Harry and Hairspray

[rickps]

If you've seen either or both Harry Potter or Hairspray (or just don't want to read my babble, page on down.


Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

It's not that I didn't like this movie, I did.  The story was good, the characters entertaining, the special effects truly special.  I rather liked the easy 'don't beat the audience over the head with it' spin on the Hogwarts kid's friendships.  Nicely done.

So what's the issue with this movie?  It just seemed a bit formula.  Where's the uniqueness, where's the fascinating new view of our world from a magical perspective?  Not there as far as I could tell.  And so, I felt this movie blended into its prior iterations.  And it just wasn't memorable.

Worth seeing in the theater?:  Yes.  Movies of this type work best on the big screen
Buy the DVD when it comes out?  Probably
Go see it a second time?  No
Recommended for watching when you're in a coma?  No, all your friends will be talking about the story



Hairspray

Frankly, this movie disappointed the hell out of me.  The music is still great.  Nikki Blonsky is a terrific Tracy.  But otherwise the movie doesn't measure up to the stage musical.  Who ever let Travolta play this part?  Probably the same person who let him play the part as a woman and not as Divine, Harvey Fierstein, or Bruce Villanch who were all hilarious as a man attempting to be a woman.  Walken and Wilbur, Pfeiffer as Velma, and the rest were wooden and annoyingly unfunny.  And what about Queen Latifah?  The woman can definitely sing but I thought was a poor fit for Motor Mouth Mabel.  The role calls for a voice that can growl and belt simultaneously.  That's not Latifah. 

For the first time ever for me, I complained about the movie's sound to a theater worker.  Tracy shouldn't sound like she's gargling while sitting in a motorboat.  How the remaining 30 or so folks in the audience (it was an incredibly small turnout for the show) didn't complain on their own, amazes me.  But the complaint I made was heard and the sound snapped into clarity.  This theater's quality control staff definitely needs a pep talk.

So, even discounting the initially crappy sound, this movie failed to move me.

Worth seeing in the theater?:  No, if you must view it, wait for HBO
Buy the DVD when it comes out?  Nope (although I did buy the music CD)
Go see it a second time?  See coma comment below
Recommended for watching when you're in a coma?  Hell no, isn't the coma bad enough?

Comments

[trulygrateful.livejournal.com]

"the movie doesn't measure up to the stage musical"

Nor should it. While it's somewhat an apples-to-apples comparison, it's MORE like an Granny Smith to Macintosh comparison: one is sweeter and the other is, well, different (I don't know my apples).

Having never seen the stage production at all (yes, I've never seen it) I've been "freed" from making those comparisons from stage-to-screen which, IMNSHO, really shouldn't be made. Certain things can transfer well, others not so much. The decision for casting a movie versus a Broadway show are entirely different (as you well know, I'm sure). The movie needed a somewhat-household name as their Edna and, sadly, as much as *I* would have liked to see Harvey, he's just doesn't have the name recognition on the big screen as he does on the Big White Way.

When "Chicago" came out a few years ago, I was concerned about the casting and such, especially after having seen the stage production (I think) at least four times. Once the movie started, I was able to push the memory of the stage productions from my mind and enjoy the movie for what it was - a movie - and make no comparisons to "the original" if you can call it that.

With all this said, you know what works for you and what doesn't. All I'm saying is at least give it a chance. Do you think you went into the movie experience with pre-set notions based upon the stage version? Further, do you think that's clouded how you would have viewed the movie versus if you had not seen it at all?

[ricksf.livejournal.com]

I agree and disagree. Yes, I agree, any creative work should be judged on its own merits. And I thought I made such comments about Hairspray, particularly the choices for the major acting roles. I thought they selected actors for their potential box office draw rather than their ability. But that's just my opinion.

Where I disagree, however, is that any creative work should also be compared to other relevant creative works. In this case, where the movie is drawn from the Broadway show, comparisons are unavoidable and, IMNSHO, worthwhile. Hairspray on stage sparkled, even the somewhat lackluster San Diego iteration I saw recently. In that comparison, the new movie didn't measure up to me.

Damn, I wish we could chat about this over coffee!

[markosf.livejournal.com]

I liked Hairspray, but agree that Pfeiffer was wrong (hello, Debbie Harry was available) and Walken didn't feel right. I loved Queen L. in the role tho. Didn't you think the opening scene of Tracy riding on the garbage truck was precious?

Potter bored the hell out of me.

[rnathanwhite.livejournal.com]

I liked it overall. I was skeptical at first about John Travolta playing Edna, but I thought he did a good job. Sure, a gay man would have been more fabulous, but who wants to hear Harvey Fierstein sing? It's not pretty.

I thought that Michelle Pfeiffer looked a lot like Debbie Harry! I think Debbie Harry would at least bring some better vocal talent. Christopher Walken was a bit dull.

I did fall asleep near the end, but only because I was tired from a long day at work, had had a big meal and two margaritas at dinner beforehand, and two drinks at the theatre. I would like to see it again, though.