The Resident Bitch Prepares for... the Most Recent MoFo Countdown

→ in
Tools    





Cinderella
(Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, Hamilton Luske, 1950)

I last watched this movie in 2016 and thought it was stupid but charming. Having seen it again tonight, my feelings haven't changed. Well, I probably liked it a little less this time, but the general feeling was the same.

It might sneak onto the tail end of my ballot if I'm in need of some filler, but it'll be a very unenthusiastic vote if it does.



Here's my review from the last time I watched it:



Cinderella (Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, Hamilton Luske, 1950)
Imdb

Date Watched: 5/30/16
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: I figured I ought to rewatch it for the 50's list
Rewatch: Yes, though it's been at least 20 years


As I said in my Snow White review, I've never been overly fond of princess movies. However, I vaguely remembered liking this particular one with its cute mice and other critters. Well the mice are cute and the animation is gorgeous but I don't have a whole lot else positive to say about it.

The characters are extremely one dimensional, the romance is flimsy at best ("We danced for a few hours, and I don't know your name or anything about you and can't remember your face well enough to describe it to the people searching for you, but I remember you being hot and you left this shoe behind and, damn it, I'M IN LOVE AND I'M GONNA MARRY YOU!!!" ), the songs bugged me ("A dream is a wish your heart makes..." Really? My heart's wishing for some pretty f***ed up s***, then) and I was really irritated by two particular characters: the fairy godmother and Lucifer.

What good is a fairy godmother, anyway? She lets you suffer YEARS of abuse at the hands of your stepmother and stepsisters, only to suddenly appear to do what? Give you a taste of something good - a pretty dress and a ride to the royal ball - only to suddenly take it away and return you to your sh!tty life with your sh!tty step-family? What the hell is that?

As for Lucifer, it wasn't the character himself that bugged, but was the way he was portrayed and the way he came to his demise. Apparently that "mean old thing" being chased out of a high window and presumably plummeting to his death is justified by... What, exactly? I mean, what did he do that made him so damn "mean"? Scratch the dog? Make a mess on the floor Cinderella had just cleaned (for which she started to chase him with a broom with the obvious intent to beat him with it)? Unsuccessfully attempt to hunt some mice? Try to stop those same mice from stealing a necklace? And... umm... umm... sleep a lot? Man that sure is one evil cat and he definitely deserved that comeuppance...? Oh and as for the stepmother and stepsisters, their comeuppance for their actual cruelty is... nothing. Not a damn thing. But that cat sure had it coming. WTF, Disney? WTF?



But even through all that, there was something undeniably charming about the whole stupid thing and I'd be lying if I said I didn't get some enjoyment out of it.

+



"Stupid but charming" describes a lot of Disney movies, actually





Corpse Bride
(Tim Burton, 2005)

I don't remember when I last watched this movie, but it's been quite awhile (also, holy shit this movie is 19 years old?!). I vaguely remembered liking it quite a bit but never quite loving it, but didn't really remember what about it I had liked.

Now that my memory is refreshed, there really isn't anything about this movie that I didn't like. You've got that signature Tim Burton style coupled with the music gifts of Danny Elfman (and while Elfman's songs for this aren't as memorable as his contributions to The Nightmare Before Christmas, they're still pretty great). Add to that a wonderful voice cast (including the usual suspects Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, but also Emily Watson, Tracey Uhlman, Joanna Lumley, Albert Finney, and Christopher Lee) and a whimsical - if macabre - story and the result is a really fun time.

But what really stood out to me was the juxtaposition of the land of the living and the land of the dead. The land of the living is rigid, cold, and miserable, lacking in both color and life, while the land of the dead is free, colorful, and full of life - like one big party where everyone can be their authentic selves.

Now I don't know if my enjoyment of this movie was heightened by it following a lot of musicals that I didn't like quite so much, but regardless this one is sure to rank high on my ballot.






Hairspray
(John Waters, 1988)

This is definitely the least John Waters-y John Waters movie I've ever seen and I appreciate its messaging and racial, sexuality, and size inclusion, but I have to say this movie left me rather confused.

Why is this considered a musical? Music is a huge part of the movie and a whole lot of it is featured, but the majority of it is just records being played for the characters to dance to. The few times characters do sing, it's just really minor characters that exist solely to provide more music for the main characters to dance and make out to.

I think the movie is fine and I don't regret watching it, but to me this is a dancing movie and so it has no chance of making my ballot.




Hairspray
(John Waters, 1988)

This is definitely the least John Waters-y John Waters movie I've ever seen and I appreciate its messaging and racial, sexuality, and size inclusion, but I have to say this movie left me rather confused.

Why is this considered a musical? Music is a huge part of the movie and a whole lot of it is featured, but the majority of it is just records being played for the characters to dance to. The few times characters do sing, it's just really minor characters that exist solely to provide more music for the main characters to dance and make out to.
It's the 2007 version, adapted from the Broadway Musical that was adapted from the John Waters film, that really fits. Same basic story, but with singing and numbers. Waters gave the project his blessing but had nothing to do with it creatively. Nor the film version with John Travolta and the rest. Cry-Baby (1990) starring Johnny Depp, THAT is a bonafide Musical by John Waters, spoofing both '50s rebel movies and early Rock 'n' Roll Musicals.


__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



It's the 2007 version, adapted from the Broadway Musical that was adapted from the John Waters film, that really fits. Same story, but with singing.

That one was a lot of fun



It's the 2007 version, adapted from the Broadway Musical that was adapted from the John Waters film, that really fits. Same basic story, but with singing and numbers. Waters gave the project his blessing but had nothing to do with it creatively. Nor the film version with John Travolta and the rest.
The Waters one is the version that was suggested to me, which is why I watched it. I did pause the movie halfway through and check IMDb and they do have this version listed as a musical as well. I may or may not watch the broadway adaptation.

Cry-Baby (1990) starring Johnny Depp, THAT is a bonafide Musical by John Waters, spoofing both '50s rebel movies and early Rock 'n' Roll Musicals.
Yeah, I'm familiar with it. That was one of the first movies I rewatched for the countdown.



Cry-Baby
(John Waters, 1990)

I have a rocky history with this movie and with John Waters movies in general. I liked Serial Mom a lot when I was a kid, but didn't care for it at all the last time I watched it. I thought Pecker was just okay and that Pink Flamingoes was absolute dog shit. As for Cry-Baby? I saw it a few times growing up and kind of liked it, but I hated it the last time I watched it (around 15 years ago).

It's been in my DVD collection for probably 20 years now so I figured I had nothing to lose by giving it another shot and... well, I guess I'm back to kind of liking it? As is typical of Waters, the movie is weird and stupid and trashy, but that weird, stupid trashiness has its charm and Johnny Depp looks pretty damn good in it so I was amused enough to not get too annoyed by the songs... this time, at least.

That said, I probably won't watch it again anytime in the next decade or so - but it just might sneak onto my ballot.




It's the 2007 version, adapted from the Broadway Musical that was adapted from the John Waters film, that really fits.
Was just about to post the same thing, I quite like the 2007 version.





Across the Universe
(Julie Taymor, 2007)

I saw this nominated in the Group Watch thread and thought I'd give it a shot. After all, it was nominated by someone who also isn't generally a fan of musicals and I don't think I've ever seen a jukebox musical so I thought that perhaps my familiarity with a lot of the songs would help make it more bearable, even though I'm not really a Beatles fan.

It didn't. I actually found the songs that I didn't know to be more tolerable than the others. Anytime they'd break out into a song I'm familiar with all I could think about was how much I'd rather be listening to the original song. The music also didn't seem to serve any real purpose except to make an already flimsy story feel super padded, overlong, and gimmicky. Making things worse were the overabundance of supporting characters and side stories. Prudence in particular seemed to exist only to excuse the inclusion of "Dear Prudence" and the "She came in through the bathroom window" line, and to serve as a half-assed attempt at greater racial diversity in its cast. Though having said that, I am giving this a slightly higher rating than the other Group Watch nominations I've seen if only because I did kind of like Sadie and Jo-Jo's story. Actually, they were the only characters that I liked - with main character Jude being my least favorite of all.

I was optimistic going into this, but I had mentally checked out about the time that Bono made his appearance.






Phantom of the Paradise
(Brian De Palma, 1974)

This was a bizarre little spectacle of a movie. Whereas I called Earth Girls Are Easy “aggressively 80s,” this is perhaps just as aggressively 70s. But that’s not really a complaint. It’s just that it has that 70s kind of weird.

There really wasn’t anything about this movie that I disliked. The music was good, the characters were interesting, and I was never bored. But I think it might be a bit of a stretch to say that I actually liked it. I also think the experience might’ve been enhanced by the use of certain substances, but I don’t partake so that didn’t happen. Still, its brand of weirdness might just be enough to get it onto my ballot.






Phantom of the Paradise
(Brian De Palma, 1974)

This was a bizarre little spectacle of a movie. Whereas I called Earth Girls Are Easy “aggressively 80s,” this is perhaps just as aggressively 70s. But that’s not really a complaint. It’s just that it has that 70s kind of weird.

There really wasn’t anything about this movie that I disliked. The music was good, the characters were interesting, and I was never bored. But I think it might be a bit of a stretch to say that I actually liked it. I also think the experience might’ve been enhanced by the use of certain substances, but I don’t partake so that didn’t happen. Still, its brand of weirdness might just be enough to get it onto my ballot.

I really liked the way that it combined sort of gritty sci-fi vibes with actual fantasy elements. And I liked its dark sense of humor and thought the music was pretty good.





Rent
(Chris Columbus, 2005)

This movie was not one that was suggested to me by anyone, but I’ve been a little curious about it for awhile. I had remembered the character Yitzak in Hedwig and the Angry Inch talking about getting a part in a production of it and, figuring there had to be a reason they chose to mention this particular musical, I looked it up. After reading a little about Rent's story, I thought it might be something I’d like.

It wasn’t. Don’t get me wrong, I did actually like the story (mostly) and at least some of its characters, but holy shit did I hate those songs. I hated those songs more than I’ve hated the songs in any other musical I’ve watched for this countdown so far and there were just so damn many of them. And all those damn songs made the movie way longer than it needed to be for the story it was telling. They also prevented me from getting fully invested in it. Even when a certain scene had me starting to tear up, it had to go and ruin the moment with more of that awful singing.

I’m gonna be generous and give it a 2.0 because I did like the story, some characters, and also the look of the film, but there’s no way in hell I’m voting for this.




Trouble with a capital "T"
Miss Vicky have you seen The American Astronaut (2001) Not too many songs but qualifies as a musical, it's a pretty bizarre movie. A little too bizarre for my taste but ya got admire a film that includes songs called 'Baby in the Jar' and 'The Girl With the Glass Vagina.' The opening song with a guy setting on a toilet has got to be one of the more memorable numbers, I've ever seen.





Miss Vicky have you seen The American Astronaut (2001) Not too many songs but qualifies as a musical, it's a pretty bizarre movie. A little too bizarre for my taste but ya got admire a film that includes songs called 'Baby in the Jar' and 'The Girl With the Glass Vagina.' The opening song with a guy setting on a toilet has got to be one of the more memorable numbers, I've ever seen.


I don’t think I ever even heard of it until now. It’s relatively short so I might give it a try.



I don’t think I ever even heard of it until now. It’s relatively short so I might give it a try.
It's good stuff. I frequently watch the bizarro number about "The Chart" on YouTube.





The Jungle Book
(Wolfgang Reitherman, 1967)

I don't know if I ever saw this movie as a child, but in any case my only memories of it from adulthood and within the last ten years. While I have a strong love of animation, I'm not overly fond of many of Disney's classic animations specifically because so many of them are musicals. So I was really quite surprised when I first watched this as an adult that I not only enjoyed the movie in general but actually liked the songs. They're fun and memorable, especially Baloo's "Bare Necessities," and the movie's characters are equally fun and memorable.

This is a really enjoyable and easy watch that while not a childhood favorite (if I even saw it back then), has become one now. Perhaps not a huge favorite, but enough of one that I will definitely be giving it a vote.








Chicago
(Rob Marshall, 2002)

I've seen this movie a few times now and it's always been something of an anomaly for me. As I've stated countless times, I generally hate musicals. It is hands-down my absolute least favorite movie genre. Yet I've always liked this one. I also generally dislike or straight up avoid movies with mainly female casts or that focus on a female perspective, yet I've always liked this one.

So what's the difference? What sets this apart? I think with the music the biggest difference is context. Characters don't just break out in song and dance in the middle of conversations, not really anyway. All of the musical numbers happen either in main character Roxie's imagination or on a stage. This helps tremendously with my ability to buy into what's happening on screen. But also even my musical-loathing self can't deny that these particular songs are catchy and their accompanying dance numbers are flashy and fun. Being based around vaudeville acts, it also helps that there's a fair amount of humor in the songs and the dialogue.

As to that female led cast, Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta Jones, and Queen Latifah fully commit to their roles, as do the remaining cast. It also helps that I have a bit of soft spot for Richard Gere. John C. Reilly also does a great job as Zellweger's dopey husband, Amos. I really can't think of a single weak performance.

But to be clear, I don't think this is a great movie. It's fun and enjoyable - if only on a very superficial level - and I genuinely like it, but I don't think it's great. However, compared to the majority of other live-action musicals I've subjected myself to, it's damn near a masterpiece.




In all fairness, even I wasn't much impressed by the film version of Chicago - harmless enough but not particularly memorable.

The Broadway original? That was something else alright. But we're here to talk about movies!



The Broadway original? That was something else alright. But we're here to talk about movies!
I truly could not care less about Broadway and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop bringing it up.



I agree about Chicago. I really enjoyed the songs, the lyrics are clever and interesting...but that's it. It doesn't cohere into a genuinely moving or engaging narrative. It's entirely the production design and the music, which works only because both are really good.