Showing posts with label Jiminy Opinionist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jiminy Opinionist. Show all posts
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Jiminy Opinionist: Angels and Demons
"Fuck it." That's pretty much the attitude one has to have when going into any Dan Brown endeavor, but more on that later. The mega author (and now house hold name) responsible for both The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons has somehow managed to spawn two blockbuster films and sell millions of copies of his pulpy faux historical fiction/thriller/mystery/page-turner-for-dummies novels. Well, the numbers are in and the fat stacks of bills have been counted: Ron Howard has phoned it in yet again and collected another paycheck with Angels and Demons.
Tom Hanks. is. back. as Harvard "symbologist" Robert Langdon, though you wouldn't really know his profession from the plot of the movie. Here's where the "fuck it" theory comes into play.
Average Angels and Demons Viewer Thought Process: Yeah, I guess a Harvard symbologist is sort of like a Law & Order rock star. Fuck it.
A problematic protagonist? We can get past that. This happens a lot in the picture shows these days. But what's difficult to get past is the bad acting, countless plot twists and the exposition heavy dialogue (the worst offense). And it's not going to get better any time soon. With Brown's next novel The Lost Symbol coming out in September, it won't take more than a year for Hanks & Co to churn out the next cash vaccum in the franchise.
The only good news out of all this? A&D isn't performing too well at the box office! With an opening weekend of just $46 million, things could be a little dicey for the next film. But, chances are the film will break even and they'll just keep making these suckers. Damn.
Bottom Line: Skip it. You'll get just as much history watching reenactments on the History Channel that are actually true and better acted.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Jiminy Opinionist: Billy Elliot - The Musical
One day on the job and I'm already plagiarizing. Opinionist is a feature on the wonderful Gothamist, a blog I respect, but have no professional relationship, casual relationship or even imaginary relationship with at all. I don't know these guys, but "Jiminy Opinionist" just sounds so right.
Periodically, I'll post a review or even just a series of nonsensical thoughts--whatever I please--about something. A play, a restaurant, a television show or a brand new Milton Bradley board game (though I'm a total Parker Bro's fanboy).
Today Jiminy Opinionist tackles "Billy Elliot: The Musical."
My Take: It's hard to believe that it took this long (10 years) for this crowd pleasing, sentimental film to be translated to the Broadway stage. But this year, after making mo' pounds in the UK then da queen makes knights (for another shocker, see the real mother england), Billy Elliot has finally come to America.
Great right? In these troubled times, with Obama's honeymoon over and the economy in the toilet, who doesn't want to pay $126.50 to see the upflifting story of a British boy who wants to learn ballet and go to art school rather than be a productive member of society and start a career in mining, a field that has no future and will probably kill him? Well, all sounds rosey, but it's not all rainbows and unicorns with this one.
I love British things. Ricky Gervais. Hilarious. BBC News. Informative and sometimes unintentionally hilarious. Fish and Chips. Delicious, but fattening. But Billy Elliot: The Musical, didn't quite do it for me. The usual problem with these things are that they're "too British." Like "Fawlty Towers," that old John Cleese British sitcom. Slapstick comedy in an old hotel with people who have funny accents? That's just too British. But since normal British things are good and too British things are bad, that brings me to this conclusion: Billy Elliot is not British enough!
The production, clocking in a quick THREE HOURS, feels long and drags on and on. I was constantly checking my watch, wondering why the number I was watching was even in the musical. There's a number where there are giant dancing dresses on stage during a dream sequence with Billy's cross dressing friend. Isn't the cross dressing friend wearing the dress enough?! Do you really need 15 foot dresses (literally) prancing across stage like some high budget peep show for giants? No. No you don't. And Billy Elliot doesn't either.
So the wait was for nothing. Well, that's not entirely true. Billy can certainly dance. Not much of a singer though--prepubescent voices don't fare too well when it comes to singing about poverty stricken coal mining towns, apparently.
Stay tuned for more Jiminy Opinionist!
Periodically, I'll post a review or even just a series of nonsensical thoughts--whatever I please--about something. A play, a restaurant, a television show or a brand new Milton Bradley board game (though I'm a total Parker Bro's fanboy).
Today Jiminy Opinionist tackles "Billy Elliot: The Musical."
My Take: It's hard to believe that it took this long (10 years) for this crowd pleasing, sentimental film to be translated to the Broadway stage. But this year, after making mo' pounds in the UK then da queen makes knights (for another shocker, see the real mother england), Billy Elliot has finally come to America.
Great right? In these troubled times, with Obama's honeymoon over and the economy in the toilet, who doesn't want to pay $126.50 to see the upflifting story of a British boy who wants to learn ballet and go to art school rather than be a productive member of society and start a career in mining, a field that has no future and will probably kill him? Well, all sounds rosey, but it's not all rainbows and unicorns with this one.
I love British things. Ricky Gervais. Hilarious. BBC News. Informative and sometimes unintentionally hilarious. Fish and Chips. Delicious, but fattening. But Billy Elliot: The Musical, didn't quite do it for me. The usual problem with these things are that they're "too British." Like "Fawlty Towers," that old John Cleese British sitcom. Slapstick comedy in an old hotel with people who have funny accents? That's just too British. But since normal British things are good and too British things are bad, that brings me to this conclusion: Billy Elliot is not British enough!
The production, clocking in a quick THREE HOURS, feels long and drags on and on. I was constantly checking my watch, wondering why the number I was watching was even in the musical. There's a number where there are giant dancing dresses on stage during a dream sequence with Billy's cross dressing friend. Isn't the cross dressing friend wearing the dress enough?! Do you really need 15 foot dresses (literally) prancing across stage like some high budget peep show for giants? No. No you don't. And Billy Elliot doesn't either.So the wait was for nothing. Well, that's not entirely true. Billy can certainly dance. Not much of a singer though--prepubescent voices don't fare too well when it comes to singing about poverty stricken coal mining towns, apparently.
Stay tuned for more Jiminy Opinionist!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)