Reply to Topic
Rosario Dawson rules. That's the first thing. I saw this on broadway, and I loved the girl who played Mimi then, but Dawson give the character just a little extra edge of maturity and depth that no one else has brought to the role. Vocally, she's right there. She has the range and the power and she adds subtle nuances I haven't heard before. It all works. And her dancing and acting were spot on. She poured more into this than some people who have been in the Rent cast for years.
Which brings me to Mark. I saw this same guy in NYC and he was flailing then, too. Can NO ONE make him stop it??!! At least in this, he mostly confines the flailing to times when he's onscreen alone.
The guy who played Roger might as well not have been there. A cardboard cutout would have done as much for the role. I can't figure this. He's a central figure. When I saw this in NY, it was a similar thing: he was like NOT part of the cast.. but this guy was just about worthless. Nice smile. Good voice. NO presence. NONE. He looked like he didn't want to be there. aurgh. Terrible!
Joanne was better here, as was Maureen. As was Tom Collins. All three really were fantastic feats of casting and brilliant performances. It was a particular treat for me to see Idina Menzel, as I've lately gotten hooked on the "Wicked" soundtrack. She had exactly the right balance of drama queen/princess/bohemian/true diva to make Maureen breathe. And the woman who played Joanne was her perfect match, vocally. That was a true competition.
Where it fell apart was the staging and the direction. They SUCKED. The direction was just a criminal disservice to the performances. The only scene that seemed well-staged to me was the one in the cemetary. Oh, and Maureen's performance piece, up to the point where the riot was to break out. For the most part though, this really was a missed opportunity from a directing standpoint. Things were poorly framed. They were static when they should have been moving. Larson's score deserved better.
Overall, I'm glad I saw it. I'm now absolutely certain that Rosario Dawson is going to be around for the rest of my life and I'm glad of it. Some of the others in the cast were also outstanding: Tom Collins was perfection. The guy who played Angel put more into that role than I have previously seen - it's a pity his solo was so poorly filmed. Anyone who has a 40" vertical deserves to have it be well-shot, no??
The problems I had with the play, I have with this: transitions are still very sketchy. For instance, the moment when Roger decides to go to the support group is not played clearly. Several other pivotal moments are left off screen, and it makes the story a little hard to follow. And the notion that it's immoral to ask people to pay rent because they call themselves "artists" still seems..... well..... dumb, to me.
It's a good film for discussion - when it works it really works, and when it doesn't, it's abysmal.
What did you think of it??
|
Which brings me to Mark. I saw this same guy in NYC and he was flailing then, too. Can NO ONE make him stop it??!! At least in this, he mostly confines the flailing to times when he's onscreen alone.
The guy who played Roger might as well not have been there. A cardboard cutout would have done as much for the role. I can't figure this. He's a central figure. When I saw this in NY, it was a similar thing: he was like NOT part of the cast.. but this guy was just about worthless. Nice smile. Good voice. NO presence. NONE. He looked like he didn't want to be there. aurgh. Terrible!
Joanne was better here, as was Maureen. As was Tom Collins. All three really were fantastic feats of casting and brilliant performances. It was a particular treat for me to see Idina Menzel, as I've lately gotten hooked on the "Wicked" soundtrack. She had exactly the right balance of drama queen/princess/bohemian/true diva to make Maureen breathe. And the woman who played Joanne was her perfect match, vocally. That was a true competition.
Where it fell apart was the staging and the direction. They SUCKED. The direction was just a criminal disservice to the performances. The only scene that seemed well-staged to me was the one in the cemetary. Oh, and Maureen's performance piece, up to the point where the riot was to break out. For the most part though, this really was a missed opportunity from a directing standpoint. Things were poorly framed. They were static when they should have been moving. Larson's score deserved better.
Overall, I'm glad I saw it. I'm now absolutely certain that Rosario Dawson is going to be around for the rest of my life and I'm glad of it. Some of the others in the cast were also outstanding: Tom Collins was perfection. The guy who played Angel put more into that role than I have previously seen - it's a pity his solo was so poorly filmed. Anyone who has a 40" vertical deserves to have it be well-shot, no??
The problems I had with the play, I have with this: transitions are still very sketchy. For instance, the moment when Roger decides to go to the support group is not played clearly. Several other pivotal moments are left off screen, and it makes the story a little hard to follow. And the notion that it's immoral to ask people to pay rent because they call themselves "artists" still seems..... well..... dumb, to me.
It's a good film for discussion - when it works it really works, and when it doesn't, it's abysmal.
What did you think of it??
__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10
I loved "La Vie Boheme", too.
.