Posted: 10/6/17 at 2:15am
This film is normally panned by everybody, but I happen to enjoy it- I think the numbers are well executed and entertaining(And The Money Kept Rolling In in particular) and I really enjoy Madonna's performance. The expositional nature of the plot isn't ideal obviously, but since this is exactly how the show was, I think it works really well. What do you think?
Posted: 10/6/17 at 6:42am
This film is a guilty pleasure of mine. Despite its flaws I enjoy it immensely.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 7:53am
I remember being at the recent revival. A mother and daughter were sitting behind me at intermission. As soon as the lights went on, I heard them say "Madonna was better. The movie was better."
I happen to agree with them.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 7:55am
The real problem with the movie is that it takes material that was meant to be episodic and impressionistic and tries to give it a realistic context and setting. It really doesn’t suit the material well. This was a problem with the last Broadway and London revivals as well. Evita works best when it is more abstract. Hal Prince’s staging was what made the original production so brilliant and memorable.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 8:54am
While not the worst movie musical I've ever seen, Evita as a film still came off as phony to me. I know Madonna was the one who campaigned for the role herself, but I felt the role would've been better off played by a fresh face...as well as an actual Latino.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 8:56am
I have to admit, in the fifth grade, my teacher knew I liked musicals and said she had a cd I might want to borrow. I have never heard of Evita, outside of "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina". She gave my the soundtrack from Evita, and I fell in love with it. I then watched the movie, and still fell in love. I still have yet to see a production on stage. Went to NYC twice during the revival, but didn't want to pay those prices for something I knew was a so-so production.
P.S. anyone find the line in the "Will & Grace" episode last night hilarious in reference to a "VHS copy of Evita"?
Posted: 10/6/17 at 9:03am
I continue to think people miss the point entirely when they keep bringing up that Eva should be played by a "Latin" actress. And I'm not just talking about the fact that she was (like many Argentinians) of European descent. But the musical wasn't written to be a realistic biography of her life. It was a metaphor for British politics in the 1970s.
The only Latin women I ever heard of mentioned for the film (over the decades it took to get made) were Gloria Estefan, Raquel Welch and Charo. I doubt any of them could have pulled it off.
I just wish they had waited twenty years so we could have had Lady Gaga starring in a film version directed by Denis Villeneuve
Posted: 10/6/17 at 9:10am
Loved that VHS line last night.
I’m quite fond of the film adaptation of Evita. I knew some of the score and basic story elements prior, but the film is what really welcomed me into what I think is a masterful score. The huge orchestrations are a plus, the production design is meticulous and frankly, Madonna did a great job and really should have been nominated for an Oscar. I know it’s popular to pile up on her, but this was a very worthy effort and it’s obvious that she worked incredibly hard to pull it off. No, she doesn’t have the vocal power of Patti, but her vocals - for me - brought out Eva’s humanity and her vulnerable side.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 11:03am
I enjoyed the film when it was released but didn't know enough history to follow the plot. I remember asking "what is she dying of? why does Antonia Banderas hate her?"
Listening to the Broadway Album a year later cleared some of that up. The film had cut lyrics critical of the Peron's so that the film would play better abroad. "Never an account in the name of Eva Peron!"
Posted: 10/6/17 at 11:15am
jtishere said: "The huge orchestrations are a plus, the production design is meticulous and frankly, Madonna did a great job and really should have been nominated for an Oscar. I know it’s popular to pile up on her, but this was a very worthy effort and it’s obvious that she worked incredibly hard to pull it off. No, she doesn’t have the vocal power of Patti, but her vocals - for me - brought out Eva’s humanity and her vulnerable side."
Of course, Patti LuPone just called Madonna a 'movie killer' on Watch What Happens Live a few months ago.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 11:18am
The less said
Posted: 10/6/17 at 11:19am
The film (and recent revivals) both really watered down the (negative) perspective of the Peron's politics that fueled the original. I think Webber and Rice have said that they based Evita largely on the single biography that was available at the time called "Lady with a Whip," which was very anti-Peron. But over the year have felt the need to 'humanize' the story. I think that's a real mistake, because whether it was historically accurate or not, the original benefited from a strong acerbic point of view.
And as I said above, the entire thing was a metaphor for what was happening in the UK in the 1970s politically. And the show is much more interesting as a metaphor - less so as a biography.
Updated On: 10/6/17 at 11:19 AM
Posted: 10/6/17 at 11:23am
Jeffrey Karasarides said: "jtishere said: "The huge orchestrations are a plus, the production design is meticulous and frankly, Madonna did a great job and really should have been nominated for an Oscar. I know it’s popular to pile up on her, but this was a very worthy effort and it’s obvious that she worked incredibly hard to pull it off. No, she doesn’t have the vocal power of Patti, but her vocals - for me - brought out Eva’s humanity and her vulnerable side."
Of course, Patti LuPone just called Madonna a 'movie killer'on Watch What Happens Live a few months ago."
Although Patti is right that Madonna's reputation in film is forever ruined after all those stinkers and box office bombs, Patti has her own issues. I remember her going on about 10 years ago where she was short from saying how Bernadette Peters took her role in Gypsy.
Updated On: 10/6/17 at 11:23 AM
Posted: 10/6/17 at 12:06pm
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who doesn't hate it. It's not perfect or super brilliant by any means, but I've seen way worse stage to screen transfers. Madonna may not be an "actor" but to me she always had the essence of manipulative, trophy wife type, so it's almost like she didn't have to act so to speak, but that's just me. One thing I do like about it is how they were able to work the opening of film. That "overture" is kinda baller and rocking...and the musical itself it certainly episodic, which in many ways I think is what makes it work on film. It MUCH easier to do episodic structured pieces for film than it is for theatre, because you can cut and pan from one thing to the next because the audience knows where's attention I supposed to be. In theatre this is more difficult, If this sort of thing isn't done properly, it can come off as jarring and weird and they don't know where their attention should be.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 12:07pm
I always thought the movie was horrible. Mainly because of all the key changes to suit madonna. Supposedly she got voice lessons to sing the score but lowered everything like five whole steps. It's insane. You have to admit she did look stunning though
Posted: 10/6/17 at 1:53pm
The opening sequence is thrilling. Madonna looks beautiful in some shots. She actually sounds good with lowered keys. Bandares was a charm boy. Price was awful. Interesting that Rob Ashford stole many ideas from the film for the awful revival. The first 10 minutes with Ricky was sleep inducing.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 1:53pm
The opening sequence is thrilling. Madonna looks beautiful in some shots. She actually sounds good with lowered keys. Bandares was a charm boy. Price was awful. Interesting that Rob Ashford stole many ideas from the film for the awful revival. The first 10 minutes with Ricky was sleep inducing.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 3:17pm
evic said: "Interesting that Rob Ashford stole many ideas from the film for the awful revival. The first 10 minutes with Ricky was sleep inducing."
Though Michael Grandage directed the revival with Ashford choreographing. So who knows how much of their ideas blended together.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 3:30pm
What I learned from the Evita movie:
Madonna can't carry a picture.
Antonio Banderas should be starring in a musical.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 5:19pm
Here's Michelle Pfeiffer's demo track of "I'd Be Surprisingly Good For You" when she was still attached to the film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-Pw604VFK8
Julie Covington, Elaine Paige, Patti LuPone, Madonna, and Elena Roger...
Which one has your favorite renditions of specific songs? I'm partial to Patti's pure ferocity on "Rainbow High" while I actually like Madonna's kittenish/seductive "I'd Be Surprisingly Good For You" and Covington has my favorite "Don't Cry for Me Argentina".
Updated On: 10/6/17 at 05:19 PM
Posted: 10/6/17 at 5:40pm
I think it is one of the best movie musicals out there.
The reason for that is the incredible cinematography and the way they used the pre-recorded tracks almost as a voice-over at times, which creates a magic (non-literal, better than life feel) that heightens emotions. That filmic editing and elaborate cinematography is what this artform on film needs. It creates a world of storytelling through song. Without getting literal. This filmic language makes it feel real.
I love the scenes "The lady's got potential" and "Santa Evita".
True, the singing is not too good at times, and the film would have been even better with better singers. But at least they never apologize for singing, as in the Les Mis film, a literal theatre performance on a pavement in which I didn't believe 1 sung word.
In Evita, the illusion of sung thoughts is actually embraced. No misplaced urge to live speak/bleat 75% to pretend the switch to a sung word is more realistic then. No pretending that leaving out every filmic aspect of a sung thought makes it more realistic. Realistic emotions lie in other things in film.
This director really understood how to translate sung thoughts to film.
Updated On: 10/7/17 at 05:40 PM
Posted: 10/6/17 at 6:18pm
We both JUST watched it the other day, after not having seen it since it came out in the (movie) theaters. I loved it! I'd forgotten how grand and epic the big military scenes are. Beautiful pageantry and visuals. Antonio Banderas was pretty abysmal, but he sings less and less after the first third of the movie or so. Was surprised by how wooden and bland Jonathan Pryce was. Madonna played it much more naive and better intentioned than the Patti Lupone stage interpretation, and I think it worked for her.
Posted: 10/6/17 at 6:32pm
Love the movie! Such an underrated film. Never has there been a more perfect pairing of star to character. Patti was great on stage, but Madonna owned that movie! And she worked her ass off for it, both before and during filming. And let's not forget that she was pregnant at the time. The similarities alone between Eva and Madonna's lives and rise to fame made her a perfect choice for the role. The cinematography and direction were also flawless. In regard to the adaption of the material from stage to screen, I think Alan Parker got it just right. I don't consider the movie to be a guilty pleasure - just a pleasure every time I watch it.
Updated On: 10/6/17 at 06:32 PM
Posted: 10/6/17 at 11:34pm
I'm pleasantly surprised by all the positive thoughts! You never know huh?
Posted: 10/7/17 at 12:49am
The lowered keys don't really bother me so much. Madonna didn't, and was never going to, sing the score with the power that LuPone did (and still can).
What does bother me is the sanitization and deification of the title character. Madonna played her like a saint, and the film either glossed over or in some cases eliminated the less savory aspects of her rise to power.
That said, there is some glorious cinematography in the film.
