So (of course) Michael and I ended up seeing "Hairspray" over the weekend. John Waters is my hero (long live Dawn Davenport!) so I had to give him my 11 bucks, even if he no longer needs it. I know I've bitched and moaned about my favorite film of 1988 being remade, but I have my reasons. Part of it had to do with the timing of it all. As many of you know, I turned 40 last month, so it was a little hard to stomach that a movie from my youth was already being remade -- especially this one. You see, back in the summer of '88 my two best friends in college (Greg and Debra) took me to see "Hairspray" on my 21st birthday. The celebration began with lunch at the glamorous AZ/88 in Scottsdale (designed by famed modernist architect Michael Johnson) where I had my first legal cocktail. (Even though I wasn't really sure what it was, I think I ordered a vodka collins 'cause the mom in Brett Easton Ellis' "The Rules of Attraction" always drank them.) I'll never forget that day. Two great friends (Debra gave me a wonderful original painting of hers as a gift), an All-American Grilled Cheese sandwich, waffle fries, a vodka buzz and the premiere screening of a new John Waters movie -- all on my big day! Add to the excitement that the film -- albeit tame by John Waters standards -- was so delightful. With Divine, Debbie Harry, the legendary Ruth Brown, Sonny Bono, Pia Zadora, Mink Stole, dreamy Michael St. Gerard and an adorable newcomer named Ricki Lake, the cast couldn't have been more perfect.
But despite all of this, truth be told I'd heard so many good things about the Broadway show and this new film version of it, I pretty much figured I'd go, get over how annoyed I was that John Travolta isn't Divine (like that's his fault) and end up getting swept away all over again by Waters' sweet story. So it's kind of ironic that I'd be blogging about how surprised I was that I didn't like the new "Hairspray." To be honest, I thought it was borderline horrible. I saw it in a packed theater in Chelsea and I swear I didn't see anyone else in the audience laugh, smile or move around in their seat any more than I did, which was pretty much never. The songs seemed awkward and went on entirely too long. There was no chemistry between any of the actors, And worst of all, minus any of the original's campy charm, this age-old Baltimore fat chick lands a hunk while fighing for civil rights story just didn't seem even slightly believable. (The closest it came to feeling like a John Waters movie was the sight of Michelle Pfeiffer's scarily taut jawline.)
I'm not saying other people won't or shouldn't like the new "Hairspray," the Broadway version clearly shows there's a great affinity for it. And obviously I should have followed my instincts and just stayed away. But I gave it a shot and for me it fell flat. I guess it's safe to say I'm no "Hair" hopper.
Monday, July 23, 2007
'Hair' Hopping
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Glad to read an honest review and another opinion. It received good reviews in the local paper and also 2 thumbs up I believe?? But what I've seen of it has not enticed me and John Travolta creeps me out. I took my nephews ages 6 & 4 to the original and remembered being chided for doing so.lol
Wow! NY life has left you jaded. here in sunny CA, everyone in the tehater was smiling from ear to ear throughout, including me. It was delightfully uncynical, and pure sugar pop for a hot afternoon. I loved it, and I'm really bummed you didn't. Please please please tell me you didn't like Dreamgirls. *That* wasn't half as delightful as Hairspray.
Your old age is getting to you!jk I loved it and everyone in the theatre here in Dallas, TX was laughing throughout. Pure joy of a film. Ebert gave it a great review too.
Your problem I guess is seeing it with all the old queens in Chelsea.
I don't think not liking a movie makes someone old and jaded. (The original WAS far better after all).
I don't think musicals are your cup of tea.
I doubt Kenneth's age has anything to do with liking the film or not. He probably just saw it as lousy compared to the original. (The only remakes I ever saw that I thought were equal or superior to the original were "Invasion Of the Body Snatchers" (1978) and "A Place In the Sun" with Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor, which actually WAS a remake of an earlier film).
You know what they say, Kenneth, "It's never as good as the first time." Thanks for sharing your thoughts about it. I'm with you--John Travolta just creeps me out LOL. and yes long live Dawn Davenport, and she better get those cha cha heels.
Did we see the same movie? I saw it on opening day in a theatre full of teenaged Zac Efron fans, gay guys, and old ladies. Everyone hooted with laughter and amusement. People bounced out of the theatre smiling and giggling. Every gay friend of mine throughout the U.S. who saw it loved it. The original is brilliant and Travolta is tired compared to Divine, but despite him it's great. The gay producers(Zadan & Meron) director, songwriters, actors, etc. have made a very gay movie. It makes me sad to think Chelsea queens did not get it.
Anonymous: You say a very gay movie was made. Well, that is news to Travolta who said there is NOTHING gay about it. Also, he and Queen Latifah (and Zac) refused to speak with The Advocate about the film. True, many openly gay people were involved, but that is not a free pass. Regardless, all the talk of Chelsea queens in the comments is a joke. What is this, "queer pressure" to like a movie whose message is YAY! LOVE YOURSELF! BE YOURSELF! even though two of the stars are unrepentant closet cases and heavy girls rarely get starring roles in real life? Aside from these devil's-advocate comments of mine, I think the film is very effective and fun and I particularly loved Nikki Blonsky, Michelle Pfeiffer, James Marsden and Elijah Kelley. I just don't think it's above reproach. On a separate "note" (gitit?), I for one loved DREAMGIRLS at an early screening and was really annoyed at how it suffered from a backlash after all its pre-release good buzz.
Post a Comment