.

Much better than the 2018 Disney film if this film would be out today I think it would do really well in the box office hands down.

Finally i like to say the way the men treated the ladies was just perfect.

Wendy Whalen's performance as Coffee is the best that I've seen. I recently the San Francisco's Ballet rendition of Coffee and although entertaining, it was not as awe inspiring as Wendy's caressing of the earth with the soles of her feet in this film version of the Nutcracker. I am on a quest to find Coffee performed as a pas de deux, which I was told in fantastic. I will continue to see different versions of the Nutcracker performed by various troupes until I am satisfied. Thank you Ms. Whalen, for the inspiration! I hear there is a Barishnikov version of this film recorded in 1976 that is really out of sight. Barishnikov has such a boyish charm to him that I am sure that I am in for treat. Also, for those of you who live in San Francsico, try to see the Yuan Yuan Tan as the Queen of the Snow. Her lines are so perfect that they scythe time and space. Chinese Tea accompanied by the dragon is also a show stopper. However, I do have one criticism that the dancers from act one do not return to the stage to take their bows at closing curtain. Anyhoo, if this film film proves anything, it that the performing arts is still worth attending. Furthermore, theatrical effects can be far more imaginative and innovative than CGI special effects.

this is no spoiler I think people have seen this movie The Nutcracker...it was good I loved it...in fact I loved The Nutcracker since I saw it live at the historic Jefferson Theater in Beaumont, Texas in December 1980 when I was 11....loved the music and the growing tree in fact everything in the film was what I remembered seeing live except it was in a movie and I don't understand that person griping cause Macaulay Culkin's outfit was pink it was a nice color....wonder what happened to Jessica Lynn Cohen who played Marie????!!!..is she not acting now????!!!....I know Darci Kistler turned 50 this year and quit the ballet...wonder if any of the other ballet stars who were in the film are still dancing especially Bart Robinson Cook who played Drosselmeier who was Marie's godfather who gave her the Nutcracker who became the prince...I would recommend this movie for anyone for Christmas it's fun and clean and can be seen by anyone