Latitudes

Tools    





That's nice of you to say GBG and I will still on occasion write long reviews but not JayDee/Movie Mediation long...I like to write them short cause I'm impatient. I like your thread because in a paragraph I can see if I want to watch the movie or not.

I have like this huge back log of movies I was going to do formal reviews on, but that takes 1-2 hours per review. So most are going to end up here. We have somewhat similar taste so you might spot a few flicks you want to see.

BTW did you know that a lot of singers from the 1950s came out of New Jersey? You probably knew that but I didn't until I watched a movie last night.
Did you watch Jersey Boys last night? (That would be weird because that's what I watched.)

If not, Rules, what movie did you get that info from?

Which brings up an interesting topic for discussion: do you ever find your feelings about a movie influenced by going to IMDB and reading the discussions afterward? It's a bad habit, I know, but that's what I did after watching Jersey Boys last night. I thought the film was okay, but then read some criticisms that really rang true. It kind of changed the mental rating I'd given the film.

P.S. I spotted Barry Livingston in the film playing the accountant (he played Ernie Douglas on "My Three Sons" - I went to IMDB to confirm it was him. It was.)



Damn!

Did you watch Jersey Boys last night? (That would be weird because that's what I watched.)
I did indeed watch that last night! That's too weird! I didn't know Frankie Valli came from a gangster background in New Jersey AND one of his friends was the actor Joe Pesci. It was an OK movie, did you like it?
Which brings up an interesting topic for discussion: do you ever find your feelings about a movie influenced by going to IMDB and reading the discussions afterward? It's a bad habit, I know, but that's what I did after watching Jersey Boys last night. I thought the film was okay, but then read some criticisms that really rang true. It kind of changed the mental rating I'd given the film.
Yes, that happens to me sometimes. Usually it's on the negative. If I'm luke warm about a movie (I was luke warm on Jersey Boys) then if I go and read the Hated It IMDB reviews, I can start thinking the film was worse than I had originally thought. But I haven't read anything on the Jersey Boys yet.

P.S. I spotted Barry Livingston in the film playing the accountant (he played Ernie Douglas on "My Three Sons" - I went to IMDB to confirm it was him. It was.)
You have sharp eyes, I didn't notice that. I did think the musical street number at the end of the film reminded me of Ferris Buellers Day Off last scene where he sings. I'm not a big fan of the actors talking to the camera as they did and I don't feel Eastwood made me care about Frankie Valli. I mean after 2hours 14 minutes I don't really feel I got to know him.

I have a strong hunch that Eastwood was inspired by another film I seen By The Sea, a bio pic musical about another New Jersey kid, Bobby Darrin. If you watch it you will see what I mean.



Just to confirm, Rules, go look at the "Movie Your Watching Tonight" thread - you'll see I posted, sometime late last night, that I just watched Jersey Boys. That's too weird - we were watching the same movie probably at the same time.

I also didn't know the Four Season's background story.
I was surprised what a scumbag Tommy was! I wonder how he feels about the portrayal (kind of funny they have his character say something to the effect of, "but everybody remembers things the way they want.")

Not a criticism of this movie, but it just seems that every rock bio-pic (be it an individual or a group) is always the same story. Basically, fame & fortune seem to destroy people. Or is it a case where you become rich and famous and it doesn't bring about all kinds of turmoil - the story of somebody handling it just fine wouldn't make much of a movie?

Hopefully, if I ever became rich & famous, I'd like to think I'd handle it like Bob Gaudio - who claimed he used his money to have a peaceful, quiet life with his family.

A criticism I did find true - although the impersonation of Frankie's singing voice was good, it just wasn't quite there, making most of the music slightly cringe-worthy (I kept dispelling my sense of disbelief by thinking - this is probably how they sounded live!) I guess it's true that nobody could sing like he did. And you can really hear the difference when they start playing the real Four Seasons over the credits.



A criticism I did find true - although the impersonation of Frankie's singing voice was good, it just wasn't quite there, making most of the music slightly cringe-worthy (I kept dispelling my sense of disbelief by thinking - this is probably how they sounded live!) I guess it's true that nobody could sing like he did. And you can really hear the difference when they start playing the real Four Seasons over the credits.
That I did notice! It was rather grating wasn't it. And many of their early songs where derivative....they all sounded the same!

Tommy was played as a jerk, what normal guy is going to tell two beautiful blondes to get lost in a bar!

Night everyone!



Master of My Domain
This should be a fun thread to follow. Your first pick for discussion I haven't seen but I look forward to future posts.



Hey Vamp! you sneaked in while I was typing (sneaked is not the right tense form, what is?)
Sneaked or snuck both work, but I had to look it up to be sure as that's a funny verb. I'm always happy to see people get over their "I can't stand Woody Allen" stance, but I guess I can see how some might be turned off by his neurotic, nervous persona. And it's funny how the same character type shows up in his movies even when he's not acting in it. As you point out with Purple Rose. It's the same with Midnight in Paris, with Owen Wilson playing the Woody Allen role.
__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.



Thanks Christine and Gatsby I'm not one to make many threads, this is only my 22nd thread after more than a year here. But I wanted a chance to get to know more MoFos and so this seemed like a good idea.

...it just seems that every rock bio-pic (be it an individual or a group) is always the same story. Basically, fame & fortune seem to destroy people. Or is it a case where you become rich and famous and it doesn't bring about all kinds of turmoil - the story of somebody handling it just fine wouldn't make much of a movie?

Hopefully, if I ever became rich & famous, I'd like to think I'd handle it like Bob Gaudio - who claimed he used his money to have a peaceful, quiet life with his family...
Capt, you know how some people dream about winning the lottery, or becoming rich? I never do that, but I have thought if I was some actor being paid 10 million dollars per movie, I would give 99% of that a way and still live like I do (except I would stop buying day old bread)...But I wonder if I had millions would I really be so charitable? It's easy for a poor guy like me to say, 'ya I would give away all that money'...but who knows how fame and fortune changes people. You're right that a lot of the rise to fame and riches stories end in unhappiness.

Sneaked or snuck both work, but I had to look it up to be sure as that's a funny verb. I'm always happy to see people get over their "I can't stand Woody Allen" stance, but I guess I can see how some might be turned off by his neurotic, nervous persona. And it's funny how the same character type shows up in his movies even when he's not acting in it. As you point out with Purple Rose. It's the same with Midnight in Paris, with Owen Wilson playing the Woody Allen role.
I like snuck better...I never was good in grammar or spelling. I noticed that too that in Midnight in Paris Owen Wilson was playing Woody. Which for me worked well...I'm up to watching more Woody Allen films, I just have to think of which one will be next?



'Snuck' sounds weird to me. I think 'sneak' is of those funny verbs that have a different past tense in English than it does in American. In England we'd say sneaked. It's like 'dive' . I've heard Americans say 'dove' as a past tense but we wouldn't say that in Britain we'd say dived.



I think you're right about English vs American usage. I use dove as past tense, like this..."Last week it was hot, so I dove right into the water." Or "I snuck into the kitchen last night for a midnight snack."

But I'm weak on grammar usage, so you can expect me to get it wrong more often than right.



Save the Texas Prairie Chicken
If you decide to start your thread, just give it a generic title so you can discuss anything you want in the thread. I'm sure people will respond to anything that interests them.
Well, if I should start one, it wouldn't be until later this year, or, most likely, in the beginning of next year. So, we shall all have to wait and see when/how it will happen.

BTW did you know that a lot of singers from the 1950s came out of New Jersey? You probably knew that but I didn't until I watched a movie last night.
I think a lot came from New Jersey, but more may have come from Philadelphia during that era. Of course, NJ is across the border from there so I suppose it would kind of count just the same.

Hey Vamp! you sneaked in while I was typing (sneaked is not the right tense form, what is?)
I know I say "snuck", but I figured that "sneaked" is correct. I looked it up and it said that Americans and Canadians use "snuck". The English language is so poor nowadays that I suppose it doesn't matter what people say anymore.

That boat ride in Willy Wonka scared me too and a lot of it was his excellent, terse singing, very creepy and Wonka is a bit dangerous isn't he? That's why it's so much more than a kids movie.
My brother was always good for singing that little song. But I actually think a lot of movies that they say are for kids are really meant for adults (I feel that way about a lot of the animated films, too).

Just to confirm, Rules, go look at the "Movie Your Watching Tonight" thread - you'll see I posted, sometime late last night, that I just watched Jersey Boys. That's too weird - we were watching the same movie probably at the same time.
I saw that you posted this and I forgot to say something to what you said. I saw the stage show. I saw it before the movie. It is a very good show. I really enjoyed it. But the story was told in a way to where the songs were placed in the scenes to coincide with the story. Meaning, the themes to the songs were relevant to the situations. Am I making sense? It wasn't like they just went out and "performed" the songs (except when the situation called for it). Not you, of course (as you've not seen the stage show), but the problem that a lot of people had with the movie is that they were expecting it to be like the stage production captured onto film (which I think they kind of should have done instead). So they had high expectations and then were let down.

As for my opinion of it, I didn't mind it. When so many people say something negative I have a tendency to worry that I will be immensely disappointed in what I am going to watch (and I really shouldn't worry only because I generally don't care what other people say). And I don't like going into a movie with negative attitudes because of what others said. But people were really disliking this movie. Since a lot of the negativity came from people who'd seen the stage show, I worried about how I would feel because I saw the stage show. And I really didn't mind it. I liked it. I liked it a lot more as it went on. The beginning was a little slow for me. But in the end, all this movie ended up was NOT the MUSICAL version but, basically, a somewhat traditional biopic of a band. That disappointed a lot of people.

And the guy that played Frankie Valli, he was the original in the Broadway production. I was happy that they got him. Truthfully, he sounds the most like Valli out of everyone that I have heard. He looks the part the most, too. I thought it was fine that they used him. And if you ever heard some of the other guys that have played him, I think you would agree that he was the best.

You see, CR, I just hijacked your thread. Sorry! Oh, wait! Instead of ever starting one of my own, I could just take over yours.
__________________
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe



Vamp - having not seen the stage show (Jersey Boys) my perception is skewed.
But it seemed Clint Eastwood was trying to recreate a play in the film version (having the actors break the 4th wall by addressing the audience & talking into the camera, and the ending "final bow" scene or whatever they call it where all the actors come out together on stage).

The thing is, with this movie, it almost seemed like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be the typical, serious, music bio-pic (showing all the tribulations & corruptions of a rapid rise to fame) or if it wanted to be an upbeat, finger-snapping stage show with actors speaking directly to the audience. Combining the two gave the movie an odd feeling - one minute it's in-fighting over money, drug overdoses & death, the next; the actors are making coy remarks into the camera. It was a strange juxtaposition of the two mediums. I'm still not sure if it "worked" or not.

I was kind of left wishing it had either been a straight (yet typical) bio-drama, or simply a film of the stage show (kind of like the way "Little Shop of Horrors" 1986 version was adapted to film - basically a film of the stage show, but with cameras doing things for the audience that couldn't be done with them looking at a stage).



I saw that you posted this and I forgot to say something to what you said. I saw the stage show. I saw it before the movie. It is a very good show. I really enjoyed it. But the story was told in a way to where the songs were placed in the scenes to coincide with the story. Meaning, the themes to the songs were relevant to the situations. Am I making sense? It wasn't like they just went out and "performed" the songs (except when the situation called for it). Not you, of course (as you've not seen the stage show), but the problem that a lot of people had with the movie is that they were expecting it to be like the stage production captured onto film (which I think they kind of should have done instead). So they had high expectations and then were let down.
You're making perfect sense!

Not sure if I will with what I'm about to say... what you're describing (the stage show) is more of a "musical," where the music becomes a part of the narrative itself.

For instance, in an Elvis Presley movie, when his character spontaneously breaks into song wherever he may happen to be, his song is narrating part of the plot of the movie (whether he's falling in love, singing praises to Hawaii or just expressing his exuberance over attending a clambake!)
But in a bio-pic about Elvis' life & career, it may be filled with his music, but it's used to either show him perform or as a historical record to show the progress of his career - it's not used the same way that music in musicals is used.

Therefore - typical bio-pics about the lives of real musicians are not musicals even though, due to the subject matter, they are filled with music.

Think of musicals like operas - the music is used to directly tell the story, whereas with bio-pics, the music is a historical component of the story - something that came out of the story itself. (Does that make sense?)

From what you described, it sounds like the Jersey Boys stage show used the Four Season's music as a "musical" would - certain songs placed at certain points to help narrate the story. Whereas the movie kept some elements of the stage show, but the music was basically used in the typical bio-pic way: to illustrate the progression of the group's career.



Save the Texas Prairie Chicken
The thing is, with this movie, it almost seemed like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be the typical, serious, music bio-pic (showing all the tribulations & corruptions of a rapid rise to fame) or if it wanted to be an upbeat, finger-snapping stage show with actors speaking directly to the audience. Combining the two gave the movie an odd feeling - one minute it's in-fighting over money, drug overdoses & death, the next; the actors are making coy remarks into the camera. It was a strange juxtaposition of the two mediums. I'm still not sure if it "worked" or not.
That is what I meant when I said "a somewhat traditional biopic of a band" because the story didn't "flow" like it should've in the sense of how it was presented to the audience. Yes, on stage the actors address the audience. Essentially they each give their perspective on what was happening. And I was OK with that in the movie IF THEY'D KEPT IT UP. The moments where the actors spoke to the camera seemed so random. Maybe if there would've been more narration by the actors, too, throughout the film, those comments to the camera wouldn't have seemed so out-of-place. And it definitely wouldn't have seemed out-of-place if these guys would've just burst into one of their songs for no reason like a regular musical. I completely agree that it should've been done either one way (more like the Broadway show) or the other (more like your basic biopic).

You're making perfect sense!
Glad I did. Sometimes I write stuff that makes sense in my head, but as I am reading it I never know if it sounds confusing and like gibberish.

From what you described, it sounds like the Jersey Boys stage show used the Four Season's music as a "musical" would - certain songs placed at certain points to help narrate the story. Whereas the movie kept some elements of the stage show, but the music was basically used in the typical bio-pic way: to illustrate the progression of the group's career.
Here's an example. "Oh What a Night". We know what the song is about. And in the show, they used it in the scene to let us know what was happening. I really wanted to see how that was going to be done in the movie. It never happened. When I realized the fact that they weren't going to use it that way, I knew for sure that this wasn't going to be done like it was on stage.

I was OK with them having their "final bows" during the credits. I would've been OK with it if this had been a straight biopic. But the telling of the story was so confused that I didn't think the "show" at the end was necessary.

If you want to see how the songs were mixed in with the telling of the story, this tells you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Boys



That is what I meant when I said "a somewhat traditional biopic of a band" because the story didn't "flow" like it should've in the sense of how it was presented to the audience. Yes, on stage the actors address the audience. Essentially they each give their perspective on what was happening. And I was OK with that in the movie IF THEY'D KEPT IT UP. The moments where the actors spoke to the camera seemed so random. Maybe if there would've been more narration by the actors, too, throughout the film, those comments to the camera wouldn't have seemed so out-of-place. And it definitely wouldn't have seemed out-of-place if these guys would've just burst into one of their songs for no reason like a regular musical. I completely agree that it should've been done either one way (more like the Broadway show) or the other (more like your basic biopic).


Glad I did. Sometimes I write stuff that makes sense in my head, but as I am reading it I never know if it sounds confusing and like gibberish.


Here's an example. "Oh What a Night". We know what the song is about. And in the show, they used it in the scene to let us know what was happening. I really wanted to see how that was going to be done in the movie. It never happened. When I realized the fact that they weren't going to use it that way, I knew for sure that this wasn't going to be done like it was on stage.

I was OK with them having their "final bows" during the credits. I would've been OK with it if this had been a straight biopic. But the telling of the story was so confused that I didn't think the "show" at the end was necessary.

If you want to see how the songs were mixed in with the telling of the story, this tells you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Boys
I think we're on a wavelength! I also would be okay with a final bow scene with just about any movie - but it's especially appropriate for one based on a Broadway show. But here, we've established what gave the movie an incongruous feel was the random switching from stage show elements to movie elements.

I really like when movies end by showing pictures of the characters with the actor's names besides them. Especially since I never go to the theater anymore, and when they list the cast on the TV, the type is always too small to read.

This conversation reminds me of an argument I had with a friend over the difference between an opera and a musical.
He told me about a movie that was entirely sung with no dialogue. (I think he was talking about Evita - although I never saw the film myself, so don't know how it actually classifies; if there are any spoken words).
I responded, "So it's an opera."
He said it wasn't an opera because they sang "normally" not like opera singers. So I explained that "opera" wasn't just a musical style but also a general term for a story told entirely through song (with no spoken words).
He maintained the film was a "musical." I said a musical has spoken dialogue interspersed with musical numbers. He said there was no spoken dialogue in this film... only singing. So I, once again said, "So it's an opera."
He said it wasn't an opera and on it went.



Save the Texas Prairie Chicken
I really like when movies end by showing pictures of the characters with the actor's names besides them. Especially since I never go to the theater anymore, and when they list the cast on the TV, the type is always too small to read.
Agreed. I have always really liked it when movies have that at the end. As for the type being small, what is worse is that they completely take away the credits by putting them in the corner of the screen on TV so another movie/program can begin and then you definitely can't read them!

This conversation reminds me of an argument I had with a friend over the difference between an opera and a musical.
I always like to call musicals like that "operatic musicals". I know a lot of people (basically, opera lovers) would never want a musical to be considered an opera. So I keep the word "musical" in there to keep the peace. But when there is that particular opera element in there of no spoken words, then that musical does crossover into opera territory. At least I think so.

I honestly don't completely remember if the film of "Evita" had any spoken words in it (the stage show has some narration in it but no actual spoken dialogue between characters). So, I guess that is where someone could argue that it isn't an actual opera. But look at "Jesus Christ Superstar". That is labeled a "rock opera". And yes, there is nothing but music in there UNTIL the crucifixion. That is when some words are finally spoken. So, would that, then, take away the description of the show as an "opera"? And there is no way, as far as I am concerned, that "Les Miserables" could be considered anything other than an opera. There are no spoken words in there at all.



I guess it's a semantic argument since "opera" can refer to a genre of classical music, or more generally, can refer to any performance wherein there is only music used to tell a story.



Man, Rules is gonna freak when he comes to find we've been hanging on his thread all day!
It's like if you came home from work to find people have been just hanging out in your apartment, eating your food, and messing it up all day!



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Man, Rules is gonna freak when he comes to find we've been hanging on his thread all day!
It's like if you came home from work to find people have been just hanging out in your apartment, eating your food, and messing it up all day!

I think he'll be happy that you made yourselves at home at his place.