Who didn't think Hairspray was *that* great? — Page 3

Agreed, Parsley. Fierstein would've been too larger-than-life on screen. Amazing on stage, perhaps, but not right for the slightly downsized, more "real" film version.

Similarly, you can get away with the Von Tussle redemption in YCSTB on stage because realism has gone out the window and it has become just one huge love-fest. Film is a generally much more "real" medium and the Von Tussles having such a quick change of heart just wouldn't fly (as much as I MISS that section of the song in the movie).

I also agree with the poster who mentioned the part where Tracy runs away when the police show up at the protest. It seemed completely out of character and was merely a plot device for Tracy to be elsewhere to move the plot along. Dramatically, it made no sense.

---

I really thought Amber was going to join in the end because in the background you could see her learning the dance and stuff, so I was expecting it to happen, but it didn't happen.

The only part I really missed was Prudy. Allison Jenning was hilarious in her scenes, but she really didn't do much. I wish they had kept the part in Without Love where she walks in on them and then has a change of heart about "negros." I think it would have given her character more of an arch.

And the only other part I hated was Link singing in Tracy's bedroom in "Without Love." How lame. First, I don't think we were ever told that Tracy was put in the trunk, so when they pan to the car and you can hear one of her verses, it's confusing because we don't know what's going on. Then she gets out of the trunk? Without Love should have been another big dance number, but it was so random.

Im sorry but it IS better stage to screen adaptation than Chicago and Dreamgirls,

Chicago had great performances but was shot and cut like an MTV movie and had NO HEART, yes it was a fun film though

Dreamgirls as much as i liked it suffered from over exposure and did not live up to the hype.

You only have to look on Rotten Tomatoes and see the reviews and see the Hairspray has done much better , even among the conservative critics.

Hairspray is a huge crowd pleaser which does not hide from its campy musical roots (unlike Dreamgirls) and does not pretend to be anything other than big hearted OTT fun musical (unlike Chicago)

And dont get me started on Moulin Rouge

---

Dreamgirls was a decent film but so laboured in places and so many bits of it needed fast forwarding through.

Chicago was pretty good, despite Richard Gere's mediocre performance.

Hairspray is, of course, different again to each and I think it succeeds because it is damn entertaining throughout. Fun fun fun, and doesn't pretend to be otherwise

don't you just love definitive authority in a post :)

Updated On: 7/23/07 at 12:59 PM

You make a good point. Every film to some extent does sacrifice some integrity to be more commercial.

But I would counter-argue that Hairspray tipped the scale. Travolta's performance, if anything, was more of a stunt and the screenwriters tried to make Pfieffer and Latifah's roles larger in order to mask how poorly Travolta actually did. To me this all had a disastrous effect upon the structure of an already flimsily told story.

I'm sure some are able to overlook these faults, but to me they destroy what limited entertainment value the musical had and it saddens me to think that poorly written, lazily designed, comeback vehicles for over the hill actors is where the movie-musical genre is heading.

How can Leslie Dixon make Pfieffer and Latifah's roles larger to mask Travolta's portrayal.. if no filming had begun?

---

what on earth? Get some credibility won't you, please.

Besides, how would beefing up 2 other roles mask another's? If it were as poor or "inept" as you suggest then no amount of beefing up would mask it.

Travolta's casting wasn't a stunt---it was necessary to get the film made. I believe Marc Shaiman himself has actually said that in order for the studio to greenlight the project, they had to get Travolta's buy-in because he is considered in the industry to be the only leading male actor who could "open" a musical film (based on Grease and Saturday Night Fever).

Regarding the script being re-written throughout production: you can bet that the script was revised AFTER certain actors were cast to take advantage of (or downplay) whatever it was they brought to the table.

---

I thought the film was good, not great. But an overall fun time.

I actually really liked John Travolta. He brought a lot of heart and sympathy to the character and it was a very realistic approach. I'm glad he wasn't an over-the-top ham, which he could have done easily. And he still had plenty of comedic moments. LOVED the Tina Turner moves during "YCSTB"

Nikki was good, but sometimes I felt like she sounded as if she were reading the script for the first time. Her actually acting could be better. Great singing voice though. Much better than Marissa's.

Amanda Bynes was great acting wise, great comedic timing, but her voice, while solid, was nowhere near as good as the women who have sung the hell out of Penny on stage.

Zac Efron needs acting lessons, and his singing is flat (not pitch wise, but there's no life to his singing). But he could've been worse. He wasn't bad, he was just sorta there. A "meh" performance, to be so eloquent.

Elijah Kelly is BRILLIANT. Hands down the best actor and singer in the film.

Christopher Walken was good. Not much to say about him.

Allison Janney was hillarious, but underutilized.

The actress who played Lil' Inez was perfect. (I don't know her name). I love her voice and she's so cute!

James Mardsen is very talented. I enjoyed his Corny and usually I'm very apathetic towards the actors who play him on stage.

Michelle Phiffer and Brittany Snow were adequate actors, but they need singing lessons.

And Queen Latifah was excellent. Her "I Know Where I've Been" was very effective.

All in all, the performances were not a problem to me.

***

To me, the fact is, the movie just didn't have the energy of the stage show. On stage, it's basically a 2 and a half hour adrenaline rush. The dancing, the timing, the pace, everything is just so vibrant and that's why Hairspray is one of my favorite shows.

On film, the energy gets lost in translation. Yes, there was tons of dancing, but most of the dancing faded into the background while the stars were singing front and center doing the more minimized steps.

It just felt like it dragged on a little too much....I'm surprised the movie is only 97 minutes long, b/c while I was in the theatre, it felt like it was almost as long as the stage show.

So yeah, for me the pacing really marred down the film. But it is, by far Adam Shankman's best film to date and I'm really happy that he did a good if not great job of the film. Then again, I'm not sure how much better it could have been because like I said, it's pretty hard to capture the live energy on show in a film. It might even be impossible.

Grade: 7/10, B

I liked it, but I thought Dreamgirls and (dare I say it, RENT *I really liked the RENT film, thank you very much) were better.

P.S. To me, Nikki looks SO MUCH like Riki Lake did back in 88. It's almost uncanny. She's a pretty young girl.

Updated On: 7/23/07 at 01:43 PM

ben4---If you go back to the original Hairspray movie, Divine's "Edna" was definitely a supporting role.

They only beefed it up for the musical and for Harvey. I didn't have any problem with them toning it back down again (per the original film).

---

Ben4, did you audition for one of the dancers but got cut? Because you're certainly going out of your way to rip this movie to shreads (right down to the design aspects).

The reviews were extremely favorable, their weekend figures were excellent, etc., so they must have done something right, don't you think?

The powers that be actively courted Travolta for the role of Edna. They didn't make any bones about it when being interviewed.

I'm just bewildered that people can say it's better than Chicago, Moulin Rouge, and Dreamgirls without even considering the merits of those three films.

Sure, it's all personal opinion. But how people can even compare three works of art that redefined the movie musical genre to a piece of fluffy entertainment that relies on nostalgia and people's curiousity to see Travolta in drag is just beyond me.