Continuing on our movies-are-the-only-thing-to-do-when-it's-1000 degrees-outside activities, We went to see Mamma Mia...and before I begin, allow me to say that yes, I WILL be giving some of the story away in case you have not seen it. I usually do not, but this time I will. So stop reading if you do not know the story...
I've seen the play, twice, and both times were generally enjoyable to me, even though I am not by most standards, a "chick", which is whom the entire thing - the music, the story line, the costumes, the dialogue, the setting, etc... are for (dot dot dot). and after seeing the movie, all I can say is that, it must be genuinely difficult to write something for film that has been on stage. The whole thing felt squirrelly as a film, and I can't pinpoint exactly what it was (nor can the Lester). But, some of the critical aspects are as follows:
Casting was far and away the worst thing about the film: The big money stars, Meryl Streep and Pierce Brosnan, were both miscast, and it would have played better with relative unknowns for the whole movie, not just all but the two (I know, the groom to be is an up-and-comer, but he's not at the level of Meryl and Pierce, yet). Meryl holds her own in the acting and singing, but I still don't feel that she was cast right as the hippie of yesteryear holding down an inn at an out of the way foreign port. She doesn't fit the part of the girl-group singer, either. She does do an amicable job of singing, though, unlike her male counterpart. The pair of old friends that used to be her singing group are a little less than believable, as well. A horse-faced broad that is supposed to have ample plastic surgeries (not enough?), and a dwarfy little troll thing that is actually quite good in her part.
Pierce is just simply out of place and is only cast in an effort to draw boomer ladies into the theatre that ogle over him even as he grows older. He looks like he's in pain or at least constipated as he sings like a dying yak. They should have voiced over his singing parts. It is most distracting, and by the end you are praying that he doesn't get any more singing parts because he sucks like nobody has sucked before in a musical, singing, acting, delivery of lines, all infinitely horrible. Usually I like the guy... (dot dot dot).
And the (somewhat) unknown bride to be, I feel, is not really up to the standards of one of the main stars of the show. Simply put, she looks funny. She has these wall-eyes that just look wonky, and for it to be that one of the men she invites to her wedding is her father, well, I think not. She has the looks of some half-alien, downs syndrome thing that none of the men, nor Meryl, possess. this leads me to believe that mom (Meryl) must have gotten busy with yet another man, or alien, at about the same time. that would have changed the movie for the better...(dot dot dot).
So aside from horrible casting, everything else suffered a little too, I suspect because of the change in formats from stage to film. Dialogue and character development may as well have been on-stage, and the story line only differed by the slightest margin dealing with setting - there had to be cameras set up for differing scenery, so the very nature of the go-stop-go-stop of filming made it seem like the whole story was go-stop-go-stop as well. It could have benefited from radical changes in dialogue, or tweaks to the story line, otherwise, why bother with making it a movie? There just didn't seem to be enough change for it to be successful. Is this for the people that are too afraid to go to a live-action theatre to see it? Or the I don't want to dress up type?I can't help but thinking setting up a single camera in the orchestra pit of a Broadway theatre and filming the whole thing there would have been better received by everyone, and it sure would have saved a lot of cash on Brosnan.
1 of 5 Toes. Success with the formula was solid. This film resides in a wheelchair.
No comments:
Post a Comment