Articulate, detailed, EXTREMELY NEGATIVE review of "Mamma Mia!" movie- Page 2

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 1:30pm

As for things not being a filmed version of the stage show, I don't get that, the problem with that. I don't get why when a musical is transferred to screen that the film version is supposed to veer dramatically away from its source. It's the same thing that makes me wonder why the book writer gets no respect, since it's usually the book that gets mangled the most on the way to the screen.

I don't think that's what he is saying. I took it to mean (and I agree), that films are completely different mediums. You need someone who understands how to tell a story with a camera, to direct. A flat transfer of a stage show is just that, flat. I can't speak to this film, as I haven't seen, nor intend to see it. To me, the only thing it had going for it on stage, was the ABBA tunes. If I want to hear ABBA tunes, I'll play an ABBA CD. But, take a look at something really flat, like My Fair Lady. It was basically a film transfer of the Broadway show (just less exciting). Nothing cinematic about it, at all. Then, look at The Sound of Music. Nothing flat about its presentation. Changes were made to the source material, to support a new medium to tell the same story. Now, you may prefer the source material, but no one can say that the film lacks scope or cinematic splendor. In every way, it's an improvement over the source, for film. However, the reverse it also true. Stage productions that try to incorporate the film's changes, always seem stupid to me. Maria twirling on stage, singing I Have Confidence with no place to travel, etc., doesn't work.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 1:34pm

I dunno. I liked My Fair Lady, but I agree that Sound of Music on film is better than on stage.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 1:42pm

I'm not saying you shouldn't like it, but there is nothing in that film that couldn't have been done on a stage. In fact, having seen the original production, the stage show was actually bigger, in its production numbers, than the film. The whole film is stage-bound. In The Sound of Music (which I just used as an example. There are others), there are many things, both big and small, that wouldn't work on or couldn't be done on a stage. They are purely cinematic. There is nothing purely cinematic about MFL. South Pacific is another example (at least musical number-wise), of a flat film. Although there are cinematic elements to the film itself, all the musical numbers are flat and non-cinematic.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 1:58pm

I agree that there is no way this could be worse than RENT. Only THE APPLE is worse than RENT, and THE APPLE is far more fascinating and, unlike RENT, truly must-see viewing.

The reviewer (blogger) undercuts himself with some cheap shots ("65 is the new 40") and going on and on for a paragraph about how whatserbucket isn't enough of a "star".

From the clips I have seen, the movie looks frankly like sh*t. But still I'm sure the theater queens present and past will find much to love about it, regardless of its quality a la GREASE 2.

[Barihunk]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 5:19pm

Having seen an advanced screening on Monday, I can pretty much attest that everything mentioned in the review is true. If taken with a grain of salt, the movie is summertime fluff (I don't know why but "Pirate Movie" with Chris Atkins and Kristi McNichol kept coming to mind while watching it). Streep, Baranski and Walters are game gals but aren't quite enough to overcome an inept director. Wait for the rental.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 1:20am

"You guys DO realize this is ONE review from a non-reputable reviewer who obviously has a grudge against the movie, and by listening to him you are coloring your own opinions and enjoyment of the movie before you even see it?

Look over at rottentomatoes.com, which polls reputable film critics, where the movie has an 80% approval rating as of today if you must look for actual reviews."



Wow, so much is wrong and ill-informed about that post, I don't know where to start. First off, there are hundreds of critics on Rotten Tomatoes (including David Poland, if you'd bothered to fact check) and many MANY of them aren't "reputable" -- Rotten Tomatoes is intended to include the full gamut of reactions/reviews and not just the "reputable" or creme de la creme ones. And I don't mean to be defending David Poland here (I actually rarely agree with him), but any film junkies know he's been one of the more "reputable" film sources online for a few years now.

Second: that 80% "Mamma Mia" currently has? Let's see where it is next week. It had 80% because there were only 5 reviews so far, and the positive ones are hardly "reputable," and one is actually a C+ review incorrectly labeled as "positive."

As for having a grudge against the movie: David Poland actually is often mocked by some of his readers for being "queeny," regularly attending Broadway musicals, and loving most movie musicals, even ones others deem inadequate (e.g.: "Phantom"). If anything, he was biased in the other direction.

And "listening to him you are coloring your own opinions and enjoyment of the movie before you even see it"... um, are you suggesting we never read any review for any movie ever? Or just not the negative ones for a movie you're a shill for? If we just paid attention to the "reputable" critic's positive reviews, wouldn't that be coloring our opinions as well, just in the other direction?


Sorry to rant, but I'm just a little burnt out on the "Mamma Mia" shilling by 'Robert Taylor,' and couldn't believe no one called him on this ridicuous post.
Updated On: 7/10/08 at 01:20 AM

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 5:56am

Dude, I get it. You posted the review, obviously know the reviewer (or are at least familiar with him) and agree with the review too because you titled the thread "Articulate" and "Detailed." You obviously couldn't have scrolled down five inches when posting the review to find the already-existing "Mamma Mia Reviews" thread and put it there because you wanted to make a bigger impact. Whatever.

On rottentomatoes.com, you have to have a history of "articulate" and "detailed" reviews to be considered a critic for the site. While I agree that not every reviewer on the Web site is from a big name or a "reputable" source, you can merely click once more to the "Top Critics" section (of which Poland is...strangely...absent), which reflects the creme de' la creme of reviewers, to get a better understanding of what the most important reviewers think of the movie, and right now the single review in that section is positive...extremely positive.

And, oddly enough, I'm a film junkie. In fact I have a Degree in film AND journalism...and I've never heard of David Poland, or have never heard him brought up in conversation before. I've never heard of the Web site either, and judging by the number of comments left for his articles, apparently not a lot of other people have either. Or care. And really, the "queeny" comment was unnecessary.

And no, I'm not suggesting that people never read reviews, but to hear posters compare the film to "The Producers" and "RENT" sight unseen because of one review...I find that rather ridiculous.

And yeah, I'm really "shilling" (nice word) for the film. I have not seen "Mamma Mia", and nowhere did I say the film was great or amazing, and this is my first post about the movie anywhere on the boards...but obviously one post that merely asks readers to consider the wider spectrum of criticism beyond a single review is really "burning you out." Ha...pretty funny actually.

Updated On: 7/10/08 at 05:56 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 7:13am

I'm with Dottie - I've never seen the show and have no desire to see the film (and I love ABBA).

Having said that, according to movietickets, it is pre-selling tickets a full 50% more than Hairspray did last year.
Obviously it's not going to touch Batman's success, but I do think this will be a big hit.

"Oddly enough, the overbearing power of The Dark Knight doesn’t seem to have entirely killed Mamma Mia!’s box office chances. It’s being released the same weekend as TDK, and most had assumed that would spell death for the musical. But MovieTickets claims it’s selling 50 times more tickets than the very successful musical Hairspray did at the same time in its sales cycle last year. MammaMia! may actually manage to thrive in TDK’s shadow"


link

Updated On: 7/10/08 at 07:13 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 8:09am

David Poland actually is often mocked by some of his readers for being "queeny," regularly attending Broadway musicals, and loving most movie musicals, even ones others deem inadequate

Now THAT'S homophobic.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 8:16am

"I liked My Fair Lady, but I agree that Sound of Music on film is better than on stage."

Agreed. MY FAIR LADY is the better musical, but THE SOUND OF MUSIC is the better film.

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 8:22am

Roger Friedman (Fox News)is trashing the movie. I can't stand the man, but he makes a lot of the same points as other people here.

It's too bad if it's true...I was hoping for it to at least be entertaining, not a technical trainwreck.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 9:14am

--- "You posted the review, obviously know the reviewer (or are at least familiar with him) and agree with the review too because you titled the thread "Articulate" and "Detailed."" ---

Never met or corresponded with David Poland. Yes, I'm "familiar" with him, I read his reviews on his website. Almost never agree with him, but enjoy reading them. I call the review "articulate" and "detailed" because... it's articulate and detailed. I don't "agree" with the review, have yet to see the movie. If you noticed, I also excitedly posted a link of clips from the musical numbers; I'm hardly gunning for it.


--- "You can merely click once more to the "Top Critics" section (of which Poland is...strangely...absent), which reflects the creme de' la creme of reviewers, to get a better understanding of what the most important reviewers think of the movie, and right now the single review in that section is positive...extremely positive." ---

'Top Critics' means the writer reviews for a well-known source, not that they're especially "important." Few would call Rex Reed "relevant" or "important" these days. And a single extremely positive review in the Top Critics section is hardly a consensus. When there's 30-40 there next week, let's see where they're at.


--- "In fact I have a Degree in film AND journalism...and I've never heard of David Poland, or have never heard him brought up in conversation before. I've never heard of the Web site either, and judging by the number of comments left for his articles, apparently not a lot of other people have either. Or care. And really, the "queeny" comment was unnecessary." ---

Whaaaaat?! A Degree in film AND journalism?? I'm impressed!! Actually, I have the same (film was my major, journalism my minor), but I don't use the degree as a way to present my opinions as more valid than others. And I'm sorry you haven't heard of him before, but yes, him, Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood-Elsewhere.com and Devin Faraci of CHUD.com are considered three of the more polarizing, interesting industry/film commentators out there. As for the "queeny" comment-- dude, I'm gay. I put it in quotes because it's been said by numerous people who've posted comments on his blog or linked to him.

Aaaaand end scene.

Updated On: 7/10/08 at 09:14 AM

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 9:18am

And "every single" review in the Top Critics section is extremely positive? I just checked... there's one review listed.

He said "the single review," not every single review.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 9:21am

Good catch, Foster. Corrected.

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 7/10/08 at 10:46am

I love how you ignore the actual arguments in my posts, like my arguments on looking at the consensus of critics instead of focusing on one review and then quibble with the details of my arguments to make yourself seem right.

If you are a reviewer for a large newspaper, magazine or entertainment web site, your opinion does carry a great deal of weight, if not within the industry itself than by the huge amount (often millions) of people who read them. What, praytell, is your definition of a "Top Critic", then? Actually, don't answer that, I don't want to bang my head against this topic anymore.

Really, attacking me for saying, as someone familiar with both the journalism and entertainment industry, that I had never heard of the reviewer was pretty tacky. Like when you totally acted like I was this huge "Mamma Mia" cheerleader earlier when I made one post that did not give an opinion on the film itself. I did not attack you personally with my first post and only defended myself in the second (save for the end, with the whole "Let's pretend Robert is some crazy "Mamma Mia" cheerleader"), and I don't appreciate that. I did NOT say that my opinion was more valid than others, did not even hint at it, I merely stated that I, nor any of my friends, had ever come across the reviewer in all of our film criticism work, so do not imply that I have.

Yeah, this will be the last time I post in this thread. My argument was simply that one should not take a simple review as word of law, look at the consensus of reviewers instead and hold on on forming an opinion of the film until you see it yourself. But that, apparently, is not welcome on this forum lest you get attacked personally and made to look like an imbecile even when your opinion holds just as much weight as the next person.