“Jurassic Park” is one of the greatest and most iconic films ever made. Based on the Michael Crichton novel of the same name, it follows the story of Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler, a paleontologist and paleobotanist, who are invited by John Hammond to his private island in Central America, where he has had a team of scientist successfully clone dinosaurs into modern times. The film was a gigantic hit with both critics and audiences, and at the time was the highest grossing film ever made. It had action, horror, great characters, and ground-breaking special effects. This film, along with “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” helped perfect the capabilities that CGI could do, letting us be engulfed in the epic adventure that director Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton wanted us to embark on. However, unlike almost EVERY action film today, the film didn't always need to use CGI, only using it for when it was especially necessary, and having the rest be done with practical effects. Even then, the film is a classic, and still remains one of the highest grossing films of all time.
The sequels, however, not so much. “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” was pretty much the sequel that divided up most fans, whether they liked it for the entertainment value, or hating it for the butchering of Michael Crichton's novel. As for me...I'm half and half with it. It's no where near as good as the first film, but I do remember quite a lot of moments from it, like the finale with the T-Rex in San Diego. Aside from that, nothing that special.
“Jurassic Park III,” this time directed by Joe Johnston, decided to do their own thing with the franchise, since there wasn't a third book to adapt. This is one of those films, where I honestly don't remember much of. That's pretty much all I can say about this one; it's the worst of the series, because of how forgettable it was.
Now the idea of a fourth film has been buzzing around so much, but has been going through development hell for so many years. Scripts were being axed, directors where changing, and cast members weren't even assembled yet. It wasn't until the start of the new decade that we finally got word of the film truly happening, and the film being directed and co-written by Colin Trevorrow.
Over twenty years after the events of the first movie, scientists have been able to find a way to not only stabilize the park, but make it into a much bigger success, Jurassic World. When the park's newest attraction, a genetically modified dinosaur, breaks loose, it's up to Owen Grady, a velosiraptor trainer, and Claire Dearing, the park operations manager, to try and take out the beast, before the park falls apart and everyone on the island is killed.
Let's get the obvious out of the way, how does the film stand? Well...It's not really a film I'd want to see again, let alone in theaters, but it has its highlights. For starters, Chris Pratt does a great job at playing Owen, our main hero. He's quirky, he's likable, and knows what he's doing, which is what I come to expect from him as an action hero. Bryce Dallas Howard also gave a decent performance as Claire, so no faults on her acting. One thing that did seem to bug me is her being able to run in heels throughout the entire movie. I mean, for a film about dinosaurs, I can only extend my suspension of disbelief so far. I also liked the idea of seeing what the park would look like if it actually did open and succeed in its success. It also adds self-awareness to the genetically altered dinosaurs, saying that most audiences are bored with plain dinosaurs and want something new, so tickets can skyrocket. It is a logical explanation, and it perfectly represents the common practices that most business go through. There are also a few action scenes that are fun to watch, having an intense feel to it for the most part.
As good as those highlights are, there is also a lot of shit in it that didn't seem to work for me. For one, the CGI was overused, and I do mean overused. I didn't think the movements of the dinosaurs, particularly with the raptors, wasn't believable, and the stuff with that glass roller ball ride was a bit hokey. I would have let it go, if it wasn't for the fact that the film makers didn't claim that they were going back to the classic roots of the franchise, only to reckon it with the finished product. But even if they did, it wouldn't have been the same anyway. Something about the original film and what a landmark it was in terms of effects, it's like we can't go any further than that with dinosaurs, so there isn't as much magic as their usually was.
The rest of the cast, I couldn't care less about. They're pretty stock cliched characters, but not in the good sense. Vincent D'Onofrio is pretty weak as the villain who wants to use dinosaurs as weapons, and the way he goes out isn't that satisfying. He wasn't enjoyable enough to where I wanted more of the guy, but he also wasn't aggravating enough to where I wanted him out as quickly as possible. He was just a blank slate that could have been played by anyone. The kids who are Claire's nephews, Zach and Gray, also weren't enjoyable. Whenever they may have had a touching moment of character development, they immediately brush it off later on in the film, never mentioning it again. It could easily be a mistake on the director for rushing it, but the acting from the kids doesn't help either. You could have cut them out, and it wouldn't have made that much of a difference. B.D. Wong reprises his role as one of the scientists from the original film, Henry Wu, but he's pretty forgettable. Sure, there's the whole deal with D'Onofrio's character, but it's not really that important. Again, you could cut this character out, and it would make no difference.
The built up new dinosaur, which is called Indominus Rex, wasn't really that special to look at. For an experiment like this, that has camouflage and the intelligence of a raptor, the look of it isn't really impressive. With the other genetically modified dinosaurs, I expected the I-Rex to have the mixed designs of multiple dinosaurs, but what did it look like? Just a blue T-Rex...lame. I will admit, the raptor training was a bit off to me, but when it got to the third act, I kind of got where it was going...up until the climax of the film. Not going to spoil it, but by the end of this film I thought to myself, “Did they seriously put that in the script?” If you've seen the film, you know what I'm talking about.
However, my biggest problem with the film is that it's BORING. Yeah, not gonna lie, for a film about a theme park featuring dinosaurs, and a FOURTH ONE at that, it feels very lackluster. Granted, it IS a better film overall than the other two sequels, but not by a whole lot. The only scenes that actually did feel exciting, were the escape from the Jurassic Park graveyard, the pterodactyl attack on the park, and the finale, the latter of which was the best part of the film. Other than that, the film feels uneventful. I mean, Chris Pratt's fun to watch, but with the scenes without him, who's suppose to keep the film entertaining? D'Onofrio? The kids? Some other jackasss I don't give a damn about? Yeah, I don't think so.
Overall, “Jurassic World,” while not the worst of the franchise, is a film that doesn't really deserve all the hype and praise it gets, and isn't something I'd pay to go see in theaters, let along more than once. If you're interested, I'd say wait until it's on TV or up for rental. Be glad that I didn't have that much hype for this film to begin with, otherwise I would have given it a much more than it deserves.
Brad Bird is one of those directors
who always puts great effort into his work. Being most commonly known
for his work in animation on “The Simpsons” and directing films
like “The Iron Giant,” “Ratatouille,” and “The
Incredibles,” he's also had his share of dabbling into live action
very well, directing the fourth “Mission Impossible” film,
“Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.” Since he's still got a
strong connection with Disney, he was then tasked with helming one of
their newest films, “Tomorrowland.”
Now the idea of making a film out of a
Disneyland attraction isn't anything new. The “Pirates of the
Caribbean” franchise is a prime example of this risky move being
successful, with each installment garnering from $600 million to $1
billion at the box office. However, that's not to say there are
downfalls, as while the sequels are still enjoyable, they never did
match up to the strength the first film brought. But hey, at least
they're not as bad as “The Haunted Mansion” starring Eddie
Murphy...that's still the lowest point to hit.
So now the main question here is, does
“Tomorrowland” have the same appeal as “Pirates,” or is it
another “Haunted Mansion?” The answer is, the former.
The film tells of Casey Newton, a
young girl who's trying to stop the dismantling of the NASA launch
pad in Cape Canaveral. After she's arrested and bailed out, she finds a pin that shows her a vision of a futuristic utopia known as
Tomorrowland. Desperate to learn more about, she meets up with the
android, Athena, as they set out to find Frank
Walker and return to Tomorrowland, with the hope that Casey might be
the answer to stopping a world calamity.
Now what exactly works in this film?
Well...pretty much everything. Not only does this work as one of Brad
Bird's best films, I would even say this is one of the best
science-fiction films I've ever seen. I saw the film opening weekend,
and I had a blast watching it. It's an action adventure film, that
really knows how to blend humorous moments together with the more
touching elements. The intro may have been a weird way to start out,
but at the same time didn't really bother me as much as it could
have.
Casey is played by Britt Robertson,
and she does a great job portraying this character. She's a quick
thinker, she's rebellious, free-spirited, and has some great moments
that let her shine out. I'm hoping that after this, she does get more
work in the future. Raffey Cassidy plays Athena, who easily takes the
honor of being the funniest character in the film. Her dialogue,
her antics, and just the amount of visual jokes that the film does
with her are downright hilarious. Her best scene involves her getting
hit by a car, and it hardly even fazes her for a minute, before she
gets up and starts chasing another. That was brilliant. Frank Walker
is played by George Clooney, giving us another damn good performance.
Frank is a character who you really feel the most sympathy for, when
you finally get through the whole film. I think my favorite scenes
with him are when he's interacting with Athena, which can either be
very funny, or very sad, which the film handles nicely on both sides.
Hugh Laurie plays David Nix, the leader of Tomorrowland and the
film's villain. However, what separates David from other villains, is
that you actually do buy his reasons for being how he is. Not going
to go into detail here, because then I'd be going into spoiler
territory.
One of the major things I loved about
the film, was the message, which talks about defying the future and
standing up to change destiny. We live in a world where we always
feel helpless in disastrous events happening in our world, that not
as many people are actually taking a stance to do something about it.
Global warming, the war in different countries, the extinction of
animals, shit films being made, whatever the case may be. We just
give up and accept it, letting others who aren't as experienced to
handle it. Thank you, Brad Bird, for letting a message like this be
delivered.
Overall, “Tomorrowland” did not
disappoint in the slightest. It was greatly directed, perfectly
acted, brilliantly written, and is one of the best science-fiction
films that I've seen. It's a shame that this film is bombing as badly
as it is, because this doesn't deserve to. It especially pisses me
off that “Maleficent” got to be such a big hit, grossing over
$700 million worldwide, and yet this DIDN'T?! I call bullshit on
that, Disney!!...*sigh*...oh well, at least Brad Bird will be
directing “The Incredibles 2” as his next film.
As much as it pains me to do this,
let's talk about last year's “Maleficent.” Now, I've already
talked about that film in great detail, so I'll try not to repeat
myself too much here. I had said that the film was not only the worst
film of last year, but the worst film to come from Disney, and
rightfully so. However during the time since my review, there have
been some people who have told me that they actually like the film,
which I don't seem to get. The script is horribly written, the
special effects look unfinished, the acting (aside
from Angelina Jolie) is painfully bad, and it all spits in the face of characters
we loved since the original “Sleeping Beauty.” I just don't get
the appeal, unless you're someone who never knew about the original
film to begin with.
I also stated in my review that I
wasn't really looking forward to Disney's next live action remake,
“Cinderella,” fearing it was going to be another stab in the heart of childhood. We all know the original story of “Cinderella,”
right? A poor girl loses her parents, lives in the care of her
evil step-family, her fairy godmother lets her go to the ball, meets
the prince, and he reunites with her via dropped glass slipper,
happily ever after. It's as old as time itself, and the most
recognizable telling of this story is the animated Disney film from
1950, with Eleanor Audley as the step mother, Lady Tremaine.
Despite me not looking forward to the
new version, just in time for the original film's 65th
anniversary, there were two things that actually did catch my
interest to give this film a chance: one being that Linda Woolverton
wasn't writing the script (thank god), and the other being that
Kenneth Branagh was attached as director. That gave me confidence
that they would show a bit more effort and dignity towards this film.
And after watching the film with my friend Zack during it's opening
weekend...I am surprised to find out that it was very faithful.
The film manages to stay true to the
story, but it also adds in some of its own twists and turns to it,
that make it stand out as its own identity. One of the major
highlights of the film is the production and costume designs. Being
done by Kenneth Branagh, a director who is very experienced with
Shakespeare, you can always count on him hiring the best designers to
make the look of a film feel as real as you can. The look of the
manor, the castle, the village, the wardrobe of the cast, it all
feels genuine.
Another major highlight I loved was
they added more screen time and chemistry to Cinderella and Prince
Charming, who are called Ella and Kit in the film. You get to
spend more time with these two onscreen, allowing time to
get to know each other, instead of meeting that one time during the
ball. Not only that, but they manage to update the whole glass shoe
incident, with Kit only doing it as requested by his adviser. There
are other little moments that do manage to update the story by
filling in the problems that the old film had.
What truly sells this film is the
casting, because they all do magnificently well. Lily James from
“Downton Abbey” does a remarkable job as Ella, someone who always
believed her mother's words down to the core, because she was someone
who always found beauty in life, no matter how bad it would turn out.
James perfectly captured the spirit of who Cinderella was in the
original Disney film, and added such grace to it. Richard Madden,
best known for playing Robb Stark on “Game of Thrones,” plays
Prince Kit Charming. Seeing how Charming in the original film was
sort of a blank slate, much like other princes prior, this gave
Madden plenty of room to give the character his own spin. He's
dynamic and out-going, but at the same time, very picky about some of
his choices. Heck, he isn't even perfectly content with royalty,
which was actually quite interesting.
Out of all the cast members, however, the weirdest choice was Helena Bonham Carter as the Fairy Godmother. Don't get me wrong,
she was very good in the role, but I find it weird how she got to
working in another Kenneth Branagh film again, especially after the
controversy they both had in the 90's...just saying. However, the
best casting choice is Cate Blanchett as Lady Tremaine. She just
embraces this character and chews the scenery so much, it just makes
something that sounded good on paper even better. She's manipulative,
she's unforgiving, she pretty much is Lady Tremaine. Sophia McShera
and Holliday Grainger as Drisella and Anastasia also embrace the
characters as well. They're the mean spirited people who are
incredible spoiled, and much like Blanchett, chew the scenery so damn
much. I also find it ironic how one of them auditioned for
Cinderella, yet ended up with the step-sister instead. I'm not sure
which one, but it's still pretty damn funny.
Now do I have any complaints about the
film? Yes, but it's just one complaint. While the film does follow
the original story extremely well, it's also very predictable. Sure
there are some things tweaked here and there, you can still know what event will come next. Everyone knows of the story of
“Cinderella” forwards and backwards, that you could make a bingo
game out of it.
Does this hurt the film too much? Well, not really.
We live in a generation where remakes, rip-offs, sequels, prequels,
and adaptations are pretty much the standard of Hollywood now-a-days, most of which are dark, gritty, and depressing.
It's actually kind of refreshing to see one that's bright and colorful
with an upbeat ending to it, much like how “Mad Max: Fury Road”
was refreshing to see practical effect action scenes again. It might not be original, but at least it's good, so I'll take what I can get. Sometimes
during the harsh reality, you need something to bring you back to a time where all you cared about was hearing your favorite bed time stories. You may know it front to back, but you're always invested.
Overall, “Cinderella” was a
complete surprise to me, and in the best possible way. The acting is
great, the direction is great, the film has a lot of color to it, and
it's something that makes you feel good in the end. If Disney remakes
are more like this, and less like some of the previous ones, then I
think we'll do fine.
When it comes to Pixar, there are some
big name talents that come to mind the most. John Lasseter, Andrew
Stanton, Lee Unkrich, Brad Bird, and Pete Docter, the latter of which
is today's subject. Being one of the key members of Pixar, Docter has
worked on several projects at the studio, being the writer and director
of “Monsters Inc.” and the film that won him an Oscar, “Up.”
Needless to say, he's one of those directors that takes his time with his work, and always making sure that they are as
perfect as possible. Earlier this year, I got to meet Pete Docter at
my university, when he, producer Jonas Rivera, and co-director Ronnie
del Carmen, came to do a press conference for all fine arts students
about their new film, “Inside Out,” as well as their experiences
with working at Pixar. Heck, I even got Pete Docter to sign my hat
AND get a picture with him.
Because I, and many others, attended
the conference, I was also granted the opportunity of attending a
preview screening of “Inside Out” with my friend Ashley. So is
the film something we should all be looking forward to? The answer to
that is...yes. Yes, you should be looking forward to this film. It is one of those films that I am begging you to go out and see.
“Inside Out” tells the story of
the emotions that live in the mind of a little girl named Riley.
Among these emotions, we have Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, and Fear.
Their jobs are to make Riley the person she is, all the while
monitoring the memories they create, with the most special of them being core memories. After moving away from her home
town to San Francisco and attempting to make Riley happy, Joy and Sadness are accidentally thrown out of HQ with the core memories, leaving the
rest to monitor Riley the best they can. It's a race against time for
Joy and Sadness to get back with the core memories, before something bad happens.
That's as much as I can talk about in
terms of the plot, but let me say this is definitely one of Pixar's
most imaginative and heartfelt films in a while. The animation is
spectacular to look at. While the real world is nice looking,
especially with how far Pixar has come along with drawing humans, the
real highlight is with the world inside Riley's memories. With the sky
being the limit in a film like this, the creativity in this film is
astounding, seeing how the system works, and what lies within one's
memory bank, whether it's real or unreal. I also love the character designs,
and how each of the emotions look as if they're made of particles, and how their shapes truly represents their jobs. The film also has some
great visual humor, that manages to lighten up the mood fairly well, during those harsh moments, which we'll get to shortly.
The voice acting was also done
extremely well. Being that it's Pixar, they almost always make us
believe that these voices aren't from onscreen actors, but the actual
voices of these characters. You got Diane Lane and Kyle MacLachlan as
Riley's parents, Bill Hader as Fear, Lewis Black as Anger (fitting),
and Mindy Kaling as Disgust. Joy and Sadness are played by Amy Pohler
and Phyllis Smith, acting out as our main leads in the film. Being
polar opposite emotions of one another, you really do buy their
relationship together, not only being funny but also very
believable. Kaitlyn Dias as Riley was another that gave a spectacular performance. Being a fresh new name, she really captures that right amount of tone and emotion, simply through her voice alone. Interestingly enough, Dias was originally brought on as the scratch-voice for Riley (a scratch-voice being a fill in actor, before the real cast member comes aboard), but with how good she did, they decided to make her the official voice of Riley. If she does decide to keep acting, then I'm hoping to see her do more work in the future. I also loved how they made the emotions more diverse
characters, instead of being stuck in one mode, and treating their positions as a job. There are times when
Anger can be scared, Disgust can be angry, Fear can be confusingly
annoyed, Sadness can be happy, and Joy can feel sad. And trust me,
when it gets sad, it's REALLY sad.
The moments of when this film gets
touching are really heart breaking. There were multiple times when I
found both me and Ashley shedding tears during this movie,
and rightfully so. I think the last time I cried this hard at an
animated movie was “Wreck-It Ralph.” And trust me, if a film is
powerful enough to make a grown adult cry, that's saying a lot. This film truly had guts to dive into a subject matter that I didn't expect it to go to: mental illness. And the way it's handled is done in a way that not only will adults be able to relate to, but kids as well, in a way that doesn't pander to them. The troubles of moving away, adapting to a new environment, not being in touch with your hobbies as much as you used to, letting go of childhood, getting sad over happy memories, and acting like everything's okay but it's not...we all go through it at
some point. Even with today's internet and technology to help people
stay in contact, it's still a harsh feeling to fight. That's reality
for you, I guess.
Overall, “Inside-Out” is my
favorite film of the year so far, and I can't wait to see it again
when it comes out. It's touching, it's beautiful, it's emotional,
it's funny, it's an all around good time. I may still need a bit more
time to think about where this ranks in terms of Pixar's best, but as
of now, I know it's among the Top 5.
Since 2001, the “Fast and the
Furious” franchise has set itself into place for modern movie
goers. Yeah, the first four weren't really something to write home
about, but around the time number five hit, “Fast Five,”
everything changed. It went from being drag race action films, to a
mix between “Mission Impossible,” “The Expendables,” and
“Ocean's Eleven,” and it was pretty damn good. The sixth film did
much of that was well, only it added ten times what it did in terms
of action and excitement, as well as one of my favorite films of
2013.
Work on the seventh film, however, was
not as easy as the previous ones were. In late 2013, one of the main
cast members, Paul Walker who played Brian O'Connor, had tragically
died in a car accident. Because of this, production stalled,
re-writes were in being made, and the film was pushed from Summer of
2014 to April of 2015. It was also confirmed that instead of killing
of Brian O'Connor, which by the way would have been incredibly
tasteless, they simply said they would retire his character.
I got to see the film opening night
with my college friends in celebration for my birthday, and let me
say, it was a worthwhile watch.
After the events of “Fast and the
Furious 6,” Dominic Toretto and the gang are now targets of Deckard
Shaw, the brother of Owen Shaw, after finding out that Han was
killed. If they wish to catch Deckard, Toretto and the gang are
recruited by Mr. Nobody to find a device called “God's Eye” and
its creator, Ramsey, from the mercenary, Jakande. However, things
turn sour for the gang, as not only are they being hunted by Deckard,
but they also have to deal with Jakande as well. It's a game of cat
and mouse, and it's a matter of who will come out on top as the cat.
While the story is a bit more complex than the rest of the films, it
doesn't stop the film from what it truly is. A fun action film with
exciting car chases, which has now added a bit of espionage to it, so
if that's what you're looking for, then you've got the right idea in
mind.
The returning cast members of previous
films do a great job here, so let's focus in on some of the new
members. Jason Statham as Deckard was pretty damn good for what he
has. His character may be the cold blooded hunter seeking revenge,
but Statham manages to handle that very well, and I can definitely
see why he's got a good future as one of this generations iconic
stars. Then we have Kurt Russell as Mr. Nobody, the man who requires
Toretto to retrieve “God's Eye” is good too. While I did love
seeing Kurt Russell back in action, I would have loved to have seen
more of him. But for what we did get, I was fine with. Then we get to
Djimon Hounsou as Jakande, and Tony Jaa as his right hand man, Kiet.
The two really do make for some memorable moments, especially with
Jaa, as he fights with Brian O'Connor in the film. Those scenes made
for some really intense moments. Also, Jakande has possibly one of
the best ways to go out dying. No spoilers.
After four films straight being
directed by Justin Lin, this time the film was directed by James Wan,
the director of “The Conjuring” and “Saw.” While the film may
not have the best action of the franchise, it's still fun and exciting. I can also say that
it definitely has the most heart out of all of them. For the cast and
crew, this was a passion project that they really wanted to see the
light of day for their fallen friend. Paul Walker may not have been
the best actor, but you can tell from the interviews with cast
members afterwards that he seemed like one of the nicest people you
could have ever met. With how strong his friendship was with Vin
Diesel, it makes you believe that they would stick up for each other,
even if it was for the tiniest little annoyance.
The ending of the film, with it's big
climax and resolution, is one of the most memorable that I've seen
this year. The action was big, ridiculous, and results in one of the
most touching tributes you'll ever witness. Everyone's probably seen
the video online, but I think it's well deserved. I don't know if the
film WILL get the Best Picture Oscar next Spring as Vin Diesel hopes, or even be
nominated, but I have a feeling the song played at the end will
certainly get nominated. While it is a rap song, “See You Again”
by Wiz Khalifa and Charlie Puth is a very touching song that not only
reaches out to those who were fans of Paul Walker, but it also
doubles as a song for those reminiscing loved ones they've lost. It
is a tough part of life, but that doesn't mean they're completely
forgotten or not there with you in spirit. For a film series like
this, you'd never expect it to have this much heart to begin
with...also, let me just say that I'm glad the song is topping charts
and kicking “Uptown Funk” in the ass...seriously, “Uptown Funk”
is overrated.
Overall, “Furious Seven” is a film
I'm glad I got to see. Might not be my favorite of the series, but
for the amount of heart, passion, and over-the-top fun it has, I
would say it's the best. This chapter has come to an end, and now
it's time to find a new one.
You may not have noticed this, but
2014 was a pretty impressive year for Reese Witherspoon. I mean,
during the Oscars, she was in competition with Rosamund Pike for Best
Actress, and the two were both nominated for films that were produced
by Witherspoon. Yes, Reese Witherspoon produced “Gone Girl”
and “Wild,” the latter of which was under her studio, Pacific
Standard. However, “Wild” was proof that Witherspoon was really
starting to dedicate herself to the best scripts to work with, and
make sure that they are done with the best care...which begs the
question, why did she do “Hot Pursuit”?
“Hot Pursuit” tells of Officer
Cooper, the daughter of a professional cop, who is put on duty to
guard a wealthy mistress, Danielle Riva, to put away a mafia boss for
the murders of several people. However, things don't go as planned,
and now Cooper has to improvise in getting the mistress to Dallas
whatever way possible.
Gonna cut to the chase...this film
sucks. It sucks really bad. And it's not just because the jokes are
bad in this film, but because the comedy solely relies on the
awkwardness of the situation getting a laugh from the audience. But
since I didn't find any of it funny, it just made it uncomfortable to
watch during the entire run through. The only joke that I smirked at,
was when they were explaining how Cooper ruined her father's
reputation when she joined the force. That was the closest thing this
film got to making me laugh, and it all went downhill from there.
One of the biggest problems I have
with this film is the chemistry between Cooper and Riva. All that
these two do throughout the film is complain about what they should
do, constantly at every passing minute. One's a strict, by the
numbers enforcer, and the other is a whiny rich hoe, with no regards
for anything. Even when they give out their reasons for being like
this, it doesn't make them any less obnoxious. The latter of which
perfectly describes Riva, who is without a doubt one of the most
irritating, unlikable, and downright detestable characters I have
seen on screen. And that's sad, because I like Sofia Vergara in other
things, but this film just makes me want to punch her.
The film was directed by
Anne Fletcher, the same woman who gave us “The Guilt Trip” back
in 2012. I haven't seen that movie, but from what I've heard about, I
think it's best for it to stay that way. I don't understand what
would promote Reese Witherspoon to produce and star in this film.
Maybe she thought the script was good, but then the direction was
what ruined it, or it could be that the script was bad and the direction was trying to do the best they could with it...bottom line, the jokes here aren't funny. Let's just hope her
next production is a better choice.
Overall, “Hot Pursuit” is just a
dull sit through. The jokes aren't funny, the characters aren't
likable, the direction and dialogue is awkward as hell, and it didn't
have that much reason to be there. The film is currently standing at
a 7% on Rotten Tomatoes, and after it bombed hard, I doubt it's life
on DVD will last long.
Welcome back to the list of my Top 10 Favorite Broadway Musical Movies. Let's continue on and get to the Top 5:
x x x x
#5: Little Shop of Horrors – You guys
remember the duo that wrote the songs for “Aladdin,” “The
Little Mermaid,” and “Beauty and the Beast?” Do you know what
those two made BEFOREHAND? Well, look no further than “Little Shop
of Horrors.” Much like with the process “Hairspray” went through, the original “Little
Shop of Horrors” was a B film from the 60's, made by Roger Corman,
and featured Jack Nicholson in his debut as a supporting character.
It's about a flower shop employee named Seymour, who helps get the
shop on it's feet in business, with a mysterious plant he
bought at a flea market. He calls the plant Audrey II, after his
co-worker/crush, and finds out that to keep the plant growing big and
strong, he has to give it human blood to stay healthy. Soon it's
hunger grows more, leading Seymour to find a different alternative,
which you can probably guess where that goes.
It's interesting to see the kind of
tunes that Alan Menkin and Howard Ashman made before Disney, and just
seeing the kind of care and attention that the remake was given for
it. The remake was directed by Frank Oz, better known for his work on
the Muppets, with Jim Henson. The kind of skill he had given to this
film was just perfect. I really like how they had the plant being
done with puppets and anima-tronics. If this film were done today,
the plant would have obviously been CGI, and the thought of that
makes me shiver with fear. Levi Stubbs as the voice of Audrey II
really suited the character nicely, being one of those voices that
could fit for either a male or female, something he'd pass onto his
role of Mother Brain in “Captain N: The Game Master.”
Rick Moranis as Seymour was an ideal
choice of casting. At the time, playing a nerdy little guy was a
given type-cast for him, but he always gave it his A-Game. He may have the squeamish attitude, but at the same time he can bulk up when
the timing calls for it. Plus, his singing voice is very good, which
makes me wonder why he didn't try for other musical roles later on.
But, hey, I'll take what I can get.
We then have Ellen Greene as Audrey,
Seymour's co-worker. While she is very cliched, being a woman who's
very naive, ditsy, and dating one of the villains, she does her best
to keep us interested. Because of how the film and play are done, you
do want to see her and Seymour end up together, just as much as she
dreams it. And while her voice can be grating at times, you manage to
get used to it after a while.
Then we get to Steve Martin as Orin
Schrivello...DDS, the second villain of the film. Oh my god, where do
I begin with him? It's such an over-the-top character, with possibly
the best song in the entire movie, and Steve Martin just chews the
scenery to the very last bit of it. This was still in the height of
Steve Martin's popularity, and it's one of his absolute best
performances. It really does make me sad when he's killed off, but
the impact he leaves is still fantastic. We also manage to receive
cameos from John Candy, Jim Belushi, Christopher Guest, and even Bill
Murray in the Jack Nicholson role.
While the ending is severely different
from the play, with it all ending happily instead of the dark and
twisted one, which they originally did, it takes nothing away from
the film in any way. Plus, it was the only way for the film to
actually get released, because some people just couldn't handle a
dark ending. However, I enjoy it both ways, and the ending is
available to view on the DVD, so no loss there.
It may be a little shop, but the
excitement is big.
#4: Les Miserables – The musical
epic, based on Victor Hugo's long series of novels. The film tells
the story of Jean Valjean, a convict who breaks his parole and tries
to live a new life. He tries to redeem himself by caring for the
child of a factory worker who passes away, all the while being chased
by Inspector Javert. Now he fights for both his and the child
Cosette's safety, during the times of a revolution between the people
of Paris and its government.
“Les Miserables” is regarded as
many as the best musical ever made, with it's tremendous ambition,
the songs by Claude-Michel Schronberg all being memorable from “Look
Down” to “I Dreamed A Dream,” and “One Day More,” as well
as throwing emotions all over the place. It is among one of the top
five most acclaimed musicals ever made, and I understand why. It's
big, it's depressing, it's a Broadway epic.
As for the movie, it has pretty much
everyone split down the middle. Some say it's good, some say it's
bad, some are torn in-between. I'm on the side of people who adore
this film. I love the production design of the film, I love the style
and look of Europe centuries ago, and I love the given atmosphere of
the film. Sure there are multiple differences from the story with
some bits cut out from the show, but then again the stage show cut
out things from the thousands of pages that Hugo wrote, so it's not
like this is something new.
Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean really
sells it, showing much passion for the character as anyone else
would. Being a musical performer in the past, Jackman has described
Valjean as the Holy Grail to him, a character he has so desperately
wanted to play for so long, and now he's got the chance he's been
waiting for. Valjean was his dream, and it's good to know that he was
able to accomplish that goal. Russell Crowe as Javert...oh boy. He's been the most controversial part of the entire film,
mostly due to his singing voice, which I didn't really mind that
much. How he portrays the character what really caught my eye, being one who has seen both sides of the law, yet is conflicted
with the characteristics that Valjean has in him. That sense of doubt
on whether or not criminals CAN change for the better, always
floating about in his mind, it's such a brilliant conflict.
Anne Hathaway does a marvelous job in
the film, playing the fallen and broken Fantine. Despite her short
time on-screen, she takes advantage of how much time she has, and boy is it powerful. This was definitely a performance
worth Best Supporting Actress, and I'm glad she won. I was also
impressed with Amanda Seyfried as Cosette, the child of Fantine. I
mean, after suffering through the train-wreck that was “Mamma Mia,”
as well as several other films, I was really skeptical about her
being in this movie, but she managed to surprise me. Her singing was
better, and even the performance was very touching to watch,
especially when she's working off of Jackman and Eddie Redmayne. And
Redmayne was very good in the film too, playing the courageously
conflicted Marius, who has to make the decision to either die with
his friends or live life with a girl he's fallen in love with. I also
loved the chemistry between him and Aaron Tveit as Enjolras, as you
do believe the friendship between them. Surprisingly enough, not too
many people talk about Samantha Barks as Eponine, which is kind of
sad, because she was just as good as the rest of the cast. Having her
deal with the irony that she was the child of a couple who abused
Cosette before Valjean came along, and now Cosette has stolen the
heart of the one she loves, you do feel the emotions she goes through. Despite it all, she'll still stood by his
side, whatever the cost maybe. I kind of expected her to be in
competition with Hathaway for the Oscar, but what can you do?
There's so much to go over throughout
the entire show, that it's amazing it could
find it's way into film. I recommend watching it for yourself,
because this is an epic that's worth your time if you're interested.
But trust me, what I've talked about isn't enough to do this film
justice.
Do you hear the people sing? Because I
sure do.
Now one thing that “Les Miserables”
did throughout its marketing was that they kept saying that the
singing was done live on set, like it was the first and only film to
do it...not true. The three last films on this list had live singing
in them as well, two of which were before the release of “Les Miz,”
so what could I have loved more than it? Well, here they are:
#3: Jersey Boys – This film's barely
a year old, and yet I already think it deserves to be on my list. This rags
to riches tale is based on the true story of Frankie Valli and the
Four Seasons, from their rise and fall with fame in the 60's. Clint Eastwood's
take on this story is like “That Thing You Do” meets
“Goodfellas,” but in a way that works.
The film also does something that not
many musicals do: they put the focus on the story, with some of the
songs being pushed to the side, with only a select few getting their
time. If you were to show someone this film, they wouldn't even know
this was based on a musical. Don't forget, the musical is also a bio, so
it makes sense to focus on the people who got their success, and not
just the success alone. I actually do miss rock n' roll bands like these,
and I'm hoping more bio-pics like these will remind us of a time when
music was at its prime.
Another thing that I love is that in the
cast, they got actors who worked on “Jersey Boys” beforehand to
play the Four Seasons. All except Tommy DeVito, played by Vincent
Piazza, and yet he gave the best performance in the entire film. That
intervention scene is probably where he shines best, because you can
tell in his facial expressions that he's pretty much lost and he
knows it.
I've gone on and on about this film in
my review of it back last year, as well as among my favorite films of
that year. I still think it was criminal of them to snub this movie
at the Oscars, just to make room for “American Sniper”...don't
get me wrong, I liked that film a lot, but I felt like “Jersey
Boys” was better.
Everyone remembers it the way they need
to, and that's how I like it.
#2: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of
Fleet Street – Again, I've talked about this film plenty with my
review of it last October, so I'll try not to talk about this too
much. Tim Burton's adaptation of the Sondheim musical is one of his
finest accomplishments. And like I said, was an adaptation that came
before “Les Miz” that had the singing done live, which was done
on Burton's decision. Johnny Depp's performance as Todd is definitely
one of his best, and one that deserved its Oscar
nomination. That cold and lifeless stare he gives tells you
automatically that he's seen some heavy stuff. His singing also
manages to deliver on the menacing side, something that was carried nicely onto his work in “Into the Woods."
Supporting characters like Helena
Bonham Carter's mischievous Mrs. Lovett, Alan Rickman's corrupt Judge
Turpin, Timothy Spall's slimy and unsettling Beadle Bamford, and Jamie Bower's young and rebellious Anthony, are equally
fantastic. Each of them knows how to make the scene their own, and
when they're on screen together, it's hard to keep your eyes off of
either one of them.
Not only that, but I just love the look
of the film, from the cinematography to the designs of the town. The
shadows, the angles, and the gloomy weather make it have just the
perfect atmosphere. The look of old timey London is just fascinating
to look at, even if it was a tough time to live in.
This still remains one of my favorite
Burton films, and I doubt anything will change my mind about that.
It's dark, gory, whimsical, enchanting, it's just brilliant.
Now I know what you're thinking, what
could possibly top a Sondheim musical? Well, it has to be a musical
that I've loved ever since I listen to the soundtrack, watched the
show, and revisited it on the big screen. Something that no matter
what people say about it, I continue to love it with every fiber
of my being, and one that inspired me the most. And that film is
this:
#1: The Producers – Some of you may
know this, but for those who don't, “The Producers” is my all
time favorite musical, with a great film to showcase that. After
“Little Shop of Horrors,” but before “Hairspray,” Mel Brooks
took a page from the formula, and turned his film that nobody saw
until it won the Oscar, into one of the biggest and most iconic
Broadway smashes of all time.
The story centers around big name
Broadway producer, Max Bialystock, who falls from grace after his
lastest show bombs terribly. However, when he meets Leo Bloom, an
accountant who says that a producer could make more money with a flop
than with a hit, the two team up to concoct the biggest scheme of all
time: the worst written play, directed by the worst director, acted
by the worst actors, invested on $2 million. From that point on,
you've got a work of mastery that deserved all the Tony awards it
won...which was in every category (except revival).
It really bugs me that when people talk
about the Best Broadway shows ever made, “The Producers” hardly
comes up into conversation. I mean, you'd figure for a show like that
to get as much high praise as it did, it still gets overshadowed by
dozens of other musicals, some of which are even more obscure than
most. Around the time when the film based on the musical came out, it
sadly flopped, which could be one of the reasons
why people don't talk about it. A lot of complaints come from it
being directed like it was a stage show than an actual movie,
complaints about the Nathan Lane and Matthew Broadrick not being as
good as Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, and other things like that.
So why do I love it so much, especially
more than the previous nine on the list? Well, that's simple. This
was the musical and film that made me want to become an actor. I grew
up on listening to the soundtrack endlessly, watching the
behind-the-scenes look of the show when it was coming to Broadway,
and was singing it constantly to pass the time as a kid. Watching the
film when it came out, I fell in love with it all over again and
wanted to escalate that passion even further. It was always something
that brought a smile to my face and is what introduced me to the
works of Mel Brooks, and watch his other masterpieces
like “Spaceballs,” "Young Frankenstein," and “Blazing Saddles.” Even to this day,
I'll watch the film every now and then, and still be happy with what
they were able to do with it.
You can make the argument that it's
nostalgia blinding me, but doesn't everybody have that with
something? Whether it'd be a movie, tv show, or even a particular
actor, everyone will have nostalgia blinding them. Even with that in
mind, I still enjoy the film for what it is, as it isn't
necessarily something that other films have done in this day and age,
directing the film like it was on stage. And just to remind you, the
singing was done live on set, which is further proven when you watch
the special features.
Argue all you want, you won't change my
mind.
x x x x
Well, those were my Top 10 Favorite Broadway Musical Movies. Hope you found something to like about it, and I'll see you next time.
With the 69th annual Tony
Awards just around the corner, I think this is a perfect time to
bring up some of my favorite adaptations of some of my favorite
Broadway musicals. This is something that I've been thinking about
doing for quite some time. I love musicals, it's something that
people work harder on more so that any kind of film or play. The
amount of effort put into it even rivals action films, in my eyes.
Not that I'm saying they do, but that's what it feels like. So what
better way to pay tribute to them, then by listing off some of my
favorites. Now before we get started, here are the ground rules:
It has to be adapted from an
existing musical prior to the film's release. If the film was a
musical to start with, then it doesn't count. These are all
ADAPTATIONS of musicals that have to be on the list. And as much as
that pains me, “Singing in the Rain” and “Newsies” won't be
on my list.
If a film is turned into a
Broadway musical, then the musical has to have been adapted into a
film itself. So as much as I do love the Broadway renditions of
“Catch Me If You Can,” “Evil Dead,” and “Carrie,” it
can't make it on the list because the musical isn't a movie...at
least not yet.
This is all strictly my opinion.
I'm only counting the ones that I have both seen and really loved.
Which means, no “Grease” or “Mamma Mia.” Sorry, but those
films and their stage versions are ones that I really did not like.
Now that we have that out of the way,
let's get started!
x x x x
#10: The Rocky Horror Picture Show –
This is by far one of the strangest films that anyone could possibly
make. Based on the British musical by Richard O'Brian and Jim
Sharman, who also work as actor and director, the film tells of a
couple that stay at a castle where they experience some of the most
nonsensical chaos you could never find on film. And that
“nonsensical” thing is completely true. If you watched this film
without any knowledge of what it is, you'd be like “what the fuck
is this?” with each passing scene. No, even if you DID know
anything about this, you'd still go “what the fuck is this?”
Hell, even THE MUSIC is like that too, if you listen to it on it's
own.
It's a film that does not have a
complete narrative or understanding on what it's trying to be. And
while that may not work for the typical film, here it somehow manages
to work. While the film was a box office bomb at the time, it has
since then gained one of the biggest cult followings for any movie in
history. So much so, that there have been midnight showings for it,
people dressing up as the characters, yelling at the screen, throwing
bread, crazy shit like that.
And to make the insanity even more so,
you have the villain Dr. Frank N. Furter, played by Tim Curry...do I
even need to say anything about this? I feel like anybody who talks
about this film says the same thing, that Tim set the bar for how
much you can ham up a performance and STILL be good in a film. I
won't go into much more detail, because it truly is one of those
films you have to see to believe.
A bizarre film, based on a bizarre
show.
#9: Chicago – Being one of the few
Broadway movies to win Best Picture, Rob Marshall was able to finish
the job that Bob Fosse had planned after Fosse passed away. Marshall
was a theatre director and choreographer long before film, so him
doing a musical movie seemed like an easy task for him. Not only
that, but the way he did “Chicago” was really clever, cutting
back and forth from being a regular film and then going into the
songs, which were filmed and performed on a stage, like they were
fantasies. It was a really unique way of getting the songs into the
film, without the characters just bursting into song out of the open.
The acting in the film is fantastic,
shifting over from Renee Zellweger's Roxie Hart to Catherine
Zeta-Jones' Velma Kelly, who look like they're having so much fun
working off one another at every second. I honestly do think
Zeta-Jones deserved her Oscar for this film, but I felt like she
should have been nominated for Lead Actress instead of Supporting,
but that's just me. Queen Latifah also gives a powerful performance,
pulling off such a demanding character. She's brash, and she knows
how to keep things in tact the way they should be. John C. Reilly as Amos, was a character I grew to love with every
moment. The door mat guy, somebody who wants to be respected but just
doesn't know how to stand up for himself. Reilly is a damn good
actor, and while my favorite film of his will always be “Wreck-It
Ralph,” I say his best live action role would be this, especially
since he got an Oscar nod for it.
While the singing is good, it's the
dancing that really sells the film. Every step, every angle, every
light cue, it's all just hypnotic to watch. My favorite dance scene
is the “Cell Block Tango,” where Velma and five other murderesses
talk about how they ended up in the Cook County Jail to begin with.
If you hired an expert cinematographer to film a stage show up close,
I have a feeling this is what it would feel like. However, my
favorite song in the film is “Mr. Cellophane,” where John C.
Reilly really shows how good an actor, and singer, he can be. It's
one of my favorite moments in film, and it's one of the most
memorable scenes of the past decade, through and through.
Dancing, singing, murder, women, all of
it rolled up in the Roaring 20's.
#8: The Music Man – This 1962 film
directed by Morton DaCosta is the version of this Meredith Wilson
classic that people remember the most. It tells the story of a con
artist named Harold hill, who comes to River City to scam people out
of their money by forming a marching band and leaving town the next
day. But things change, when he starts to gain a soft side from being
with the town librarian, Marian, played by Shirley Jones.
“The Music Man” is a Broadway
classic, and remains one of the most iconic musicals of the 20th
century by many. The music ranges from both energetic to somber in a
way that works so effectively well. I'm sure everyone remembers the
Monorail episode from “The Simpsons” and the “Shipoopi”
number at the football game from “Family Guy.” Well, this is
where it all came from.
Robert Preston owns the role of Harold
Hill, and his performance is too good to be topped, not even by some
of the best performers. His fast talk and swindling skills are
something only he's perfected, especially since he played the role on
Broadway, knowing every point of the character through and through.
Buddy Hackett as Marcellus Washburn is
one of the best supporting characters of any musical, because of his
constant energy and great timing with comedy. His big number,
“Shipoopi” is an iconic song, and one that everybody remembers
and sings along to no matter what.
Another thing I like is how big the
film feels, especially since it was nominated for six Academy Awards,
including Best Picture and Best Sound. If you haven't seen this film
yet, check it out. Otherwise, ya got trouble.
#7: Guys and Dolls – Another classic
that a good majority are familiar with. In this Frank Loesser
musical, we follow two gangsters, Nathan Detroit and Sky Masterson.
Nathan is a crap shoot game arranger, always finding a spot for
games, but at the same time balancing his 14-year engagement with his
nightclub singer of a fiancee, Adelaide. Sky is a professional
gambler, who hardly loses due to his dedication. When
Nathan becomes desperate for money for a spot, he bets Sky on
sweeping a missionary, Sarah Brown, off her feet to Havana. Sky
accepts, but soon finds himself in love with Sarah Brown, and wants
to really fulfill a promise to her and bring her people to the
mission.
“Guys and Dolls” is a show that
most people have a chance at performing during their school career.
And why not? It's a fun, easygoing, feel good show, and the film
adaptation has just as much charm as the show does. Songs like “Fugue
for Tinhorns,” “Luck Be A Lady,” and “I've Never Been in Love
Before” are still remembered by talented actors and Broadway
fanatics alike.
Frank Sinatra
and Marlon Brando do a good job as Nathan and Sky. Being two of the
biggest stars at the time, all the while polar opposites of what made
them famous, they manage to work off each other pretty well. While
there aren't as many scenes of them together, they still manage to
carry one on their own, when working off others. What's really
interesting is that Brando wasn't the first candidate for Sky. Gene
Kelly and even Sinatra himself wanted the part of Sky, but the studio
wanted Brando instead, because he was a bigger box office draw. This
wasn't the first time Brando stole a Sinatra role, as “On The
Waterfront” was another film Sinatra had his eye on.
Jean Simmons was a fairly good Sarah
Brown, and the scenes with her and Brando manage to be pretty
touching. The two have worked together in “Desiree,” so they have
good experience working off one another. Vivian Blaine, the actress
from the original Broadway cast, reprises her role of Miss Adelaide,
Nathan's fiancee. Being that Adelaide was her Broadway debut and that
she was still very fresh with the character, Sam Goldwyn made the
right decision keeping her in the role, even if others like Betty
Grable and Marilyn Monroe were both eager to get the part. No one
else can fit the bill better than Blaine, and I think that's how it's
likely to stay that way.
Blaine wasn't the only one to be in the
film after the stage play. Stubby Kaye and Johnny Silver reprise
their roles as Nicely-Nicely Johnson and Benny Southstreet, who both
have excellent chemistry together. They can be funny, and at times
they allow for some really memorable moments, like in the beginning.
From that point on, you do enjoy them whenever they're onscreen. And
lastly, we have B.S. Pully as Big Jule, who made his career based on
a role such as this. After playing the role in over 1,000
performances and reprising the character in the film, he's the one
who people draw inspiration from when playing this character.
That's not to say that the adaptation
is completely perfect, especially when Loesser himself said he didn't
like it. I can get why he would, with the ending changed up, the
added songs being okay but not memorable, and him not liking how
Sinatra portrayed Nathan, even though he wanted Sky. But aside from
that, it's still a great film, and has more touching moments to it
than one would expect.
Now you might also be wondering what I
think about the upcoming remake starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and
Channing Tatum. Well, I can't really say much about it, because all I
know is that the two are really interested in doing it. Depending on
who they get to direct the film, and the rest of the cast, I'll go
into more with that. I'm probably guessing Gordon-Levitt will be Sky,
since he's played a big shot gambler before in “Sin City: A Dame to
Kill For,” but that's just me. Until then, we'll have to settle on
the old film.
It's one of the oldest established, and
it's unlikely to leave.
#6: Hairspray – Based on the musical,
which is based on the 1988 John Waters film, this 2007 hit tells of a
chubby high schooler in the early 60's, Tracy Turnblad, who tries to
climb her way to fame on her favorite show, and fight against the
studios racial views, so anyone can dance on the show whenever they
want.
What Marc Shaiman and Scott Whitman
were able to accomplish in this, was turn a raunchy low-budget comedy
into one of the most energetic films of the past decade. Every song
in the film always makes you feel like getting up to dance to every
note that's sung, even slow songs like “Timeless to Me.” Director
Adam Shankman managed to bring the film up the highest level,
especially since he choreographed all the dancing, something he's an
expert with doing...It's just too bad he couldn't transition that
completely into “Rock of Ages.”
Nikki Blonsky performance as Tracy was
a bit of a challenge, since she had big shoes to fill in after Rikki
Lake in the original film, and Marissa Winokur in the original
Broadway cast. Despite that kind of pressure, Nikki managed to really
match up with them both, especially with her amazing singing voice. I
do wish more films would cast her, because I haven't seen her do much
since her guest work on “Smash.” Zac Efron plays Link, Tracy's
love interest, and he was definitely one of the biggest surprises for
me. I did have doubt about him, especially after “High School
Musical,” which was what almost didn't get him the role. However,
he managed to prove both the director and me wrong, as he was
fantastic, showing us that he really can act in a high class film
such as this, and then later on in future films.
Now we move onto John Travolta as Edna,
Tracy's mother. I've said before that I wasn't too fond of Travolta
as an actor, especially for most of his work in the 80's, but I have
to admit this is one of those performances that I can actually watch
him in and like. He keeps in with the tradition of Edna being played
by a man, taking over the torch that was held by the famous
drag-queen, Divine, then passed onto Harvey Fierstein on Broadway. He
does a good job of playing the character, and at times he was
convincing as a woman in the make-up. Queen Latifah as “Motormouth”
Maybelle, what can I say? She just rocks the place, with her big and
powerful presence, just from that first note she sings. I mean, after
her work on “Chicago,” you know you're in for a treat when she
starts singing in a film. Michelle Pfiefer as Velma Von Tussle is
equally wonderful on screen. After a three year hiatus, this film and
“Stardust” were a great return, AND as a villainess no less.
Interesting fact, Michelle was considered for this film by Travolta
himself, mostly because they both were in a “Grease” film
(Travolta being in the original film, and Pfiefer being in the
sequel).
Amanda Bynes and Elijah Kelly as Penny
and Seaweed are also pretty damn good. Putting aside all the
controversial stuff that happened with Bynes afterwards, she and
Kelly prove to give out their best performances, playing off of each
other with such likable chemistry to such likable characters. While I
do enjoy Bynes in the film, I feel like Kelly upstages her every time
they're onscreen together. He just has more wild energy that feels
like he's still got loads to spare at the end of every dance scene.
James Marsden as Corny Collins, also
does a fantastic job. The performance was said to be inspired by
Buddy Deane, who did a show that “The Corny Collins Show” is
based on, and you can definitely see the similarities. After
appearing in the “X-Men” films, you'd never expect someone like
him to be a singer. But then again, Marsden did sing in the movie
“Enchanted,” that same year. Another interesting fact is that
Marsden beat out his “X-Men” co-star, Hugh Jackman, to this role
during auditions. Funny that Cyclops beat Wolverine at something. And
then we move onto Christopher Walken as Wilbur Turnblad, Tracy's
father. Since Walken was a dancer long before he became an actor, a
role like this was a walk in the park for him, even if he only has
one or two scenes dancing. But aside from the dancing, we also get
some nice tender moments between him and both Blonsky and Travolta.
Now while the film does change some
things from both the stage show and original film, like Velma being
fired, Tracy not being arrested, and the whole conflict with Edna
thinking Wilbur is cheating on her, I feel like it works out. As a movie,
I feel like it should take some liberties, that way it fits better as its own identity.
Not to mention, the music is fantastic.
The energy, the movements, the groove, everything about it makes it a
fun movie to watch. And that's what I think most musicals should be:
fun. Sure, you can have as much drama as you want, but you got to
have some life brought into it from time to time, and this one is
like an overdose of it.
“Hairspray”: Energetic, colorful,
hypnotic, and all around fun.
x x x x
Well, that's all I can give for now. Check in for part 2, coming soon.
Let's face it, people. Within every
group of friends, everybody's going to get stereotyped, even when
they don't notice it. The leader, the handsome guy, the brute, the
dork, the hot chick, each one of these characterizations and more are
there. And today, we take a look at a film that talks about that,
like most films about high school. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you
“The DUFF.”
In this modern day high school
setting, we follow Bianca Piper, a student who is excellent in her
work, has great friends, but only gets to attend parties because of
them. It's then that her neighbor, Wesley, points out that she's the
DUFF of her group, which means “Designated, Ugly, Fat, Friend.”
With this thought filling her mind constantly, Bianca then leaves her
friends, and asks Wesley to make her go from DUFF to hottie for a guy
she likes before homecoming.
Robbie Amell, who you may know as
Firestorm on “The Flash,” plays Wes. He's the charming boy next
door and the mentor who tries to change the main character into
something she's not, but ends up being the love interest, which he
manages to play relatively well. Not that in depth, but he does a
good job. His girlfriend and villain of the film, Madison,
is played by Bella Throne. Like you would expect, she's the bitch who
thinks she's better than everyone automatically because she's the
popular one, and...it's pretty boring. I give credit that Throne was
doing well, but she doesn't really take advantage of what she could
do with this character or add a new spin to it.
I also didn't find much done with the
best friends played by Bianca Santos and Skyler Samuels. They're
fine, it's just that I wish they did more with them, since a good
majority of the film doesn't feature them. Then we get to Bianca's
crush, Toby, played by Nick Eversman. Much like with other films
about high school crushes, we barely get to know his character, aside
from the fact that he's complete bullshit. That's pretty much all I
can say about him, since there's nothing else to this character,
aside from being a plot device.
Not only that, but the film has a
pretty good sense of humor, mostly from Bianca and Wes working off of
each other. They do have their moments of witty dialogue, and there
were times I did laugh out loud. I mean, where else can you find a
film that has a scene in which they parody 70's porno...and yes, that
does happen in the movie. I also enjoyed some of the somber moments
that the film took, which did feel genuine despite its
predictability.
Overall, “The DUFF” isn't a
ground-breaking work of cinema, but it's no where near horrible. Our
main character is likable, the jokes are funny enough, and it is
harmless enough for teenagers to give a watching towards. Would I
want to see it again? Maybe if it was playing on TV and there was
nothing else on, then I would give it my time again. Give it a watch,
and maybe you'll think differently than what I did.
