DEAR EVAN HANSEN Movie Musical - News & Discussion Thread — Page 41

Honestly, the issue for me wasn't just that Ben Platt didn't look like a teenager, but that he didn't act like one either. His fellow cast members delivered more believable and effortless performances... Ben looked like he was putting all his efforts into appearing younger through mannerisms and then the other emotions and nuance came second.

I did enjoy his performances on stage immensely though, in both DEH and BOM. Just don't think his Evan really worked on screen for me personally...

Los Angeles Times:

"Sorry, haters, the movie version of ‘Dear Evan Hansen’ isn’t a train wreck"

'Dear Evan Hansen' review: Broadway adaptation no disaster - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

''Bitching about something that cannot be changed ... is pretty dumb.''

It's a movie. Nothing can be ''changed about it at this point.'' It's already shot. And yet ... critics, Oscar voters, all of us judge movies by what's on the screen. Some folks will love Platt's casting, and some won't. That's showbiz. But everyone has a right to express his/her equally valid opinion and if they disagree with you, doesn't need to be condescendingly told to ''get over'' it.

As for the Los Angeles Times, that critique reads like a defensive piece written by someone who already read a bunch of negative reviews and wanted to answer them. That said, telling your readers that ''Evan Hansen'' ''works better in the theater'' but isn't a movie disaster isn't the most glowing praise.

I can see the TV ad now: '''Dear Evan Hansen' isn't a train wreck!'' - L.A. Times

P.S., Platt turns 28 tomorrow (Sept. 24), so his film will open on his birthday.

Updated On: 9/23/21 at 09:28 PM

"Treacly and manipulative"- NY Times

yep

It's down to 34% on Rotten Tomatoes. It feels like a Ben Platt Razzie nomination is more likely than an Oscar nomination at this point.

Updated On: 9/23/21 at 05:29 PM

I was never a big fan of the material, but always admired that it showed a person doing dislikable things without making the character himself a bad guy. I enjoyed that nuance. And it's odd to me how much of the negative reaction to the movie originates in people being somehow galled that they are supposed to empathize with a character who--admittedly--does something unpleasant. It sounds like they are complaining that the work isn't more black and white and diagrammatic--the very refusal to do that being what makes the story worth telling to begin with.

Charley Kringas Inc said: "I like that nuance, too, but the show seems to drop the ball somewhere on the journey from Words Fail to the apple orchard, which is why it's so frustrating to me. There are so many fascinating angles and exciting ways that the show explores weary tropes about family disconnect, so when it whiffs it so close to the end, it's an even bigger letdown than if the whole show were crummy."

We are also living in a very different world than when the show premiered. I think much has changed since the pandemic as well as the issues related to race, class and privilege going on in our country. The lens through which people view and critique art is much more sensitive. I think more people will be turned off by the inconsistencies and moral ambiguity of the piece. I think suspending disbelief is harder especially when you are dealing with issues of suicide and grief.

Bettyboy72 said: "Charley Kringas Inc said: "I like that nuance, too, but the show seems to drop the ball somewhere on the journey from Words Fail to the apple orchard, which is why it's so frustrating to me. There are so many fascinating angles and exciting ways that the show explores weary tropes about family disconnect, so when it whiffs it so close to the end, it's an even bigger letdown than if the whole show were crummy."

We are also living in a very different world than when the show premiered. I think much has changedsince the pandemic as well as the issues related to race, class and privilege going on in our country. The lens through which people view and critique art is much more sensitive. I think more people will be turned off by the inconsistencies and moral ambiguity of the piece. I think suspending disbelief is harder especially when you are dealing with issues of suicide and grief.

"

I think both of you make really interesting points.

I think the film is getting pretty much what it deserves, but stories like this that manipulate our sympathies and so on so as to bring about introspection after the fact are certainly legitimate in the theatre (and the revulsion and sympathy juxtapositions to the same effect are of course common in the reverse). I think the difference is that films and especially musicals don't normally go there. The reviewer said she cringed; that is not always a negative. Here, the problem (assuming as I do that she's right about this) is that this movie is just lousy.

The full soundtrack was just released. I’ll say Tori Kelly’s Waving Through a Window is kind of a bop and I much prefer it. In fact, the pop artists’ versions of the songs allow the music to escape the sameness that exists in the movie versions and provide variation. And maybe the songs just work better as pop songs.

Updated On: 9/24/21 at 01:12 AM

There is just nothing remarkable about the stage version. Maybe Platt's performance was amazing, I didn't see it, but it's been proven that the show can survive without his performance. I think the staging is very bad. It's a low quality product put at Broadway prices. The movie? I've no interest w/o Moore and Adams. So I will probably watch it. But I'm glad the show is getting called out. It's not a great message.

As someone who absolutely loved the production on stage, the movie did not work for me. There are so many issues all around. We went to the Q&A preview last night. Um. Hello, can we get some lighting and professional video production for this Q&A? Not sure what they were thinking on that one, but it was a waste of 20 minutes.

We went with friends who had never seen the stage show. While they enjoyed it more than I did, the first thing they asked me when it was over was, "Were we supposed to care about Connor?" There was literally zero character development. Cutting "Anybody Have a Map" or at least that scene to introduce Connor a bit more was an egregious error. I truly can't understand that decision and wasn't ever really a huge fan of the song, but felt it important to the story. While "Good for You" was one of my favorites, I do understand the decision to cut that number.

For me, there were really no great performances, which was disappointing as I'm a huge fan of many in the cast. However, Ben stuck out like a sore thumb while everyone else was bringing their acting to the film medium. He was awkward, creepy and far less sympathetic. I didn't even really care that he looked 35 years old.

Sure, Julianne Moore's stripped down version of So Big, So Small was good. It wasn't great like RBJ. She's not getting nominated for an Oscar. Not sure why people are saying that. Her performance was just good. She has the best performance in a film with mediocre to decent performances. That's about it. I was most disappointed with Katelyn Dever's Zoe though as she was so so great in Unbelievable.

I liked the expansion of Alana's character. Did not like changes for Jared's character. In the original production, you truly got the sense that Evan didn't have any real friends. Nik's Jared was kinder to Evan, so the whole "family friend" didn't really land in the film.

Dear Stephen Chbosky: Stay away from musicals. There were so many awful directorial choices in this film. Very uninspired. The pacing of this film could have driven a much heavier and more meaningful story, but it all felt like a crossover of a Lifetime movie and a Disney musical.

Updated On: 9/24/21 at 08:30 AM