Oscar Quest 2011 continues. I only have a few more left to see. Earlier this week, I watched "The King's Speech", which is usually my (and the Academy's) favorite type of film. It fulfills all my usual requirements - solid acting, decent writing, and the whole England connection doesn't hurt. In addition to this, there's also references to Nazis - another Oscar Rule adherence.
But as I watched the film, I kept realizing that I was WATCHING A FILM. I didn't really feel any connection to the characters, and how can I? The film takes place in the 30s in England as a young king abdicates the throne to run off with a divorcee and leaves all of England (including his brother) with a challenge.
On the front cover of this week's "Entertainment Weekly", it says "King's Speech vs. Social Network". And that's what this year's Best Picture race comes down to, my friends. As usual, there's two films battling it out and eight "It's nice to be nominated"s. But the more Oscar conversations I have, it is being brought to my attention that there might be something more than that.
This comes down to one thing - old school vs new school. Does the Academy reward the stodgy, well-acted, outdated biopic or does it give the bald guy to the new kids in town, the ones who supposedly changed not just cinema, but society in general? What's more important - society then or society now?
But as far as "The King's Speech" goes, I was entertained, but not mesmerized. It's a good film, but not a great film. I don't want to own it. I'd like Colin Firth to win, since I've loved his work since "Pride and Prejudice" (as all good British girls do). But he was nominated last year in a part that moved me far more than this - moved me to tears, in fact. For the whole run time, a voice inside my head kept reminding me that I've seen this film before. More than once.
Actually, you can make a case that the two films are marginally similar. Both tell the story of a man who was basically an afterthought, and went on to a position of great power. Each needed the help of another man to help him get there. Both affected the course of history. Both have to do with a society affected by the advent of new technology. And they have one last thing in common - neither film is great.
I'm not sure, but I think I'm getting too jaded. Maybe I'm just not into film right now, although I am trying. But maybe it's society, that's changed, not just me. But the real question is whether or not the Academy has changed. We shall see.
1/25/2011
Oscar Rant 2011
Just like the rest of the cinephiles in America, I was glued to my chair at 8:30 this morning, waiting to hear the bell go off that starts the Official Oscar Campaign. Usually, I have to tell my boss that I’ll be a bit late on Nod Day, but today I had the extra blessing of working from home, so as I set my day into motion, I had it on in the background.
I’ve heard people say that the Academy is full of nothing but yuppified, elitist snobs who wouldn’t know a good film if it hit them in their firmly ensconced in their seat buttocks. I’ve defended them against people who say that nobody ever HEARD of the films that are nominated, so who really cares. But I always defend them. The Oscars is my Super Bowl when the Colts don’t make it in. It’s the day I wait all year for. Hell, when I found out I was having SURGERY, the first thing out of my mouth was “Not during Oscar week, I’m not!”
But now they’ve even pissed ME off! I simply do not understand. There are Oscar RULES and they should be followed. And they’ve made a mistake so grievous that I just don’t think I can forgive them.
Christopher Nolan, the visionary director behind this year’s BEST film “Inception”, is NOT nominated in the direction category. He’s not there. Other people are there, and perhaps deservedly so. But he NEEDED to be there. And he’s just not.
Oh sure, he’s nominated for Screenplay. Like that really matters. And “Inception” IS nominated for Best Picture. But that doesn’t really matter either. He SHOULD be nominated. He DESERVES to be nominated. When TDK got robbed of its Best Picture nomination, the Academy rectified this by expanding the field to 10 films. Do we need to do the same for directors?
I don’t want to hear that it’s a “strong year for film”. No, it wasn’t. It’s the same as it always is. There’s a handful of films that deserve Oscar recognition. Unfortunately, many more films are nominated. This brings me to the snoozefest known as “Winter’s Bone”. This film was ok at best. It was slow. It was not original. It didn’t make me think. I forgot it the next day. Sure, Jennifer Lawrence was great, but that’s about it. BEST PICTURE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I know there’s ten films, but you are SERIOUSLY telling me that this was better than “The Town”?
So this year, in my Oscar quest, I have seen seven out of the ten Best Picture nominees. I will be seeing two of the remaining three by the end of the month. I have a handful of other films I need to see (such as “Blue Valentine” and “Biutiful”. I may get to them.
But if not, ok. At this point, I don’t really want to watch either of the Super Bowls.
1/15/2011
New Year, New Take
I recently got a book called “501 Must-See Movies” from my godmother for Christmas. Inside is a checklist of all the films. I counted off the ones I had seen, which numbered about half. That’s a solid start. There are some favorites on there, and some I’m unfamiliar with. There are some classics I haven’t seen, and there are some of my most hated cinematic foes.
When I first started this blog, I realized that I have some biases. I don’t like romantic comedies and abhor all things Nicolas Cage-related. I don’t think Kate Hudson can act and I don’t care if Matthew takes his shirt off or leaves it on – he still sucks.
But above all I reserve a hatred for a few select films. One of these is “The Matrix”. I did see this in a theater upon initial release and thought it was a trumped up, green-soaked version of “Star Wars” (which I’m also not crazy about). But alas, the film is on the checklist and must be re-viewed and reviewed.
There are certain cinematic truths that are self-evident.
Keanu Reeves cannot act. He has a monotone look and an even worse voice. He’s boring.
The directors of this film will never again be able to match this success.
“The Matrix” is a technological wonder .
I AM capable of being wrong about a film. This film, although not great, is not that bad. In fact, I might even go so far as to say it’s quite good.
Now that I’m older and not as cinematically jaded, I can see that this is the millenium’s “Citizen Kane”, the film that puts me to sleep but still changed everything. It’s one of a handful of films whose mark is still present today. Even though the effects are dated now and have been repeated ad nauseum in every conceivable way, there’s still something to be said for being first on the scene.
With all that being said, though, you’ll notice I haven’t said much about the story. That’s cause there’s really not much to say. I appreciate the fact that they didn’t go for the obvious sell outs of killing Morpheus in the first film, but the story still is as old as time. I’m not one for philosophical thought, especially these days. It makes my head hurt. It was entertaining, but not distinctive.
So I guess it’s a sign that I’ve finally grown up. And I have been dared to watch the sequels. I don’t recall if I saw those in a theater – probably not. I think I actually but my foot down and told my ex-husband to see them on his own, which I think he did. I have agreed to watch the second one, but will probably pass on the third.
However, I didn’t put a time line on that stipulation. So maybe in about ten years I’ll look into it. :)
When I first started this blog, I realized that I have some biases. I don’t like romantic comedies and abhor all things Nicolas Cage-related. I don’t think Kate Hudson can act and I don’t care if Matthew takes his shirt off or leaves it on – he still sucks.
But above all I reserve a hatred for a few select films. One of these is “The Matrix”. I did see this in a theater upon initial release and thought it was a trumped up, green-soaked version of “Star Wars” (which I’m also not crazy about). But alas, the film is on the checklist and must be re-viewed and reviewed.
There are certain cinematic truths that are self-evident.
Keanu Reeves cannot act. He has a monotone look and an even worse voice. He’s boring.
The directors of this film will never again be able to match this success.
“The Matrix” is a technological wonder .
I AM capable of being wrong about a film. This film, although not great, is not that bad. In fact, I might even go so far as to say it’s quite good.
Now that I’m older and not as cinematically jaded, I can see that this is the millenium’s “Citizen Kane”, the film that puts me to sleep but still changed everything. It’s one of a handful of films whose mark is still present today. Even though the effects are dated now and have been repeated ad nauseum in every conceivable way, there’s still something to be said for being first on the scene.
With all that being said, though, you’ll notice I haven’t said much about the story. That’s cause there’s really not much to say. I appreciate the fact that they didn’t go for the obvious sell outs of killing Morpheus in the first film, but the story still is as old as time. I’m not one for philosophical thought, especially these days. It makes my head hurt. It was entertaining, but not distinctive.
So I guess it’s a sign that I’ve finally grown up. And I have been dared to watch the sequels. I don’t recall if I saw those in a theater – probably not. I think I actually but my foot down and told my ex-husband to see them on his own, which I think he did. I have agreed to watch the second one, but will probably pass on the third.
However, I didn’t put a time line on that stipulation. So maybe in about ten years I’ll look into it. :)
12/31/2010
Saving the best for last...
As I sit here on New Year’s Eve awaiting the Marx Brothers marathon, I can’t help but reflect on the films that I’ve seen this year. Most of them were mediocre, a few were horrible, and a few were spectacular. I have hoarded one of the best for the last post of the year – Darren Anorofsky’s masterpiece “Black Swan”.
I found it rather odd that in a year of such mediocrity, my two favorite films of the year (this one and Chris Nolan’s brilliant “Inception”) both require multiple viewings. I’m not one for multiple viewings, especially in theaters. It’s expensive enough to go once, much less twice. But these two are so far above everything else I’ve seen that I’d gladly pay.
It’s hard to talk about “Black Swan” without giving things away. Suffice it to say that the film is about a young ballerina’s dream of starring in “Swan Lake”, the lengths she goes to achieving her dream, and the consequences of her desires. It is the film that should award Natalie Portman an Oscar hands down, and the one that may break the Oscar rule by giving Anorofsky one for Best Director. (Other acting awards are also likely, but I’m not sure which actor I would nominate.)
It’s a film that isn’t just viewed – it’s a film that is experienced. This is especially true of the last third of the film, which is really just the ballet itself. Ballet has never been something I’ve been interested in; I’ve always thought of it like opera – FAR too rich for my blood. But you get drawn into the world of the company and the ballet in spite of yourself.
There’s also the quintessential Oscar moment – a shot of Portman so perfect, so beautiful, that you almost hold your breath. As my other half informed me, when Fox Searchlight does ads for DVDs twenty years into the future, that shot will be included in all montages. And deservedly so.
And as with any great film, it works on a literal level, but also a metaphorical one (again, similar to “Inception”). Viewers could debate for days what is seen in flashes; what is real as opposed to imagined. But it’s also extremely subjective – another hallmark of a great film. I’ve said repeatedly through the years that it’s a gifted director that leaves his story in the hands of the viewer, not the writer.
Unfortunately, though, I still have to say that the best film of 2010 for me is “Inception”. But I can’t really articulate why. I’ve called it this generation’s “Citizen Kane” – the film that should change how films are created and shot. If that is true, than runner up “Black Swan” should represent how a classic story should be re-imagined. In light of the plethora of sequels, prequels, and reboots, it would be lovely if all of Hollywood took notice of how to do it right. And both films qualify as that.
I found it rather odd that in a year of such mediocrity, my two favorite films of the year (this one and Chris Nolan’s brilliant “Inception”) both require multiple viewings. I’m not one for multiple viewings, especially in theaters. It’s expensive enough to go once, much less twice. But these two are so far above everything else I’ve seen that I’d gladly pay.
It’s hard to talk about “Black Swan” without giving things away. Suffice it to say that the film is about a young ballerina’s dream of starring in “Swan Lake”, the lengths she goes to achieving her dream, and the consequences of her desires. It is the film that should award Natalie Portman an Oscar hands down, and the one that may break the Oscar rule by giving Anorofsky one for Best Director. (Other acting awards are also likely, but I’m not sure which actor I would nominate.)
It’s a film that isn’t just viewed – it’s a film that is experienced. This is especially true of the last third of the film, which is really just the ballet itself. Ballet has never been something I’ve been interested in; I’ve always thought of it like opera – FAR too rich for my blood. But you get drawn into the world of the company and the ballet in spite of yourself.
There’s also the quintessential Oscar moment – a shot of Portman so perfect, so beautiful, that you almost hold your breath. As my other half informed me, when Fox Searchlight does ads for DVDs twenty years into the future, that shot will be included in all montages. And deservedly so.
And as with any great film, it works on a literal level, but also a metaphorical one (again, similar to “Inception”). Viewers could debate for days what is seen in flashes; what is real as opposed to imagined. But it’s also extremely subjective – another hallmark of a great film. I’ve said repeatedly through the years that it’s a gifted director that leaves his story in the hands of the viewer, not the writer.
Unfortunately, though, I still have to say that the best film of 2010 for me is “Inception”. But I can’t really articulate why. I’ve called it this generation’s “Citizen Kane” – the film that should change how films are created and shot. If that is true, than runner up “Black Swan” should represent how a classic story should be re-imagined. In light of the plethora of sequels, prequels, and reboots, it would be lovely if all of Hollywood took notice of how to do it right. And both films qualify as that.
12/29/2010
The Fighter Lacks a Knockout Punch
About a week ago, I decided on a whim I felt well enough to go to the movies. These days I need to go while the cinematic iron is hot, so off I went. I chose a local cinema I infrequently attend. This particular theater is usually empty, which I find helpful. Sometimes you accidently talk to the screen, and it’s much better if there’s no one else to hear.
The film I chose was “The Fighter”, a Best Picture favorite. I expected a well-written, well-acted character study. I wasn’t far off the mark; it is all of those things. But the thing I didn’t know was that it’s also well-tread. This is cinematic ground I’ve walked on before, and although it’s a solid film, it’s not Best Picture caliber.
“The Fighter” is based upon a true story (translate as part fact and part dramatic license) about the relationship between Dickie (Christian Bale) and Micky (Mark Wahlberg) Ward, two Boston brothers dreaming of boxing glory. Dickie had his shot and has since fallen into drug addiction. Micky is on his way up the ranks but needs a fresh start and a clean break. The girlfriend/catalyst is Charlene (Amy Adams), who forces Micky to examine his family and his life.
However, the film lacks a certain focus. The protagonist switches between the two brothers, and that makes it a bit convoluted. For me, the highlights of the film are the scenes with Wahlberg and Adams. Adams is an outstanding supporting actress, and I’m sure she’ll be nominated for her performance. But I can’t say either Wahlberg or Bale is really the lead. As far as Bale goes, he’s serviceable, but I’ve seen Bale already undergo a massive weight loss in order to play a role. He looks and sounds like an addict, but at times he’s just annoying.
And speaking of annoying, let me add a small rant about Melissa Leo. I saw Leo in “Frozen River” and thought she was nothing special. Here I just want to smack her through the entire film. I know she’s supposed to be Boston in the 80s, but to me she seems like cliched Jersey – too much hair and not enough substance. I felt nothing for her. I just wanted her (and the rest of the “family”) to go away – their presence detracts from the main story so greatly that the film would have been served by leaving most of those scenes on the cutting room floor. The sisters are even worse.
But as Micky has his final fight, I couldn’t help but cheer. It helps I didn’t know the story going in, so I honestly didn’t know if he won or not. Now I understand why people cheer for “Rocky” so much – a film I’ve always thought was overrated.
In spite of its faults, “The Fighter” is a good movie, just not a great one. And I still feel that Boston was better served by Ben Affleck’s “The Town”.
The film I chose was “The Fighter”, a Best Picture favorite. I expected a well-written, well-acted character study. I wasn’t far off the mark; it is all of those things. But the thing I didn’t know was that it’s also well-tread. This is cinematic ground I’ve walked on before, and although it’s a solid film, it’s not Best Picture caliber.
“The Fighter” is based upon a true story (translate as part fact and part dramatic license) about the relationship between Dickie (Christian Bale) and Micky (Mark Wahlberg) Ward, two Boston brothers dreaming of boxing glory. Dickie had his shot and has since fallen into drug addiction. Micky is on his way up the ranks but needs a fresh start and a clean break. The girlfriend/catalyst is Charlene (Amy Adams), who forces Micky to examine his family and his life.
However, the film lacks a certain focus. The protagonist switches between the two brothers, and that makes it a bit convoluted. For me, the highlights of the film are the scenes with Wahlberg and Adams. Adams is an outstanding supporting actress, and I’m sure she’ll be nominated for her performance. But I can’t say either Wahlberg or Bale is really the lead. As far as Bale goes, he’s serviceable, but I’ve seen Bale already undergo a massive weight loss in order to play a role. He looks and sounds like an addict, but at times he’s just annoying.
And speaking of annoying, let me add a small rant about Melissa Leo. I saw Leo in “Frozen River” and thought she was nothing special. Here I just want to smack her through the entire film. I know she’s supposed to be Boston in the 80s, but to me she seems like cliched Jersey – too much hair and not enough substance. I felt nothing for her. I just wanted her (and the rest of the “family”) to go away – their presence detracts from the main story so greatly that the film would have been served by leaving most of those scenes on the cutting room floor. The sisters are even worse.
But as Micky has his final fight, I couldn’t help but cheer. It helps I didn’t know the story going in, so I honestly didn’t know if he won or not. Now I understand why people cheer for “Rocky” so much – a film I’ve always thought was overrated.
In spite of its faults, “The Fighter” is a good movie, just not a great one. And I still feel that Boston was better served by Ben Affleck’s “The Town”.
12/22/2010
Making My Best Picture Oscar List...
It’s the most wonderful time of the year! (No, not Christmas) I mean the time when Hollywood takes off the gloves, opens the pocketbooks, and starts the official campaigns for the tall, bald, gold guy named Oscar.
I’m doing ok in OscarQuest 2010. Although my current health situation limits what I can and cannot get to see, I am still trying to stay enthused.
But I can’t get excited about the current state of all things cinematic, and the reasons why are below. Listed below are the major players for Best Picture, per awardsdaily.com in no particular order.
1. “The Social Network” – Ah, Oscar Hate just flows. Maybe I didn’t get it, but I know I hated it. Whiny college kids become whiny millionaires. The whole idea reinforces that people are self-centered and think everyone cares about their every moment. What news!
2. “The King’s Speech” – Usually I’d drive 45 minutes to Bethesda immediately, but I’m not really psyched. I love Colin Firth and would LOVE to see him win, but I just don’t think so. But it does follow the Oscar Rules with a protagonist on the English throne.
3. “The Fighter” – more on this later, but I did wonder what it would have been like with Ben behind the camera.
4. “The Kids are All Right” – And only all right. For the record, JULIANNE WAS BETTER!
5. “Black Swan” – My only must see. Due to my recent stomach bug, I have to wait on this for a week. I expect it to be fantastic, and I think it’s the only film that could knock “Inception” off as my top film of the year.
6. “Inception” – the modern day Citizen Kane. This should change the way movies are created and written. Brilliant. And in a rare feat, gets better every time. A Leo movie I love in spite of him. I think the director race comes down to Chris v Darren.
7. “True Grit” – I usually avoid westerns, but for the Coens, I’ll make an exception. But I am a bit tired of seeing Jeff Bridges.
8. “Toy Story 3” – Saw it. Checked it off. ‘Nuff said.
9. “127 Hours” – Even though I love Danny Boyle, and respect the heck out of Franco, I think I’m using my Oscar Pass here. In any other year, I’d be seeing it. But this year, I really don’t want to see a film about The Power of The Survival Instinct. I think I already understand that concept pretty fully.
10. “The Town” – Ben is no longer Affleckted. He brought together a great cast and made a masterful film. Loved every bleeping second of it. Renner is wonderful and I’ll be happy when he gets his nod.
I’m sure I’ll have much more to say as the race continues, especially as there are some entries I haven’t seen yet. For now, Happy Holidays! Let’s hope 2011 is better than 2010 – cinematic and otherwise.
I’m doing ok in OscarQuest 2010. Although my current health situation limits what I can and cannot get to see, I am still trying to stay enthused.
But I can’t get excited about the current state of all things cinematic, and the reasons why are below. Listed below are the major players for Best Picture, per awardsdaily.com in no particular order.
1. “The Social Network” – Ah, Oscar Hate just flows. Maybe I didn’t get it, but I know I hated it. Whiny college kids become whiny millionaires. The whole idea reinforces that people are self-centered and think everyone cares about their every moment. What news!
2. “The King’s Speech” – Usually I’d drive 45 minutes to Bethesda immediately, but I’m not really psyched. I love Colin Firth and would LOVE to see him win, but I just don’t think so. But it does follow the Oscar Rules with a protagonist on the English throne.
3. “The Fighter” – more on this later, but I did wonder what it would have been like with Ben behind the camera.
4. “The Kids are All Right” – And only all right. For the record, JULIANNE WAS BETTER!
5. “Black Swan” – My only must see. Due to my recent stomach bug, I have to wait on this for a week. I expect it to be fantastic, and I think it’s the only film that could knock “Inception” off as my top film of the year.
6. “Inception” – the modern day Citizen Kane. This should change the way movies are created and written. Brilliant. And in a rare feat, gets better every time. A Leo movie I love in spite of him. I think the director race comes down to Chris v Darren.
7. “True Grit” – I usually avoid westerns, but for the Coens, I’ll make an exception. But I am a bit tired of seeing Jeff Bridges.
8. “Toy Story 3” – Saw it. Checked it off. ‘Nuff said.
9. “127 Hours” – Even though I love Danny Boyle, and respect the heck out of Franco, I think I’m using my Oscar Pass here. In any other year, I’d be seeing it. But this year, I really don’t want to see a film about The Power of The Survival Instinct. I think I already understand that concept pretty fully.
10. “The Town” – Ben is no longer Affleckted. He brought together a great cast and made a masterful film. Loved every bleeping second of it. Renner is wonderful and I’ll be happy when he gets his nod.
I’m sure I’ll have much more to say as the race continues, especially as there are some entries I haven’t seen yet. For now, Happy Holidays! Let’s hope 2011 is better than 2010 – cinematic and otherwise.
12/11/2010
Bright Lights and a Big Voice
I started treatment this Thursday. So on Wednesday I went with a friend to see a movie. Choice of film was important – couldn’t have anything too heavy or o depressing (which left out anything Oscar-worthy). We couldn’t have made a better choice than “Burlesque”.
“Burlesque” is an extremely fun film. By the time I left, I had a smile on my face, a bounce in my step, and the soundtrack in my hand twenty minutes later.
As this year’s annual holiday musical offering, “Burlesque” is much better than last year’s “Nine”. This film is light and airy, and borrows rather liberally from other films. I found obvious references to “Moulin Rouge”, “Chicago” and “All that Jazz”, all of which are excellent in their own right. There’s also a corollary to one of my guilty pleasure films – “Coyote Ugly”.
The showcase here isn’t the plot – it’s the music and the choreography and the dancing. Christina Aguilera couldn’t have picked a better launching vessel. She’s listed as the “music supervisor” and her stamp is clearly all over the musical numbers. I am a self-proclaimed Aguilera fan, and I really liked the fact that she hit her “Dirrty” side as well as an Etta James tribute that she just nails. As far as her acting goes, she’s not half bad. This film could easily have become “Glitter” or “Crossroads” or even “Showgirls”, but it stays to the right of its path every time. Aguilera has learning to do, but I think she has a solid groundwork.
One of the other good things is that this film didn’t really try to hard – except in one or two spots. During the Cher ballad (it’s so bad I can’t remember the name or bother to look it up), I leaned over to my friend to say this was where they were trying to get the Best Original Song nod with yet ANTHER Diane Warren malady. The other serious misstep is the casting of Eric Dane. He seems so out of place, trying to be the smarmy developer out to take the club. All he needs was a mustache to twirl.
But where this film really paid attention was that it didn’t make people step too far outside their comfort zones. It doesn’t make actors sing and it doesn’t make singers act (too much or too badly). I think this is where “Nine” and “Mama Mia” fell WAY short. They even state that the girls are lip synching. Supporting players Kristen Bell (who gets props for her dance) and Stanley Tucci (who gets comedic props) know their roles well.
“Burlesque” is a fun romp and a nice little holiday diversion. When I buy the DVD (and I’m sure I will), I’ll create my own director’s cut – skipping through Cher and Dane to make a much more interesting film. The soundtrack, however, will be on repeat for awhile.
“Burlesque” is an extremely fun film. By the time I left, I had a smile on my face, a bounce in my step, and the soundtrack in my hand twenty minutes later.
As this year’s annual holiday musical offering, “Burlesque” is much better than last year’s “Nine”. This film is light and airy, and borrows rather liberally from other films. I found obvious references to “Moulin Rouge”, “Chicago” and “All that Jazz”, all of which are excellent in their own right. There’s also a corollary to one of my guilty pleasure films – “Coyote Ugly”.
The showcase here isn’t the plot – it’s the music and the choreography and the dancing. Christina Aguilera couldn’t have picked a better launching vessel. She’s listed as the “music supervisor” and her stamp is clearly all over the musical numbers. I am a self-proclaimed Aguilera fan, and I really liked the fact that she hit her “Dirrty” side as well as an Etta James tribute that she just nails. As far as her acting goes, she’s not half bad. This film could easily have become “Glitter” or “Crossroads” or even
One of the other good things is that this film didn’t really try to hard – except in one or two spots. During the Cher ballad (it’s so bad I can’t remember the name or bother to look it up), I leaned over to my friend to say this was where they were trying to get the Best Original Song nod with yet ANTHER Diane Warren malady. The other serious misstep is the casting of Eric Dane. He seems so out of place, trying to be the smarmy developer out to take the club. All he needs was a mustache to twirl.
But where this film really paid attention was that it didn’t make people step too far outside their comfort zones. It doesn’t make actors sing and it doesn’t make singers act (too much or too badly). I think this is where “Nine” and “Mama Mia” fell WAY short. They even state that the girls are lip synching. Supporting players Kristen Bell (who gets props for her dance) and Stanley Tucci (who gets comedic props) know their roles well.
“Burlesque” is a fun romp and a nice little holiday diversion. When I buy the DVD (and I’m sure I will), I’ll create my own director’s cut – skipping through Cher and Dane to make a much more interesting film. The soundtrack, however, will be on repeat for awhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)