NINE - The Movie Musical - Review Thread- Page 3

[supersam1026]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 6:01pm

Well Golden Globe nominations come out tomorrow morning. It will be interesting to see how "Nine" does considering the reviews thus far, but as we all know it's not over til it's over.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 6:09pm

The reviews thus far are misleading... only four have been released from substantial sources. Yes, only one of those is truly positive, but the others just seem very off-the-mark and go after the material itself, with a great deal of unfair comparisons to both 8 1/2 and Chicago.

However, reviews don't necessarily mean everything when it comes to nominations. There's a lot of politics involved, a lot of hype, etc. Nine has had pretty strong showings at the strong precursor award nominations thus far. I can say with a great deal of certainty that come Oscar time, we'll see Nine receive nominations, particularly from the technical/creative awards, and perhaps for Cotillard or Cruz (depending on which category Cotillard ends up, she's being pushed for lead but who can say?). However, both actress suffer from very recent and major wins at the Oscars, which could hurt their chances for another win.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 6:14pm

The comparisons are quite fair, actually, given that this movie is being touted as the next CHICAGO and a musical adaptation of 8 1/2.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 9:24pm

The GG nods are meaningless except as a marketing tool to the film. The Hollywood Foreign is known for their quirky selections on everything. Even the categories are irksome, like combining supporting actors of both television and tv movie/miniseries.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 4:07pm

Massawyrm says NINE is a good movie but a bad musical

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 4:19pm

I usually enjoy his reviews, though I almost always disagree, but he seems to totally not get the film at all. Plus that line about most men being attracted to beautiful women followed by a hard-on of hard-ons for Daniel Day Lewis really started the "review" off on the wrong foot. I wouldn't even really call it a review... more a compendium of someone's personal bias for some performances, preconceived notions about what a musical version of 8 1/2 should be and a complete lack of understanding about what a good musical really is. This goes in the EW/Geliberman "ignorant of what a good musical actually is" pile as far as I'm concerned.

Just my opinion. And no, I am not just disagreeing with him because his "review" was critical of the piece, although some of you seem to think I can't see the forest for the trees on this topic.

Lastly, something cannot be a "Great Film" and a "bad musical" simultaneously. It just can't. Well, unless it's GIGI.

P

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 4:26pm

Slant Magazine - * 1/2

[Tony2600]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 4:36pm

My aunt Bunny will be posting her review of NINE in about three hours.

[James885]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 8:28pm

The New York Times review is up. It's another negative.

The best that can be said about “Nine” is that its affections are sincere, though you could say the same about its hero, who has the misfortune of being in a movie that’s an even worse mess than he is.

There Will Be Lingerie (Singing, Too)

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 8:31pm

Wow. He HATED it.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 8:38pm

Travers and Daily News liked it despite its flaws, their words not mine.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 8:40pm

This is really depressing. The critics simply hate the movie, but something tells me their hate of the movie has more to do with a hate of movie musicals, Rob Marshall and the success that CHICAGO was. NINE is a beautiful musical, and it's sad that most of the critiques are directed to the source material. The more and more movie musicals come out, the more I realize movie critics really don't get musicals...but then again, I don't think popular modern audiences do either. It's such a shame.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 8:40pm

Will these reviews hurt their chances of Oscar nominations?

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 8:50pm

They already have. Daniel Day-Lewis, Rob Marshall, the film, and Judi Dench were all considered strong contenders for nominations in their respective races. As we could see with the SAG and Golden Globe announcements, those prospectives are pretty much gone. Marshall will be snubbed, Day-Lewis didn't make it to the SAG list so there's just about no way he'll land an Oscar nod (it's crazy to think that an incredibly gimmicky performance like Morgan Freeman's in INVICTUS and a no-name actor like Jeremy Renner are getting in before him), and the movie will maybe get in simply because there's 10 nominees this year. In the year of 5 nominees, I think any chance the movie has for a nomination would have been gone. Marion Cotillard is getting screwed since the Weinstein--thinking they had Oscar gold--have been campaigning her for lead; she might have gotten in if they liked the movie enough but there seems to be very little support for it. Once I thought they could get two supporting acting nods, now Penelope Cruz seems to be their only chance and now I'm even thinking they might wanna include someone else in her place.
I imagine the only locks the movie has are in the Cinematography, Song, Art Direction, and hopefully Costumes race.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 8:54pm

"NINE is a beautiful musical, and it's sad that most of the critiques are directed to the source material."

Just because the source material may be good, it doesn't mean it would make a good movie.

IMO, NINE has a wonderful score - for the stage. But it's subject matter? Trite, unfriendly stuff with a protagonist who is inherently impossible to feel bad for.

The reason it fails as a movie musical is simple: the show itself is a concept piece. It would be like turning COMPANY into a movie. Updated On: 12/17/09 at 08:54 PM

[bk]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 10:07pm

"This is really depressing. The critics simply hate the movie, but something tells me their hate of the movie has more to do with a hate of movie musicals, Rob Marshall and the success that CHICAGO was. NINE is a beautiful musical, and it's sad that most of the critiques are directed to the source material. The more and more movie musicals come out, the more I realize movie critics really don't get musicals...but then again, I don't think popular modern audiences do either. It's such a shame."

I completely disagree - I think they don't like it because for them it doesn't work as a FILM. You may not agree, it may make you depressed, but when there are this many negative reviews you simply cannot say it's because everyone hates movie musicals. And I still feel that if anyone actually made a real movie musical, where people aren't afraid of characters bursting into song, and if they did it with style (but not "now" style) and taste and just went for it, and it all worked beautifully, I think critics would be shouting praises to the skies. Every time I watch the film of The Music Man, which I love, and which got raves and was a hit, I think if this same film came out now it would still get raves and still be a hit. I've shown it to kids and teens and they sit there rapt and laughing and into it - why? Because the songs are brilliant, they move the story forward, the characters are fantastic, and so are the actors. The direction, while it may be stagebound, gets the job done in a simple and straightforward way. I have never heard any young person I've shown it to wish it were more "now." They love it because it presents a world and a universe and you never ever question why people are singing - if they made it today would all the numbers have to be in Harold Hill's head?

Nine, for me, has some pleasing things in it, but it does not work. It's that simple. I saw it with a full house at the DGA and they wanted to love it - they were there to love it - and they did not love it. Two inside jokes (about directors) landed for obvious reasons, otherwise there wasn't a laugh to be heard, no applause after any numbers, and afterwards many comments of disappointment. The film never feels organic. Like or hate or not care about Chicago, it felt of a piece. This feels herky-jerky and the Daniel Day-Lewis performance is a non-star turn, IMO - he just doesn't command the screen - one closeup of Marcello Mastroianni has more going on than the entirety of Day-Lewis' performance.

I suspect when all is said and done, the people who want to love the movie will love it - even if they don't, they'll say they do :) The critics, on this one, are going to be sharply divided and I think that they'll veer to the negative. The general public? I think two things are at play here - the reviews, which are now at least being PERCEIVED as negative, and the usual overdone and really harmful hyperbolic hype being foisted by Weinstein. He just doesn't get it anymore. He may be able to still buy nominations by spending huge buckets of promotional money and making sure Academy voters get lots of Nine trinkets, but he cannot shove things down people's throats, which is what it seems like he's doing - they will rebel and it usually has the exact opposite effect than is desired. Weinstein should remember that Chicago basically took people by surprise. Will Nine do well at the box-office? Hard to predict these things, so I won't.

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 10:07pm

The critics simply hate the movie, but something tells me their hate of the movie has more to do with a hate of movie musicals

I strongly disagree. DREAMGIRLS is a musical and it's reviews were better than those NINE is receiving. I finally saw it again and it just isn't a very good movie musical. I hope Marshall wakes up and realizes his little gimmicks of cross cutting and staging musical numbers in people's heads just isn't making it anymore. HAIRSPRAY which wasn't afraid to be what it is: A MOVIE MUSICAL with full blown in your face singing and dancing in the streets got better reviews than NINE *and* managed to make a sh*t load of money, so did MAMMA MIA.

NINE as a movie musical just didn't make the grade.

[bk]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 10:23pm

And the LA Times is just as negative as the NY Times - I will say I live in LA and have no idea who this woman is and she writes like a complete moron.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-nine18-2009dec18,0,724445.story Updated On: 12/17/09 at 10:23 PM

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 10:28pm

Phantom got nominations despite there being way more venom for that movie musical than Nine.

Jeremy Renner is the consensus Best Actor pick so if DDL misses out because Renner was nominated it won't hurt when Renner picks up awards.

Mo'Nique seems to be the favorite as a Supporting Actress but the Academy has weird arbitrary standards. They didn't like that Eddie Murphy had Norbit coming out around Oscar time or the fact he was developing a decade long track record of piss-poor films so they gave a lifetime achievement award to Alan Arkin. Mo'Nique is not exactly an auteur so giving it to somebody like Penelope would make a lot of sense and what Harvey wants Harvey usually gets. Plus Vera and Anna would cancel each other out in Up In The Air.

Marion could still get a nod and I am not convinced there is a runaway pick in that category.

[James885]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 10:41pm

The critics simply hate the movie, but something tells me their hate of the movie has more to do with a hate of movie musicals

I respectfully disagree with this. A.O. Scott of the New York times loved Sweeney Todd and Hairspray. In fact the majority of the reviews for both movie musicals were positive. So I don't think that Nine's reviews have anything to do with the critics hating movie musicals. Many of the critics seem to think that Nine isn't working as a movie musical. Maybe Rob Marshall's "concept" is wearing thin. I hope he realizes that he doesn't have to resort to gimmicks or tricks to justify the songs. Just let the movie musical be a movie musical.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 11:52pm

I have seen a lot of critics compare it to Fellini, which almost in any comparison with plenty of movies does not measure up. Considering Owen Gleiberman was comparing Hairspray (a film he gave the same grade to as Nine) to the John Waters original (love you, John), I cannot imagine the carnage of comparing anything to Fellini.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 12/18/09 at 12:07am

Not that it really matters, but I remember Gleiberman giving Hairspray an A- in print and not the C that appears online. This leads me to believe it's a mistake on ew.com's part because he says "Hairspray is a fizzy and delirious high-camp message-movie musical that may just turn out to be the happiest movie of the summer."

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/18/09 at 12:23am

I am thinking that when I read the entire review but then he has these bizarre lines about about Motormouth being all saintly was too much for him which is well.. strange.

[James885]

Posted: 12/18/09 at 11:18am

The New York Post critic hated it, though he seems to have a lot of venom for the stage show, calling it a "mediocre, imitation-Kander-and-Ebb" musical.

For what it's worth, Nine's rating on Rotten Tomatoes has risen slightly to 47%.

'Nine' doesn't add up

Updated On: 12/18/09 at 11:18 AM

[DAME]

Posted: 12/18/09 at 12:02pm

""This is really depressing. The critics simply hate the movie, but something tells me their hate of the movie has more to do with a hate of movie musicals, Rob Marshall and the success that CHICAGO was."

Not true. The movie is just flat and dull.