Change Your Image
valmont7
Reviews
Gypsy (1993)
It doesn't get any better
Too often screen adaptations of musicals compromise, but this is one of those rare occasions when every ingredient, perfect in itself, comes together and harmonizes perfectly. Midler was born to play this role, and her performance will most likely be remembered as definitive. She is supported by an ideal cast, and the direction and design are tops. It doesn't get any better than this.
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966)
Let's film a musical with no songs!
I can't think of a single stage musical that made it to the screen without a few alterations -- perhaps Jesus Christ Superstar. But this film is a travesty. From Sondheim's original score of some fourteen songs (one of the best Broadway scores of the 1960's), we're left with only four. No one in the cast is a particularly talented singer anyway. Richard Lester's quirky direction shines in every scene, but at the expense of the material, which was much funnier, more textured, and hadn't already been seen a thousand times. Lester has no idea how to really stage a musical number, so he fills every moment with sight gags and his trademark jump-cuts. Watching Michael Crawford chasing after mare's sweat is almost as tedious as listening to him sing. The whole thing degenerates into the standard 60's comedy chase scene. Ho-hum.
Gypsy (1962)
A glittering disappointment
In the old days of screen musicals, the material was tailored to the talent, and Hollywood had lots of it -- Astair and Rogers, Keeler, Powell, etc. etc. The plots were interchangeable and unimportant. What mattered were the songs, the dancing, the personalities. Perhaps the ascendancy of the American Stage Musical as a genre in the 40's foreshadowed the end of the Hollywood Musical, as integrity of plot and score began to take precedence.
Screen adaptations of stage musicals always seem to compromise on the most vital aspects of the work. It's rare to find a screen star with the vocal power of an Ethel Merman or a Patti LuPone, and for some reason the stage talent rarely makes it to the screen. Perhaps the studios prefer a star with a name that they know will sell tickets. The result is rarely satisfactory. The happiest compromises invariably come about when the star's singing is dubbed. Marni Nixon sang for Natalie Wood in West Side Story and for Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady. It would be difficult to dub the vocals for a part like Mama Rose, however, because of her strong character.
Rosalind Russell is one of the cinema's all-time greats, and would have been delightful in a non-musical version of this story. During the scenes, she sparkles as always, and we are constantly torn between despising her tyrranical control of her daughters' lives and her bewitching charm and vivacity. But she simply isn't a singer, and the actress who plays Rose MUST have a strong voice. It's a musical, for pete's sake!
There's plenty to enjoy in this film, whose visual appeal is substantial, but the 1993 version is far superior in almost every respect. Let's face it, Midler was BORN to play Rose.
The Out-of-Towners (1999)
Did we see the same movie?
I don't understand why so many people hated this movie. I couldn't stop laughing. Maybe I was just in the mood to laugh, or maybe the characters reminded me so much of my parents that I was having way too much fun watching them go through such an ordeal. Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn complement each other perfectly. They should be a team like Hepburn and Tracy.
Lost in Space (1998)
Oh the pain... the pain!
I'm an ardent fan of the original series. It's campy, full of ridiculous costumes, implausible situations, tawdry effects, and corny dialogue. It's not really science fiction; at no time does anything resembling science affect the story. The Robinsons are lost in space simply as an excuse to encounter, week after week, a dazzling array of bizarre, outlandish characters on their way to somewhere else. There is just enough danger to hold our interest, but the Robinsons behave in all things as if they are on a camping trip. Jonathan Harris's Doctor Smith is a queen of the first magnitude. He has *style*. His persistent sabotage is not motivated by a truly evil character, but rather by a truly selfish one. Nonetheless, we cannot fail to sense his genuine affection for Will and Penny, who always seem to end up under his supervision. The special bond between Smith and Will really is the heart of the show.
Everything bright and beautiful about the series is utterly absent from the movie. The movie seems to spring from a vision completely hostile to the spirit of the TV series. The special effects are all too much. The design is too slick. Far too much effort is spent on trying to make everything realistic, except the characters themselves, who are mere shadows of their TV counterparts.
King Lear (1987)
Aggressively, offensively, violently boring.
No Plot. Four characters who don't interact. Nothing happens. Peter Sellars walks around and thinks. His recurring voice-over monologue obsessively examines a thought that is not very interesting to begin with. Not content merely to bore us, Goddard assaults us with shot after shot of crudely filmed, irrelevant imagery, accompanied by unintelligible overlapping speech. Perhaps there's something resembling an idea buried underneath all the nonsense. But I doubt it. And what does any of this have to do with 'King Lear'? To be bored by a film is bad enough, but this film is aggressively, offensively, violently boring.