Just saw the original Robert Preston and Shirley Jones in high definition and digital surround sound. Still one of the best ten musicals ever made and the final sequence nearly knocked us out of our seats. Well, in the original stage production, the band would march in from the lobby and down each aisle to the stage. Spectacular.
The TV version was a joke. I couldn't even get through watching it.
I have to agree with you on the original version of the Music Man. robert Preston (who would also have been good as Mark Twain) was perfect for the role. The interesting thing is that musical was a risky thing: as a tv program about Broadway reminded us, Meredith Wilson had never written a musical and Robert Preston had never performed in one. Wilson's music and Preston's verve were a match for each other. With a performance like Preston's, why would anyone bother to remake?
Ah the folly of men and especially movie producers. It's the bane of the remake. They've had two tries on "South Pacific" and still it hasn't been fully realized on the screen.
On the full Panavision which I saw at the Hollywood Egyptian theater, the film was one of the best uses of the wide screen of any musical right up there with "West Side Story."
Meredith Wilson went on to write "The Unsinkable Molly Brown" which does have a rather lackluster movie version to its credit. Now if someone like Rob Marshall ("Chicago") could get hold of that. And who could play Molly Brown?
I love "The Unsinkable Molly Brown." From the first time I saw it as a child to this day. It was one of the first dvd's I purchased.
Who could play Molly Brown today? Reese Weatherspoon comes to mind. Alison Lohman. Brittany Murphy.
By the way, that wasn't Cameron Diaz as Marian Paroo, it was a Broadway musical actress, Kristin Chenoweth. She does resemble Cameron, I guess, but she's about 10 inches shorter!
Thanks for pointing that out, mac. I didn't get through the first two commercials and then it was so utterly forgettable that I forgot it.
Wasn't she in "Wicked" on Broadway?
I don't believe so:
Cast
Kristin Chenoweth
Actor - Glinda
Idina Menzel
Actor - Elphaba
Joel Grey
Actor - The Wizard
Carole Shelley
Actor - Madame Morrible
Norbert Leo Butz
Actor - Fiyero
Michele Federer
Actor - Nessarose
William Youmans
Actor - Doctor Dillamond
Christopher Fitzgerald
Actor - Boq
Yes, Kristin Chenoweth and Idina Menzel were both nominated for Tonys for Wicked last month - Menzel won.
This is always an interesting topic. What critical darlings did we all secretly detest? I, of course, have a list.
1) Mystic River (2003): Exceptionally acted, to be sure. But otherwise a boring, illogical pseudo-mystery-cum-character-study where the central crime makes less and less sense the more we know about it. The studio knew this and pitched the film using the over-abused word "character study", simply based on the presence of Robbins, Penn, Bacon, etc. But it was poorly-written and edited, with mind-numbing plot twists and a laughable, Shakespearean coda. And what a horribly overpraised filmmaker Clint Eastwood is. How he's managed to be a critical darling as a director is beyond my comprehension. Aside from "Unforgiven" and "Bird", I can't think of a single film he's directed in the last 25 years that's worth going back to.
2) Gangs of New York (2002): I think the critics got really sympathetic with this one. There had been so many reports in the press about the out-of-control budget and shooting schedule, not to mention the back-stage, ego-driven dick-swinging, that I think the critics were praying they could find something to like about it. And even with Daniel Day-Lewis showing the world what exactly we had been missing out on, and even with Scorsese showing the world why he is one of the world's greatest living visual filmmakers, the film is an absolute mess. Unlike most Scorsese films, you don't care about these poorly-threaded characters (particuarly DiCaprio with his too-contemporary swagger and his piss-poor Irish accent), and the battle scenes just didn't have the panache that we hoped for. As Peter Biskind put it perfectly, this was supposed to be Marty's "Gone With The Wind", but he ended up making his "Heaven's Gate."
3) Thirteen (2003): I think this is an obvious one: A politically correct allegory about seventh graders going through puberty. More like a racially insenstive teasing slop-fest with an overstated script and a desperately unhip visual style. This was a gimmick that had the studio swinging for the rafters: The real-life 13-year-old co-screenwriter/co-star who developed a script based on her own experiences; the wannabe-lascivisious cover poster featuring the two lolitas flashing their piereced tongues at the world; the MTV-style dreadfulness that made up the misc en scene, with the rapid-fire cuts and uncomfortable angles, that wanted to create the illusion of drug sickness but only induced it. And not to metion the fact that any film of this nature is 110% critic proof. Just about every narrative concern you can raise can be answered with "Well, that's kids these days." Another excuse for lazy screenwriting and enhanced melodrama in an attempt to out-do Larry Clark and actually get patted on the back for it (whereas Clark was nearly crucified back in '95). This is basically a movie to show your white 13-year-old little brother if you really want to upset him (girls his age who don't strip on-screeen and who get it on with big, mean black guys). As a contribution to the industry and its supposed social commentary on "kids these days" it's a laughable, teasing mess. To quote one critic, Hollywood (or Hollywood-lite indie films) need to stop trying to tackle "serious" issues that they will only choke on. Chew that pretzel before you swallow it. You wouldn't want it to get caught on your tongue ring.
4) Requiem For A Dream (2000): I doubt Darren Aronofsky had ever been so sexually satisfied in his life until he was presented with the opportunity to orally massage just about every orifice on the body of that god-awful entity known as "Film School Tricks and Cliches For Talentless, Go-Nowhere Film School Grads." Basically, this is a Film School Film for Film School Wannabes Who Don't Like Film School But Are Jealous of Film School Grads Who Get To Make Movies. Aronofsky wanted to make a hero out of addiction and a create a loving fever dream out of his hometown of Coney Island by adapting Hubert Selby's otherwise unfilmable novel about the plight of young addicts. But as Aronofsky clearly doesn't know how to write or a script or cut away from Leto's underacting, Burstyn's overacting, or Connelly's non-acting, he instead spiced things up with a would-be Stoneian jackhammer visual style, with his so-called "hip hop montage", split screens, and sped-up action. And it all culminates with a mind-numbing climax where all four characters descend into their own private hell as a result of addiction, and Aronofsky spares absolutely no detail. Of course we're left with the surprising revelation that drugs are indeed bad for you, kids, but what do we make of the over-stated look-at-me-filmmaking style that takes itself straighter than Tim Conway's face during an ad-lib? That's not the point, Aronofksy seems to be saying. Addiction is the hero and the monster, and it wins at the end. That nobody bothered with this mess at the theaters should serve as a reminder to this ego-maniacal non-talent that trying to go against mainstream cliches is (and always has been) a cliche in and of itself.
4) Man on Fire: Just when you thought it was safe to emerge from the Political Correctness Fallout Shelter. Just when you felt it was time to loosen up and have a good-old fashioned time ripping into all cultures including your own. Yes, friends, the 2000's seemed to be the era when we could resurrect the trashy, take-no-prisoners comedy style where anything and everything goes. Where Eminem could say the n-word and Andrew Dice Clay could dust off his anti-Japanese routine. And even when we could make our "Springtime For Hitler" dreams a reality and find that trusted actor to play the part while ensuring the would-be hopefuls that no experience is indeed necessary.
Think again. Think more along the lines of "Black American saving White-Bread American girl from evil Mexicans." How's that for race relations? Nevermind the proverbial 2-hour, 45-minute piss-fest all over our loyal neighbors to the South, where not one Mexican character is not exhaling devious cigar smoke, wiping gallons of sweat from his stained and dusty shirt, or plotting to kidnap precious White-Bread American girls. But you better believe Denzel never so much as loses his cool, remaining clean and dazzling through every frame, even during the moments when you're convinced that this non-character will possibly take over the Mexican government single-handedly.
The gist of the film is that Denzel (doing his 11th consecutive "Great Performance in God-Awful Film") is an alcoholic bodyguard hired to protect Pita, the half-Mexican, half-American daughter of a millionaire (played to PC perfection by blonde-haired, blue-eyed American child actress Dakota Fanning, once again proving that Hollywood can't be bothered making its audiences care about authentic Latina girls). When Pita is kidnapped, its up to Denzel to track down the assailants, and it's truly a spectacle watching this Black American, who stands out in Mexico like he would at a Louisville honky-tonk bar, traveling through the most desolate areas the country has to offer both injury-free and undetected. But with a film like this (particuarly the deus ex machina climax, the best we've had in a while) you'd better be prepared to suspend Mexican haciendas worth of disbelief.
Director Tony Scott is always good for an over-directed action sequence or two, but you always know you're in the hands of an aging Brit trying desperately to keep his craggy fingers on the hip American pulse. He's obviously been spending precious time watching MTV when he should have been looking for a good script, and he even manages to out-do Aronfksy in terms of jack-hammer visual style. My favorite motif is the use of stylistically placed subtitles, even when the characters are speaking English. Yet another mainstream director's way of saying, "You'll never guess why this scene is important." This is Scott's (and other's) way of making you think that they're not giving anything away, despite a screenplay that does exactly that in the most pandering of ways. This should be a tell-tale sign to audience members that they are once again being talked down to. I refuse to believe that our ADD is that bad these days, but looking at the box office numbers......
So we have yet another Denzel Explains It All fest where the overrated actor has the weight of the world of his shoulders, and the pained facial expressions to prove it, which have nothing my throbbing head after having to sit through another one of his ego-fests.
Way to go Barrel, you took my favorite movies and drove 'em into the ground. Good criticism.
About Schmidt. Couldn't tell you why that movie was made. And would prefer at this point to pretend it wasn't.
Riding in Boys with Cars. I got dragged to this one. And I shoulda fought harder. Worst whiny drivel on screen I've seen in a decade. Every third thought I had was "just SHUT UP". Movies about how it sucks to live and then it sucks more and after that you get a brief respite before it sucks again just suck. (do I overuse "suck" in my critique?)
Aside from two good performances I didn't get "About Schmidt." It might be interesting if one could run it backwards and make kind of a "Memento" out of it.
I have to agree on "Gangs of New York." For all the influence of Italian realism on Scorcese as a filmmaker, this film came off as glossy and santitized. The section of New York was far worse than depicted just for starters. And no gunships fired on the city -- absolutely a ridiculous special effects ploy. Not the worst film in the world but not up to Scorcese standards. As a matter of fact, he should stay a million miles away from epics. Didn't like "Kundun" either except for the great Philip Glass score. To think that this was the man who made "Goodfellas" and my favorite filmed version of "Madame Butterfly."
TaxiDriver scared me to death and Apocolypse and Deer Hunter didn't do me much better. They were all just ugly movies.
I agree about Apocolypse Now and Deerhunter. I never saw Taxidriver.
If you're talking about cringing in the true sense, 'Taxi Driver' is the one. I saw it once and will never, ever watch it again. Never saw 'Apocalypse Now' nor 'Deerhunter' or any of the recent war movies. Too much reality for my taste.
Thanks eoe, I was hoping I wasn't the ONLY one who felt that way.
I adored About Schmidt but was bored to tears
watching "Down with Love" last weekend.....
Cast mates Rene Zellweger and Jude Law didn't
help to relieve the boredom....I think the movie
had a tired old plot.
