I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

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.

Before I get to the film itself, I want to stand on my soapbox for a moment. I have always hated it when Hollywood played fast and loose with facts in order to create a good story. In other words, when "true stories" turn out to be mostly schmaltz and fiction, the history teacher within me goes bananas! Some good examples are NIGHT AND DAY (which bears little semblance to the life of Cole Porter) and POCAHONTAS (which is so chock full of errors I don't even know where to start!). While the films are entertaining, they teach bad history and over-glamorize people--turning them into caricatures of themselves. Because THE EDDY DUCHIN STORY is essentially a work of fiction, I couldn't get that excited about the movie. It was sort of like the opposite of Joe Friday's old motto "The story you are about to see is true, only the names were changed to protect the innocent". Here, however, the names are the same but everything else, to a degree, has been changed. Sadly, when I searched the web for more information about the real life Duchin, I was usually referred to this film--though most sources also said that the film is a fictionalized account! Now, as a work of fiction, the film has its pluses and minuses. First let's talk about the good. I really liked the music--even though I generally don't care all that much for music of this era. Older big band songs were set to a style that were somewhat like subdued Liberace arrangements--but without THAT much improvisation. The acting was also very good and Power's performance had a bit more depth than usual plus he did a good job of pretending to play the piano well. Also, some of the schmaltz worked well--particularly at the end. Now for what was bad. The film all too often was filled with overly sentimental hooey. The death scene with his first wife (played by Kim Novak) was silly. The woman is supposed to be dying following giving birth, but she looks just fine. I am almost surprised that they didn't have the sky open up when she died--in a scene reminiscent of a Biblical epic. It was simply WAAAYY overdone. Also, all the foreshadowing leading up to it (with the silly talk about storms) was just silly and telegraphed the action way too much. Also, while I did like the music, I also thought that several of the songs could have been cut to speed up the action a bit.So, if you like schmaltzy tear-jerkers NOT based on reality, try watching the film...or THE SOUND OF MUSIC (which, I must admit, I still love despite its many, many liberties with the truth) or any one of a number of other very entertaining but historically silly films. As for me, I'd much rather see a film based on the real Duchin--that would have been much more satisfying in the end.

. . . that begs for answers to unanswered questions. I keep reading that Eddie was a decorated Navy man during WWII but can't find out what those awards were. I've read Peter Duchin's "Ghost of a Chance" but the answers aren't there either. Can't find much on Majorie Oelricks either including photos. Peter was raised by the Harriman's while Eddie was on tour to South America and then WWII. Peter then goes to live with Eddie after the war. The nanny, Chiquita Wynn, straightens Eddie out on how to handle his son and they ultimately fall in love and marry. When Eddie dies of leukemia (sp?), Chiquita drops out of sight and we are left to wonder what happens to her. It's rather frustrating not knowing what happens next - not that I expect the film to answers these questions. But I should and do expect that a biography would. Peter's does not and I believe it should have. The film is marvelous if for no other reason than the music. Carmen Cavallero has been given much of the credit for his virtuosity. I don't doubt it but this is Eddie Duchin's story not CC's. Also, if I read the story correctly, C.C. was greatly inspired by Duchin. That's why there is a film about Duchin and not one about Cavallero. If anyone has information to fill in the blanks I would like to hear from them. Ciao!

Biographical melodrama traces bandleader Eddy Duchin's life from his meager beginnings as a struggling pianist to the years when he became a highly successful radio and nightclub personality. Director George Sidney underlines all of Duchin's ups and downs with the usual lumbering heaviness. The picture is soapy Hollywood schmaltz which fails to escape superficiality (and a few howlers in the screenplay). There are some strong dramatic scenes near the end, and Tyrone Power fares well in the lead (his piano-playing was dubbed by Carmen Cavallaro). Supporting players Kim Novak and Victoria Shaw aren't so lucky. Lots of studio gloss and color, but film is mostly painted cardboard. ** from ****

I saw this movie for the first time when I was a teenager in 1956. I loved the music and had to have the album. "Manhattan" and "Brazil" are still my favorites. I just watched the movie again on TV (TCM). I enjoyed it again. It appears that Peter is born on or about Christmas and is still in the hospital when his mother dies. In reality, Peter Duchin was born in July 1937. Why the discrepancy? The movie does not explain the cause of the mother's death; only that it was not caused by Peter's birth. Kim Novak didn't even look tired when she died. Eddie Duchin looked pretty good too, except for a "sore" hand.Leukemia was never mentioned in the movie. Why?