Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

The stage musical has been slowly whittled over its history to where it now runs 2.5 hours, as opposed to its original 3. Two and a half hours is a perfectly normal running time for a big event movie these days, so I don't see any real reason not to keep the musical intact. The real challenge will be dealing with all those gorgeous but motionless ballads. Having an actor stand alone on stage and sing is thrilling in person, and potentially deadly on film, and this show has a lot of that. I imagine there will wind up being many cutaways to illustrative montage during songs like "I Dreamed A Dream" or "Empty Chairs At Empty Tables" to avoid the spectacle of hapless actors lip syncing while looking forlorn for entire songs at a time. I hope it all works out. I adore this show. But it could be a ponderous bore of a movie if not handled carefully.

What did you think of the play VS the subsequent movie verison of Phantom of the Opera?

[Snowflake]

Caught the first two parts of HBO's Mildred Pierce last night. Production values are fabulous. Costuming spectacularly spot on. Amazing that nothing was shot on the West Coast.

I'm missing the spiffy Warner Brothers dialogue. Overall, an enthusiastic response from me. The first two parts are set up, grittier than Hollywood gloss.

Good quality television and Guy Pearce is just slimey from the get go. Wally is just, ew.

Kate Winslet is very good. I'm not sure if I will like the grown up Veda or not.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

What did you think of the play VS the subsequent movie verison of Phantom of the Opera?

Phantom as a play? Terrific fun, and I liked several of the tunes before I became permanently tired of them. But, I'd go again if someone bought me a ticket.

The movie? I like Gerard Butler, but he was miscast here. That high note in Music of the Night is a real cringer. Also, I wish he had actually been pathetically ugly, not incredibly handsome with what looked like a bad sunburn on only part of his face. I liked the lush production values, but found the whole thing lacked energy. Also, I didn't care for the habit of replacing sung recitative with spoken dialog, especially as they didn't re-write it AS dialog. They just spoke lyrics in a very stilted self-conscious way. (Almost like they were ashamed to admit they were making a sung-through musical! I hope the makers of Les Mis simply commit to the form and sing out throughout.) Not disastrously bad, but never thrilling either. It just kind of thumps along, very expensively. (Also, Minnie Driver seems to be the only one having anything like a good time with the material - maybe a little bit TOO good a time? I could have made a decent sandwich out of that ham!)

As for the film of Evita, as mentioned by Strangler Lewis, I like that one a lot more, and thought the montage impressive, telling lots of story visually. But, yeah, I could see how that could be exhausting.

Has anyone here checked out the Phantom musical sequel Love Never Dies? Now, THAT is some mighty bold musical misfire! (Based on a focused listen through of the cast album, not an actual viewing) I bet it never gets anywhere near a movie screen, and good thing, too.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

The movie? I like Gerard Butler, but he was miscast here. That high note in Music of the Night is a real cringer. Also, I wish he had actually been pathetically ugly, not incredibly handsome with what looked like a bad sunburn on only part of his face. I liked the lush production values, but found the whole thing lacked energy.

Agreed, but more so. Gerard Butler RUINED the movie for me. I enjoyed it on first viewing, but find it almost unwatchable since because I simply can't stand a Phantom that can't sing. Worst Phantom since Franc D'Ambrosio.

Production values kicked ass and the rest of the movie is great. I'd consider a rewatch if someone ran the play soundtrack over the film's soundtrack.

Also, I didn't care for the habit of replacing sung recitative with spoken dialog, especially as they didn't re-write it AS dialog. They just spoke lyrics in a very stilted self-conscious way. (Almost like they were ashamed to admit they were making a sung-through musical! I hope the makers of Les Mis simply commit to the form and sing out throughout.) Not disastrously bad, but never thrilling either. It just kind of thumps along, very expensively. (Also, Minnie Driver seems to be the only one having anything like a good time with the material - maybe a little bit TOO good a time? I could have made a decent sandwich out of that ham!)

Again agreed. I *hate* that Hollywood doesn't trust American audiences to a true musical.

They'd better not so much as attempt that with Les Mis. It's a through-composed musical and I can't see anything but disaster resulting from inserting spoken lines.

As for the film of Evita, as mentioned by Strangler Lewis, I like that one a lot more, and thought the montage impressive, telling lots of story visually. But, yeah, I could see how that could be exhausting.

Except for the part where they took all the best/funniest lines out and gave Madonna the song that belongs to the mistress she kicks out.


Alex: Agreed on the novel. Good read.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Production values kicked ass and the rest of the movie is great.

Really? I thought the cinematography was absolutely abysmal. Particularly during the big music numbers which were all filmed from a half mile away to be sure you couldn't possible get a glimpse at any sort of emotional performance from the actors (though perhaps that's more a commentary on the actors than the cinematographer.