Is the movie Evita good?

[winston89]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:05pm

I have been getting into the score of Evita based on the London revival recording. I am wondering, is the movie good. I know that it is really my only option of seeing it done full out but I am wondering if it is worth spending money on.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:09pm

Rent it?

All of the keys were lowered a lot for Madonna. But she isn't too bad. The movie just drags and drags and drags.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:09pm

Some people really like it. I am not one of them. The entire movie feels like a 2 hour music video. The movie loses all of the wit and bite that the show had because they decide to make Eva a good girl/victim. I remember first seeing the movie and wondering why Che hated her so much. Then I saw the show and I understood. Because the director wanted to shoot on location in Argentina, he had to compromise with Argentina and make the screenplay much more sympathetic towards Eva and Peron. So it removes almost everything wrong that they're administration did (one major thing was Eva's infamous Swiss Bank account).

Madonna's vocals leave a lot to be desired. Especially when you're used to powerhouse voices singing the role. Antonio Banderas has never looked more beautiful and he has the attitude right, but unfortunately you can't understand a word that he sings. Jonathon Pryce is good, if a little too kind as Peron. Then again, that's more a fault of the director than him. The movie is visually lovely, but cluttered. As I said, it's a two hour music video.

[NGD2225]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:09pm

A lot of it is on YouTube. Look there.

[Nicholas Clar]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:15pm

If you have not seen the show... DO NOT SEE IT! Now it seems thats you have listened to a recording of the show, perhaps get the original recording. Either way it is not nearly as good as the show. I've seen it and loved it and the movie just in nothing compared.

[logan0215]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:17pm

I very much enjoy the movie. A sentiment that Ms. LuPone and I share is that its not the stage show, its a completely different animal.

Much like the Phantom movie, my philosophy in looking at this film is that you're seeing it for the cinematographic elements (i.e a movie), not simply the musical performances. If one wants an amazing vocal performance of Evita, see it live in a theater.

Seeing it simply from this perspective it is an engaging film (as stated above, painting Evita as a victim) with beautiful imagery, costumes and solid performances.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:22pm

Yeah, but Ms. LuPone has publicly stated that she has never seen the movie. She said what they did to the score for Madonna is what made it a completely different animal from when she played the role.

Interesting enough, Madonna trained with Patti's vocal teacher.
Updated On: 10/26/08 at 05:22 PM

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:22pm

Ugh.. the movie...

Imagine an ornate, expensive, elegantly constructed jewel box designed to showcase one precious stone...

...but...

Instead of the Hope Diamond... you get a gap-toothed rhinestone.

That is the movie EVITA

Updated On: 10/26/08 at 05:22 PM

[logan0215]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:27pm

I know the changing of keys is what she was referring to, but I honestly don't think if one can become engaged in a movie they'll sit there pondering the majority of the time "I wonder what the original key of this song was..."

Madonna's vocal performance is certainly not perfection, but I think she gives it her all as well as acts the hell out of the role. Its never going to compare to Loops, but you have to realize that they're playing different roles. The musical's Eva had the ability to show an evil side so Loops could play her as a raging, screaming bitch (beautifully), but Madonna's performance encompasses many of the more subdued layers of the role that wouldn't translate in the stage version.

[Weez]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:33pm

I rather enjoyed the movie. If you can lower your expectations to rock-bottom, or wipe all ideas you already have about 'Evita' out of your head, then give it a shot. I didn't enjoy the movie so much any more once I'd seen the London revival. It's all right as movie musicals go, but sinks into a mournful abyss in comparison with a live stage production.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:35pm

I suppose that is one way to look at it...

I personally could have overlooked the vocals (or lack of), if she had been any sort of actress.

I didn't believe for ONE SECOND that the girl I saw on the screen was savvy enough to pluck herself out of poverty and subsequently charm an entire nation to do her bidding.

The girl I saw wasn't that dynamic... everything in the movie just seemed to be happening "to" her rather than her making it happen.

Madonna's Eva was a dull cypher.

Updated On: 10/26/08 at 05:35 PM

[Rentaholic]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:35pm

It's not a carbon copy of the stage show like many wish movie musicals to be but it's decent for what it is.

I don't think people realize that entertainment is a business and while it would've been glorious for someone like Patti Lupone to star in the movie, it would not have made money. Movie musicals require star power to cross into mainstream America. That's how they make their money. Yes, the keys were lowered but Madonna did a great job with what she had. You can't compare Madonna's Eva to Patti's Eva. They are two different characters like Logan said.

[logan0215]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:41pm

Exactly.

Due to still being a tickle in my dad's testies when Evita was on Broadway, I was only aware of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" and "Buenos Aires" (from the comercials for the film) before renting and watching the film for myself.

It was from there that my knowledge of the stage musical sprouted and my subsequent discovery of Patti LuPone.

I think if the OP is going into seeing the film expecting vocal performances of the calibre of the cast recording they've been listening to, yes, they'll be dissapointed. If they are going in to it to get an idea of what a more restrained film version of what the stage musical is, they will enjoy it.

It really isn't worth re-opening the whole Madonna vs. Patti LuPone argument because as I stated (and Rentaholic confirmed), you're not arguing on a level playing field.
Updated On: 10/26/08 at 05:41 PM

[Hest882]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:45pm

I don't think the movie is *bad* but it's hardly great either. However, if the OP is trying to just get a sense of whether or not he'd be interested in the musical it's not a bad idea to rent the movie. It would give the songs in the context of the story at minimum, and it's not a terrible production by any means.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:46pm

It's funny if you want to see guys showering in their towels.

[logan0215]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:48pm

Oh, that part isn't funny.

It's bonertastic.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:48pm

It's one things to compare it to the show, but you can't just say "Well, if you lower your expectations or go in not expecting anything: you'll like it"

The truth is that it isn't a good movie. Madonna isn't a bad actress. But she's a bad Eva. As BigFatBlonde said, you cannot for one second believe that Madonna's Eva was smart enough to go from poverty to the most powerful woman in Argentina. Even "Good Night and Thank You" makes it seem that Eva just HAPPENED to be in the right place at the right time. The whole point of the song is how Eva takes matters into her own hands. You don't have to do anything like the show when you make a movie, but you can't just abandon the spirit of the main character.

Imagine if Mike Nichols decided to cast Doris Day as Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and you get the idea of Evita with Madonna. No matter how yo udo the movie, you need someone powerful in that role. Nichols made a smart decision, Parker didn't.

[logan0215]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:52pm

I'd say the misinterpretation of that (and other scenes) are not the fault of the director, but of the tone set by the director.

[winston89]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:53pm

I understand that the movie musical is almost always different then the show it is based on. I know for example that Hairspray and Phantom the films are different then the shows that they are based on. But, both of them are good and I take them for what they are. I am not someone who goes into watching a movie musical expecting to see what I saw onstage. I get the impression from this thread that the views on the movie are mixed. I only know the music which is why I wanted to get the film. I knew before getting it that the keys were lowered and I did hear about how they had to change the way that they did the character of Evita to make the government of Argentina happy so that they could film there.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:54pm

"I'd say the misinterpretation of that (and other scenes) are not the fault of the director, but of the tone set by the director.

???? It's still the fault of the director if "the tone" was set by him.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:58pm

I wanted to think it was the entirely the Director's doing too... but now I really think Parker had to adjust the charater to fit the limited acting range Madonna brought to the table.

Think about it ... the film isn't radically different from the stage version... with the exception of one thing... the Central Character????

Why do that? I posit that Parker was given a central lead actress with an "A to C" acting range and made the necessary adjustments so his star would come off as best she could.

Madonna knows how to do Madonna REALLY well.. but to ask her to attempt any sort of character with the complexities and emotional arcs as Eva Person was asking too much.

In my best Zoe Caldwell as Maria Callas voice:

*Know your limitations*

Updated On: 10/26/08 at 05:58 PM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 6:02pm

I still blame Parker. Script changes were made before Madonna even came on board. While it's true he probably had to work around her limitations (one physical limitation being that she was pregnant) the blame still comes down to him. The decision was always his. He had the choice between Madonna and Meryl Streep. And even before that, many leading ladies in Hollywood, all better actresses than Madonna, were all tempted by the role. He could've had his pick of anyone. He chose Madonna.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 6:08pm

I see that point, wickedfan.

How movies are financed and made have so many factors at play.

I vaguely remember the funding for the film being in major flux over the years.. and when the funding was actually solidly secured it was on the condition that Madonna play the role and she do so at at WELL below her usual asking price.

I don't think it would have made at the time otherwise.

Updated On: 10/26/08 at 06:08 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 6:14pm

I like how they made Che NOT Che Guevara. I've always hated that part of Evita.

However, they took out the really fun political parts and, like others said, took away the bite from the show. The vocals aren't too bad; I don't think Madonna was terrible. But I enjoyed the show far more when I saw it onstage.

[Jon]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 6:22pm

Whenever anyone else was on screen with Madonna, I was more interested in them than in her. I guess it's because after being bombarded with Madonna's image in the media for so many years, she'd become predicable and boring. I'd seen it all before.