Best movie based on a musical — Page 2

I thought Chicago was brilliant. I don't see how Rob Marshall could have done better. Also:

The Sound of Music and The King and I.

I also feel that Gigi would be on this list under normal circumstances.

Well the Gigi stage show is based on the movie. It's the opposite situation.

This is a tough one, but I would go with "The Sound of Music."

It was better than the Broadway show, sure, as were others (Oliver, West Side Story, Chicago), but it was such a cinematic phenomenon. Not just talking about the box office, either.

Every change they made was an improvement.

And oh, those Alps!

---

Sweeney Todd without any doubt..Sondheim's opinion of it makes me feel even better about it :p.

Surprised about Midler Gypsy love - I found it
uncomfortable to watch her eyes almost pop out of her head.

---

My problem with the Bette Midler Gypsy is that she played Rose as if she were playing it on stage. It was completely over the top and way too big for TV.

Also I thought Peter Riegert's Herbie was awful.

---

Updated On: 8/22/09 at 09:11 PM

Easily Sweeney Todd...it actually plays brilliantly as a MOVIE, not just a musical I love. So many of the movie musicals just feel like show tapings, but they invariably lose something being recreated out of their intended format. The best examples of that I can think of are The Producers and the Bette Middler Gypsy.

They're uncinematic, but I don't believe the Rose's Turn numbers are a good example of why. I really can't see it taking place in any other setting than an empty theater. It's too perfect.

As for the possibility of a future film: it's rumored Mike Nichols has been trying to get a Meryl Streep Gypsy made for like ever.

Love Chicago, Sweeney, and The Sound of Music, partly because I think I was raised on the Sound of Music.

Hate Hairspray so so so so much. Not too big of a fan of WSS.

---

Interesting threads. Especially the ones talking at length about films they've not seen completely. I guess it's partially a problem when one can discuss a film in relationship to a show that was perhaps only listened-to, seen in "community" spaces, or only "heard about".... or worse, in one of the lacklustre revivals most of the classics have been forced to foist on the public.

Anyhoo....
"Oliver!" is, in my experience, the most honest opening-up of a stage piece to film. Although, if you are old enough to have seen the original Sean Kenny death-defying-double-turntable set, you'd have to admit it was pretty stunning.

"West Side Story" wasn't made to be seen on DVD, TV or your phone. In Panavision 70 on a screen as wide as Texas, it was a "first", and the soundmix was phenomenal. If you've not seen it on a big screen, you've simply not seen it. (Movies were made, remember, to be seen in Movie Houses.)

I'd also have to agree with the voices mentioning "The Music Man" -- that is, the 1962 nominated-for-"Best-Picture" version with Preston. Morton daCosta, a really crappy film director, actually managed to recreate his finely-textured imagery. And thank God, they let Onna White recreate the true-to-period dances.

And one, odd, other adaptation. James ("Gods and Monsters") Whale's "Show Boat" with Irene Dunne, is pretty frigging amazing. Cut to smithereens, of course, but then, this WAS the early 1930's.... but oh my LORD. If you say you are a lover of Music Theatre, and of Film, and have not seen this.... do yourself a favor and check it out. Really. If you really don't like it, then ok. But I'd have to question whether you really like Music Theatre, or just like what's "out there now".
Having had a relationship to the original "Sweeney", and also personally discounting Sondheim's rambling agreements with Tim Burton trying to make the film look like every OTHER Tim Burton film (I think Mr.S was just glad that a show of his was being FILMED), I am really surprised that on a THEATRE site, so many people have contended that the film is a great "transfer". It's totally lacking in humor (the leavening-point of the show), is reMARKably empty of sub-text (particularly in the performance of Mr. Burton's squeeze, Ms. B-C), does great disservice to the score through the useless voices of Anthony and Johanna (although the orchestrations are wonderful) -- to say nothing of trying to turn Sweeney into a cranky Edward Scissorhands.

I obviously (as I sung the praises of the film earlier) totally disagree with your assessment of the Sweeney Todd film, peerrjb. The humor is definitely there (I think it's probably funnier than a good chunk of film comedies that come out in a given year), the subtext of the characters are there (what's really different character wise between the film and stage Mrs. Lovett?), and the singing is as expressionistic as the art direction.

I know it is a minority opinion but I absolutely love the 1958 film of South Pacific, which I viewed on DVD after seeing the current Lincoln Center revival. It is a very faithful adaptation of the stage version opened up with gorgeous location scenery and while it's true that all of the principal singers are dubbed except Mitzi Gaynor & Ray Walston, the singing is excellent, especially Bill Lee as Lt. Cable. His vocal of Younger than Springtime is the most beautiful and moving I have ever heard, way better than Matthew Morrison in the current stage revival. And that orchestra and chorus with all the exotic instruments! If you think the 35 piece orchestra used in the current revival creates a big sound, the film orchestrations are played by an orchestra more than double that size and Richard Rodgers' music takes on an atmosphere and dimension that literally blows away any other recording of South Pacific. Filters and all, I love this movie!

Updated On: 8/23/09 at 03:37 AM

I almost like the movie of Chicago better than the onstage production.