This weekend I saw two films, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" part one, and "Burlesque". Care to guess which one I thought was the better film?
Let me remove the mystery by first saying that I liked "Deathly Hallows". I have read all the books, have them all in hardbound First Editions in fact (geek), and enjoyed them immensely, even standing in line twice to get the first copies (uber-geek). I've enjoyed all the movies. I think the casting has been superb (Tonks is hot) and the direction, cinematography and screenwriting have all been excellent. (Note to WingNut Productions; THIS is how you adapt a novel, Peter, Fran and Phillipa. Note that NONE of the characters here behaved DIFFERENTLY than they do in the books.....idiots.)
"Deathly Hallows" presents some (well, all) of the challenges of a novel versus a screenplay. One, it's huge. Two, it's HUGE. Three, pacing in a novel can be glacial, then cheetah. A film needs a bit more evenness to it. In the novel, Ron, Hermione and Harry spend, oh, six chapters or so.... camping. And bitch fighting. And camping some more. Then they spend some time ambling about. Finally some two hundred pages in they fight for their lives. From a film standpoint it's like taking the first hour of "My Dinner
With Andre" and then strapping on the last hour of "Shoot'em Up".
"Snooooooozzzzzzzeeee.. AAiiieeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!"
I really felt the writers, director etc. did a fantastic job here. They kept huge sections of dialogue and action, kept the characters true (Fran, Peter, pay attention here) and for the people who wanted every moment and word in the book on the screen, they... well.... OK, those people got screwed. Tough. Deal with it. All the key elements were there (and yes, you who know me and read the book, I got misty once, and of course had to wipe my eyes later. You know what I'm talking about...). The movie ended at a properly climactic moment, and certainly left me ready to see part two.
Still, "Burlesque" was much better I thought.
OK, hear me out. I'm expecting to take toon-ville levels of crap over this. Nevertheless....
"Burlesque" stole pretty liberally from the "Coyote Ugly" script, to my mind. Girl with talent goes to big city, falls into a potentially awesome job, gets robbed, meets a boy..... yeah, OK, I got it. Harry Potter is not exactly new either (ducks). The point is that from a performance stand- point, "Burlesque" simply takes you and whirls you away so prettily you don't notice if there are gaping plot holes or not. Nor did I care. I went to see Cher and Christina perform. I got that, and then some.
These are two of the women in modern music with simply massive vocal talents. The film lets them use them, and in a logical fashion given the setting; not American Musical "I am angry! I should sing a song about anger!" style. The cinematography is better than "Cabaret" (ducks again) or "Moulin Rouge" (ducks again? did anyone like this?). The sets are equal to anything Ziegfeld Follies ever did. How they got them in that little club is one of the things you just look at and go "So what?"
Then there are the acting abilities. Cher, well we all know she can act, and brilliantly. Christina on the other hand.... this is her first film. She might have done some TV. Whatever. She's unlikely to grab an Oscar nod for this, but she held her own with Cher, and with Stanley Tucci. He's another reason to see this. If you like him at all, you will love watching two moments of Oscar worthy ability. First is the perfectly droll and deadpan "I never loved you", and later when Cher calls him an asshole..... and there are dozens of others. I'm not going to give any spoilers on his role; if you act, you should see this just for him.
Eric Dane (McSteamy from "Grey's Anatomy") and Alan Cumming (Nightcrawler from "X-Men" and the Tin Man from HBO's "Tin Man" Oz adaptation) are also spectacular in this. The romantic lead.... uhh, whose name I forgot..... wait.... IMDB rules! Cam Gigandet (WTF? I'll never remember that one...) oh. Derp. From "Twilight" (ick) and "New Moon" (ick ick) and "Pandorum" and "Easy A"... shit. No wonder he looked familiar. DERP. Anyway, they were also great in this, and gave both women plenty to work off of. Frankly, Cher and Christina could (and should!) take this on the road, using the sets, dancers, back up vocals etc., and the music. Screw the story, just belt the songs in order. Because Cher's voice is still strong at 64; its as hot as Tina Turners legs..... and Christina? Yow. I confess I worked her shows, and only discovered then she had an amazing voice. I still own no CD's for either woman..... (the Cher tour DVD does NOT count..) but I'm going to get this soundtrack. And listen in my car. Yeah, you heard me.
Don't be hatin...
