Worst Movie Ever!!!

[surfinmuse]

Phantom the movie reminds me of what I did not like about Evita movie: there were way too many "off" moments where the song and/or underscore did not fit the images on screen. I like that they beefed up the orchestrations for the score, but the movie itself was lacking.

I've seen the stage production (West End & Bway), and I loved it, but there is definitely a sense of reality distortion involved in that kind of thing; a darkened movie theatre weaves a different kind of magic.

I wonder what's next... Sony Pictures presents "Miss Saigon" directed by Martin Scorsese?

[Tref]

I can't wait to miss it!

[Ponine]

Oh, dont even get me started on the Evita movie

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Which scene? I'd love to know.

The Shrieking Shack scene at the end. No real explanations for anything. Snape's "Oh, sweet...sweet...lovely revenge."

Why does he want revenge?

Ah, whatever, we'll just skip that part.

The Mauraders? The animagus stuff?

Eh, who cares?!

Once scene from the book that had dialogue that would have translated perfectly to the screen, but insteado of taking 10 minutes to give us the informatio we most needed, we got to watch Harry's homoerotic Buckbeak flight. Which, don't get me wrong, it was purty. But if we lost essential info over some added purties, it sucks.

[Ponine]

It had been so long since I read the book that I was sure I had imagined that I knew more about that scene, thank you for clarifying!!!!
Yes, that brings it full circle.. the rest of the information would have been useful. I suspect that they will have to dole it out for us in the next movie.

[flippyshark]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm a heterosexual guy (in my late thirties), and I liked the ALW Phantom on stage, quite a bit, really. Now, the movie? I'm really torn, because there are things I liked about it, and I generally want to be a booster for musical films. But there are some staggering missteps in this movie.

Exxagerated and hyper-real, it used its stylistic choices as an excuse for bad plotting and staging. (One horrid example - during one of the best songs, "Past the Point of No Return," the main characters are completely upstaged by clusters of black-clad dancers gyrating around in what looks like bad wanna-be Martha Graham style. And what was with the "Vogue" posturing during the Masquerade?!?)

So, the movie wants to have it both ways - to be a tear jerking romantic classic, and a highly stylized fanastmagoria. But it's too silly for the former, and not nearly delirious enough for the latter. Alan Parker might have made good on a more straight-forward version, and Ken Russell would have been the man to bring us an energetically lysergic take.

I will probably enjoy having this on video as an imperfect but serviceable record of the play, but as cinema, I doubt it will win many people over.

(I sure hope that Les Mis is made into a much better film than this, if it ever gets made at all.)

[surfinmuse]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Well, for what it's worth, I'm a heterosexual guy (in my late thirties), and I liked the ALW Phantom on stage, quite a bit, really. Now, the movie? I'm really torn, because there are things I liked about it, and I generally want to be a booster for musical films in generaal. But there are some staggering missteps in this movie.

(I sure hope that Les Mis is made into a much better film than this, if it ever gets made at all.)

Flippyshark, agree on the stage vs movie comparison.

FYI, there was a critically-acclaimed theatrical release of Les Misérable, in 1998 starring Liam Neeson & Geoffrey Rush. Very handsome production. I think the DVD is readily available on Amazon.com and such.

[flippyshark]

A quick addeneum to my comment above. I thought I was responding directly to a long-ago post from Ponine that ended with this quote:

"I knew better than to ask a person of male gender in my own age group and hetrosexual to accompany me."

And that is why my above post begins the way it does. I didnt; realize at the time that there were two more pages of posts between that comment and my own, so I hope no one is wondering why I thought it necessary to start right off with a disclaimer about my lifestyle preference and age.

I haven't figured out the whole "Quote" function on this system either. I'm something of a cyber-klutz, and probably always will be. My apologies to everyone if I come off as confused, behind the curve and naive. It's because I am.
Thanks,
DP

[flippyshark]

Surfinmuse,

I thoroughly enjoyed the "Les Miserables" movie with Neeson and Rush, and I thought they embodied Valjean and Javert marvelously. But it wasn't the musical, which I think could one day make a fine film. (But, as it's a three hour all-sung drama, it could just as easily make a royally crappy movie, too.)

[Ponine]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

A quick addeneum to my comment above. I thought I was responding directly to a long-ago post from Ponine that ended with this quote:

"I knew better than to ask a person of male gender in my own age group and hetrosexual to accompany me."

And that is why my above post begins the way it does. I didnt; realize at the time that there were two more pages of posts between that comment and my own, so I hope no one is wondering why I thought it necessary to start right off with a disclaimer about my lifestyle preference and age.

Noted, and intriguing. I have three hetrosexual men in my life, all over 30, one over 40...two of them wouldnt even entertain the thought of going, the last, I just plain knew better than to even try.
When I saw the movie last Saturday, the theatre was fairly full, yet there was only one man who looked under 50, and he was about 12.

And no worries... There's a great many of us that arent very good at quoting other posts.