Change Your Image
Prof4man
Reviews
The Fantasticks (2000)
One of the worst transfers from stage to film.
Ok, maybe it can be argued that it is simply not possible to make a decent film of this wonderful musical. But even given that, one certainly could have done a better job than this. I rate this at the bottom of the pile of stage to screen transfers along with the dreadful Bye, Bye, Birdie and Paint Your Wagon.
First, why cut "Try to Remember" (the one song that practically everyone knows) from the beginning of the picture (and trim it at the end). It establishes the whole mood of the show - calling the audience to remember back when they first fell in love and the magic of that moment. This show just opens with Bellamy sewing (?)
Then, because they wanted to make it more like a traditional movie musical, they cut the narrator - and with him went most of the wonderful dialogue much of it spoken in poetry and verse (note the absence of the speech before "Soon Its Gonna Rain"["You wonder how these things begin...]; trimmed down is the "Curious Paradox" speech the most important part being cut out; gone is Louisa's self-description that sets up "Much More" as well as Matt's intro to "Metaphor"; and most important of all the speech opening the second act is gone which explains much of what the story is about).
Gone also are all the wonderful metaphors (the whole idea behind the song of the same title)that prevade the show - the gardening metaphors are gone (hence why "Plant a Radish" was cut, though one wonders why they left in "This Plum is Too Ripe"); gone also is the metaphor of the wall (one of the most important in the show, leading to the most significant, if not most enigmatic, line in the play "Leave the wall, you must always leave the wall.")
Not surprisingly the mute is cut, but other characters are changed as well. With the narrator gone, the motive of El Gallo is unclear. Why is he doing these things? Why does he say the curious paradox speech if he is not going to explain why he hurt them (and himself)? Only the part of Henry remains fairly faithful to the original play (even Mortimer is given over to Teller as a non-speaking role). Louisa is played too simperingly sweet rather than as a self-absorbed teenage girl fascinated more with the idea of being in love than actually loving Matt. Her transition at the end (from "I am love" originally in Metaphor to "You are love" at the reprise) makes no sense in this version.
Yes, most of the songs are there. But they are often trimmed down, replaced with safer songs (like the absolutely horrible "Abductions" replacing the clever "It Depends on What you Pay) or the lyrics are completely rewritten("Metaphor"). I know the arguments for replacing "Depends", but I have directed the show twice and played El Gallo once and have not ever heard a complaint about the song - you simply have to introduce it correctly.
One wonders why they even decided to film this show if they were going to change it so much. I believe a fairly decent film might have been made if they had stayed with what they had. Instead they decided to go Hollywood with it and the result is nothing like the original story. No wonder it stayed in the can for 6 years before being released. It probably should have stayed there. One big disappointment.
Simon Birch (1998)
Excellent Cast; Strange Story
Well, first off, this wonderful cast of Joseph Mazzello, Oliver Platt, Ashley Judd, and Ian Michael Smith were absolutely incredible the whole movie. It's just a shame the movie was so strange.
Well, I mostly thought that the story was quite confusing. Who came up with the idea of having Simon Birch kill his best friend's mother? I mean, that would only lead to the fact of Joe Wentworth was trying to find his father, which was predictable. But, I believe that it may have been necessary, too.
Also, I think Joe and Simon were too mature for their age. They were supposed to be 12 but they acted at least 15. Especially in Simon. And I hate it when that happens.
But, overall, I thought the movie was fairly good, and on a scale of 1-10, I would also rate it an 8. And I also agree on the rating. It should be rated PG-13.
Bye Bye Birdie (1963)
The absolute worst adaptation of a broadway musical to film.
This is the worst adaptation of a broadway musical to film. The story changes are dreadful and unnecessary. Several songs are eliminated (An English Teacher, Spanish Rose) while others are written into ridiculous situations (Put on a Happy Face, One Boy, Kids). The performances are very good, but the rewrite destroys the joy and innocence of a classic broadway musical. Instead of a comical farce that includes a great ending, we get a runaway turtle, a silly subplot of a secret formula, another subplot of a rival for Rosie (that goes nowhere)and a climax at the Ed Sullivan show. While the 1995 TV version was not as energetic (Jason Alexander was just plain wrong for the role), at least it was closer to the spirit of the original. Why does Hollywood constantly think they can improve on broadway???
Bye Bye Birdie (1963)
The absolute worst adaptation of a broadway musical to film.
This is the worst adaptation of a broadway musical to film. The story changes are dreadful and unnecessary. Several songs are eliminated (An English Teacher, Spanish Rose) while others are written into ridiculous situations (Put on a Happy Face, One Boy, Kids). The performances are very good, but the rewrite destroys the joy and innocence of a classic broadway musical. Instead of a comical farce that includes a great ending, we get a runaway turtle, a silly subplot of a secret formula, another subplot of a rival for Rosie (that goes nowhere)and a climax at the Ed Sullivan show. While the 1995 TV version was not as energetic (Jason Alexander was just plain wrong for the role), at least it was closer to the spirit of the original. Why does Hollywood constantly think they can improve on broadway???