#1
Posted: 7/31/07 at 10:30am
Since this seems to be going on a lot on other threads as "tangents," I thought I'd make a thread that was actually ABOUT this subject.
There have been a handful of movies made from Broadway shows recently, and several more are on the way. I think we're in a bit of a "winning streak" lately, but time will tell.
Of the ones that are already out there, I would rank them accordingly, based on overall effectiveness, artistic vision, entertainment value, quality, emotional connection, and of course... the swimsuit competition.
I'm sure you'll argue away and have a very different idea on what's good and what's not-so-good, but I stand by my opinion as... well... MY opinion.
The good ones:
1. Chicago - nailed it in all respects and (with the help of Moulin Rouge the year before) reignited the film musical as a "successful" genre.
2 & 3. (tie) Dreamgirls and Hairspray -- practically perfect, but each with minor flaws. Dreamgirls had more weight to it (no pun intended), but Hairspray had less lagging moments (although there were a few minor ones). Both were equally effective, but in different ways, mostly due to the source material of drama vs. comedy. Hairspray ends with a big "bang," and Dreamgirls ending kind of dies out and fizzles gracefully, with less energy "punch" (which it did on Broadway, too).
4. Rent - I feel the movie has gotten a bum rap, and is much better than "the mass opinion" says it is. I actually liked Chris Columbus's direction quite a bit, and I don't give a rat's ass what was cut or saved or reworked. I thought what was on screen was pretty great. The cast was uneven (Best: Dawson; Most Awkward and Uneven: Pascal) I think this movie will grow in time, once the Rentheads die out or leave it the hell alone.
Not-so-good:
1. Phantom Of the Opera - A beautiful-looking film that failed on almost every level other than visuals. First and foremost, the tempos of the music, which were SO SLOW, it killed any possible chance of spontaneity on the screen. The audience was 6 or 7 steps ahead at all times (if they even stayed through the film). The three leads were miscast: Emmy Rossum CAN'T SING. She has the voice of a semi-decent boy soprano singing in public for the first time. She's no Christine, and should never have played the part. Gerard Butler is too young and hunky to be the Phantom. I didn't mind his coarse, guttural voice, but I minded the frightening, grotesque Phantom being played by super hero "action figure." And as good as Patrick Wilson can be on stage, he was bland, boring and too "white bread" for Raoul. And his singing was largely lackluster, which was surprising.
2. The Producers - I put it in the not-so-good category, but just barely. It works fine, if you want what "plays" like a fancy bootleg of the stage show. As a "matter of record," it's a nice archive of the stage show. As a film on its own merits, it feels old, creaky and full of mothballs. Susan Stroman apparently wanted to make "Singin' in the Rain" for a new generation. She copied most (if not all) of the directorial and choreographic styles of that era, and proved to me that we can't go back in time. As much as I love "Singin' in the Rain," that kind of film making language doesn't "speak" well in today's world, if applied to new material. She did what she set out to do, it just didn't work very well.
I'll add to my list later on... but what are your "good" and "not so good" choices?
There have been a handful of movies made from Broadway shows recently, and several more are on the way. I think we're in a bit of a "winning streak" lately, but time will tell.
Of the ones that are already out there, I would rank them accordingly, based on overall effectiveness, artistic vision, entertainment value, quality, emotional connection, and of course... the swimsuit competition.
I'm sure you'll argue away and have a very different idea on what's good and what's not-so-good, but I stand by my opinion as... well... MY opinion.
The good ones:
1. Chicago - nailed it in all respects and (with the help of Moulin Rouge the year before) reignited the film musical as a "successful" genre.
2 & 3. (tie) Dreamgirls and Hairspray -- practically perfect, but each with minor flaws. Dreamgirls had more weight to it (no pun intended), but Hairspray had less lagging moments (although there were a few minor ones). Both were equally effective, but in different ways, mostly due to the source material of drama vs. comedy. Hairspray ends with a big "bang," and Dreamgirls ending kind of dies out and fizzles gracefully, with less energy "punch" (which it did on Broadway, too).
4. Rent - I feel the movie has gotten a bum rap, and is much better than "the mass opinion" says it is. I actually liked Chris Columbus's direction quite a bit, and I don't give a rat's ass what was cut or saved or reworked. I thought what was on screen was pretty great. The cast was uneven (Best: Dawson; Most Awkward and Uneven: Pascal) I think this movie will grow in time, once the Rentheads die out or leave it the hell alone.
Not-so-good:
1. Phantom Of the Opera - A beautiful-looking film that failed on almost every level other than visuals. First and foremost, the tempos of the music, which were SO SLOW, it killed any possible chance of spontaneity on the screen. The audience was 6 or 7 steps ahead at all times (if they even stayed through the film). The three leads were miscast: Emmy Rossum CAN'T SING. She has the voice of a semi-decent boy soprano singing in public for the first time. She's no Christine, and should never have played the part. Gerard Butler is too young and hunky to be the Phantom. I didn't mind his coarse, guttural voice, but I minded the frightening, grotesque Phantom being played by super hero "action figure." And as good as Patrick Wilson can be on stage, he was bland, boring and too "white bread" for Raoul. And his singing was largely lackluster, which was surprising.
2. The Producers - I put it in the not-so-good category, but just barely. It works fine, if you want what "plays" like a fancy bootleg of the stage show. As a "matter of record," it's a nice archive of the stage show. As a film on its own merits, it feels old, creaky and full of mothballs. Susan Stroman apparently wanted to make "Singin' in the Rain" for a new generation. She copied most (if not all) of the directorial and choreographic styles of that era, and proved to me that we can't go back in time. As much as I love "Singin' in the Rain," that kind of film making language doesn't "speak" well in today's world, if applied to new material. She did what she set out to do, it just didn't work very well.
I'll add to my list later on... but what are your "good" and "not so good" choices?
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 7/31/07 at 10:30 AM
