The challenge: produce a film that’s based on a Broadway musical, that itself was based on a film; but not just any film – one of cinema’s universally agreed-upon treasures, and, as a matter of fact, one of my all-time favorite films, in maestro Federico Fellini’s magnum opus 8 1/2.

Does director Rob Marshall, with the help of his stunning cast of Oscar-winners triumph?

Depends on who you ask, obviously.

As I told my utterly disappointed movie date (disappointed in the movie, not in me) – a musical theatre geek, who accompanied me to the Nine screening at NYC’s Ziegfeld last night – studio film adaptations of musicals are meant more for those mainstream audiences who likely aren’t as familiar with the Broadway shows that the films are based on, or with musical theatre tropes in general.

These adaptations aren’t made for Broadway aficionados, who’ll likely, and only naturally, compare the work to the original it was based on, and will, as my date did last night, find numerous flaws with the adaptation – flaws that the average audience member probably wouldn’t immediately identify, for obvious reasons.

It’s really no different than when novels are adapted to film; fans of the original novel very often disapprove of the celluloid version of it, often finding details to contend with.

Nine holds the dubious honor of being one of a few films (to my knowledge) with its pedigree – based on a musical that’s based on a film; a film that, as I’ve already noted, I’m very familiar with; so, naturally, just as my date had several bones to pick with the filmed version of the stage musical, I had my own set of issues with the film, based on my familiarity, not with the stage musical, but with the original Fellini film that the Broadway adaptation was based on. You follow?

Therein lies the task that lay ahead for director Marshall and company: who should we please? The mainstreamers? The musical theatre geeks? Or the cinephiles? The answer, which I’ve already given is – the well-represented mainstream audience, which potentially alienates the other 2 groups who exist in much smaller numbers.

However, I’m starting to buy into the notion that comparisons are useless; each work stands alone and should be digested, analyzed and critiqued based solely on its own merits. Thus, the film should be observed singularly, minus all the “baggage” that people like myself and my date bring into it.

So, then, all that said… does Nine, the movie, as an “original” creation succeed?

Not entirely, unfortunately.

Its story goes… having reached the age of fifty, director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is facing a midlife crisis that is stifling his creativity and leading him into a variety of complicated romantic involvements. As he struggles to complete his latest film, he is forced to balance the numerous formative women in his life, including his wife, Luisa (Marion Cotillard); his mistress, Carla (Penélope Cruz); his film star muse, Claudia (Nicole Kidman); his confidant and costume designer (Judi Dench); an American fashion journalist, Stephanie (Kate Hudson); a prostitute from his youth, Saraghina (Fergie); and his mother (Sophia Loren).

For a film with such a dynamic cast of characters (and the very talented actors who play them), and all its musical performances, it was oddly boring and even somewhat lifeless. To blame primarily were the casting choices – many of whom seemed, shall I say, not entirely comfortable in this musical environment. Acting is one thing, and Daniel Day Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz and others certainly have the resumes and the hardware to prove just how skilled they are as thespians. However, singing, moving/dancing, and emoting, all convincingly, while acting, requires much more than Stanislavsky’s method.

I’ll certainly give the entire cast a round of applause for even taking on what must have been quite a challenge for a lot of them; however, they just weren’t entirely believable and thus, not very engaging. I recall the phrase I used last night was, “sufficient… all things considered.” Some were certainly better than others, specifically, as my date noted, Marion Cotillard and Dame Judi Dench, who both seemed like they’d done this before, and managed to rise above the others. Even the reliable Daniel Day-Lewis, who often transforms himself on screen to wondrous effect, is questionably out of his element here, as is Nicole Kidman whose single musical solo lacks the oomph it deserves.

They almost seemed uncertain; there was a hesitation there, a non-committance, if you will, in some of their performances; and I think that comes from a lack of confidence – whether it’s in the material, or in their abilities to do proper justice to such a prized piece of work. No matter what the root is, the onus to resolve falls squarely on the director’s shoulders – Rob Marshall.

It’s a musical, so the performances are everything; they have to work, and work well, otherwise, the entire production goes wanting. It’s not entirely clear whether Rob Marshall can properly shoot and edit a dance sequence; I’d say that the choreography, for the most part, was sound, but the shooting and editing of some of those scenes didn’t always work. Staying on a wider shot to see the spectacular choreography, especially in ensemble dance sequences, seemed much more sensible to me than the film’s sometimes MTV-music video style erratic crosscutting between wides, mediums, and closeups, from varying angles.

I don’t know what the film’s budget was, however, I’m sure it wasn’t cheap, with a cast of its caliber, both in terms of beauty and talent; it’s production values are certainly high, shooting in London, as well as in the very scenic Italy, where gorgeous vistas abound, modeled to resemble the era in which the story takes place – the 1960s – all seen through the lens of an assured kinetic camera. It’s a beautiful film to look at, even if fabricated. Take away the musical numbers and you’ve got a much stronger piece of film art. In fact, I can say with certainty that I relished those moments between the musical numbers.

However, those same musical performances are obviously the film’s heartbeat, upon which it succeeds or fails. And, if it’s not already clear by now, it fails… but not entirely! There were a few moments of near evocative perfection, and given the visual spectacle that it is, it’s a film worth seeing on a large screen – ie, the theatre.

I really don’t think I need to explain the reasons for the casting decisions that were made in this case, or in most other cases; the end goal is always to attract as wide an audience as possible; and one can’t help but be drawn to a film with this specific cast, made up of 6 Oscar-winners; and I’m sure, when the film opens wide next week Friday, it’ll sell well. I’m just not so certain how long its legs will be.

So, I can’t strongly recommend it, but, I won’t give it a complete thumbs down either. It’s “sufficient… all things considered.”

Then again, maybe my bias/baggage has been of influence on my reception of the film, as, afterward, I suddenly felt a strong urge to watch 8 1/2 again, for the umpteenth time.

Ho-hum…

2.5 out of 5 stars.