Archive for the H Category

The Host (Andrew Niccol) 2013

Posted in H on April 26, 2014 by moviemoses


Production Budget: $40 million
Worldwide Gross: $48 million

The Host is about an alien species that comes to Earth and takes over humans like pod people. Melanie (Saoirse Ronan) nearly dies during the bonding so there is a complication. The alien Wanda, still has control, but Melanie is able to talk to her. Wanda/Melanie make their way to the resistance where a love triangle develops between her Melanie’s lover and a new man.

Now, it is no secret that I am not a fan of the Twilight series. Like many critics, I’m sure I could write a book on just about everything that I plain don’t like about the books/movies. But make no mistake, this is not about me being a guy and not being part of the target demographic. True I am not a teenage girl or a middle aged housewife, but I can certainly understand romance and escapism. At the end of the day, when you cut through all the bullshit, I just plain don’t like any of the characters. At best they are merely hollow shells by which the unimaginative audience can project themselves in and at worst Bella is a despicable excuse for a human and the two male leads not much better.

So why watch The Host? Well, because it bombed. And I don’t know what it says about my taste that of all the Stephanie Meyer films I have seen this is the best. Now, that still doesn’t make The Host a good movie, it just means it rises to the level of merely bad. Compared to Twilight, the protagonist of Wanda/Melanie is far more compelling and there is a reason for the love triangle. Two people are sharing a body and each has fallen in love with another person. Oh it’s silly and having Saoirse Ronan doing internal commentary of how icky it is she is kissing another man can be quite comical. However the issue is one of a real conflict and not because our protagonist is a selfish manipulator.

Also, unlike Twilight, there is a clear conflict going on. In The Host, aliens are hunting down Wanda and the remaining humans to completely conquer the world. In each of the Twilight movies, the conflicts seem to be of the pulled out their ass variety. I have seen every Twilight movie, and I honestly cannot tell you why for example, why vampires wanted to fight the Cullens in the first one. Now again, that doesn’t make The Host’s plot any good. Most of the time the humans aren’t really fighting the aliens as much as they are milling about their secret base doing nothing. This movie is dull more than anything else. Not much happens in the conflict between humans and aliens and not all that much is done with the love triangle.

It is kind of pointless to talk about the direction. As evidenced by the Twilight movies, it doesn’t matter how good a director you have attached to the project, they still have to work with the material of Stephanie Meyer. I love Andrew Niccol’s Gattaca and Lord of War. And while he adds an interesting visual flair to the movie, he can’t do anything to make the script any more interesting.

Maybe I caught this in a good mood, but I didn’t hate The Host. It is mostly dull and at times the premise and the hamfisted dialog can lead to very hammy exchanges with the actors. But I can at least appreciate that the fact I didn’t want to murder the main characters. Would I recommend it? Oh hell no. I’m just saying I can admit this is not the worst thing ever.

Hollywood Ending (2002) Woody Allen

Posted in H, Woody Allen Retrospective on May 29, 2013 by moviemoses


Production Budget: $16 million
Worldwide Gross: 14.5 million

Val (Woody Allen) is a director that has had a recent string of failures. His ex-wife Ellie (Tea Leoni) pulls some strings in order to get him the latest big film to get him back on track. A problem arises though when Val develops psychosomatic blindness on set.

I hope you like one joke because that is all this movie has to offer. The joke being repeated is how Woody stares blankly in the distance instead of looking someone in the face and he also trips over things. I’m sorry I don’t have much to dissect and analyze but that is the long and the short of it. We have Woody Allen stumbling around for two hours. You know, one of the things I admired most about Allen prior is his sense of timing for a movie. I said before he was probably hard wired by his experience as a stand up to get in and out with the material as fast as possible. Most of his movies hover around 90 minutes as a result (with some comedies barely at 80 minutes) and I am very grateful. There is usually no fat on his movies and they move at a very brisk pace. Real life Woody Allen must have suffered a brain injury because he thought this movie had so much material, he couldn’t possible trim this from 112 minutes. Just for some perspective, Crimes and Misdemeanors, a philosophical musing about morality and justice in the universe is about 100 minutes. This movie about Woody bumping into chairs is 12 minutes longer than that.

This is all contingent on the physical humor in this movie being funny. Comedy is of course a subjective thing, but in my opinion this is so not funny. Maybe because I think of slapstick as being a young man’s game. It is something to see for example Jim Carrey flopping around and getting hit and quite another to see a late 60’s Jim Carrey get the shit beat out of him. One of these is cartoonish, and the other is elder abuse. But the other thing is this physical humor isn’t varied or fresh. A physical comedian could think of entire set pieces around a person being blind. This is an extreme example but Charlie Chaplin I’m sure could make a movie about a blind guy going here and there or playing a sport or driving a car etc. In Hollywood Ending, Allen thinks it is the height of hilarity that Woody can’t look someone in the face because he is blind. Of course, that joke doesn’t work either because a blind person can fucking hear someone and point their face in the direction where someone is talking. It is also so gut busting to see Woody bumping into furniture. It is not. You are no Buster Keaton Woody, you are not even Mr. Bean.

Even his dialog isn’t funny anymore. Much like in Jade Scorpion, we have a scene where Allen and Leoni establish their relationship, and it is just as agonizing. I think there is a big difference with how Allen treats his women now as in the past. In the past, Allen was always very self deprecating. He was willing to take as much as he gave out. But here, Allen comes off as a very bitter and cruel old man. Prior to this scene Ellie begs the studio exec to hire Val again. And keep in mind, Ellie had no ulterior motives here. She was doing this out of the kindness of her heart. Ellie meets with Val to lay out the groundwork of the movie. The „comedy“ of this scene is that Ellie wants to get to business, but Val interrupts by ranting about how she left him. Again, all that we know up to this point is Ellie is a nice girl who did an altruistic act and Val is making a complete and utter ass out of himself by yelling at a soft spoken woman in the middle of a crowded restaurant. What an asshole. Then he completely screws the movie by filming it blind costing the studio exec millions. Allen wants us to rejoice this because the studio exec is supposed to be an asshole. But we see nothing but the fact he is a loving boyfriend who gave a failing director a break because he is a nice guy. Wow, what a fucking asshole. And we have to sit through nearly two hours of this unlikable asshat as he makes everyone’s lives miserable through unfunny physical comedy? Oh joy! No no, please Woody, I want the three hour extended edition please.

Okay I am starting to rant and I’ll stop. Point is Hollywood Ending is shallow and unfunny to say the least. There is just not enough imagination to keep this premise going 90 minutes let alone 112 minutes. What was once effortless, now is a Herculean effort to even elicit one chuckle from me in a two hour film. This part of his career truly is the pits.

Heist (2001) David Mamet

Posted in H on February 19, 2013 by moviemoses

Production Budget: $39 million

Worldwide Gross: $28 million

Heist is about professional thief Joe (Gene Hackman).  Joe gets spotted during his last job and wants to leave town.  Joe’s fence Mickey (Danny DeVito) forces Joe to do one last heist of gold before he can leave.

This movie is a guilty pleasure for me.  There are criticisms of this movie which I acknowledge and with most other people I would be ranting about but for certain reasons I find this movie enjoyable.

The criticism I hear most about Heist is about the dialog.  Mamet is well known for above all else, being a writer of great dialog.  Much like my criticism about Coppola during Tucker: The Man and his Dream can be leveled at Mamet in Heist.  I basically said Coppola was either trying too hard with camera tricks or was having a masturbatory experience behind the camera which didn’t translate to any fun for the audience.  Here, Mamet is either trying way too hard to be clever with the dialog or is having some extended alone time with his own prose.  The prime example I think everyone has cited is:

“Everybody needs money, that’s why they call it money!“

That line makes no goddamn sense.  So why is it in there?  It is supposed to be some insight into the character that he thinks its witty or did the director just mess up or is it supposed to be so bad its funny?  And you end up killing your brain trying to unwrap what is, in reality, a stupid line of dialog from a smart writer.  What makes it worse is everyone talks like this.  Here are a few samples of dialog:

“My motherfucker is so cool when he goes to sleep sheep count him.  Do you know why the chicken crossed the road?  Cause the road crossed the chicken.  How long has Joe known her?  How long is a Chinaman’s last name? ”

I can certainly see people turning on the movie due to lines like that.  People have a certain level of suspension of disbelief and so they understand people talk more elequently than they would in real life.  But it reaches a point when every character is spouting cutesy bullshit that people reject it as too unrealistic.  Juno had the same problem when everyone talked in the same Diablo Cody hipster speak and some cannot get into Tarantino for the same reason.

It doesn’t help the ‘too clever for its own good‘ problem when there is plot twist after plot twist after plot twist.  Characters screw each other over and back stab each other every 10 minutes so I can see how people can have difficulty getting invested in a story so focused on pulling the wool over the audiences eyes.

And yet I enjoy this movie.

I’ll address the twist issue first.  For one, this is a movie about confidence men and scam artists trying for the big score.  This is the one instance where I think the audience should be expecting schemes within schemes within schemes.  In other movies and in other genres I can see frustration with a writer playing around with its audience but here it is almost a staple of this kind of movie.  Plus none of the twists are that crazy.  Within the context of this universe all the twists work and there weren’t any that had massive plot holes or seriously failed.

As for the dialog problem that is not something I can explain away as much as I forgive it.  It helps that you have a seriously talented group of actors like Gene Hackman, Delroy Lindo, Sam Rockwell, and even great character actors like Danny DeVito and Ricky Jay.  If you had a bland actor like a Paul Walker yes I would hate it more,  But when you have a person like Gene Hackman they can sell it with their charisma.  They can give a subtle smile or little ticks so show that its all in fun and not to be taken too seriously.

I am also a sucker for heist movies so maybe I am more willing to forgive it its faults because I am the target audience.  I just know many of these movies are about snappy dialog so I don’t really think of this as a super real world but one such as Brick where everyone talks as if they are in a 40’s gangster flick.  And while there are some groan inducing lines like the ones I highlighted, I think the majority is clever enough to overlook that.

All the same I do admit this is a guilty pleasure.  I’m a sucker for heist movies so I really enjoy it and I think other fans of that genre will too.  That being said it is a flawed movie and one I can’t easily recommend to casual movie watchers.  The dialog in this movie can drive people absolutely bonkers with how cute and clever it thinks it is.  This is also relatively minor work compared to other things Mamet has done.  If you haven’t seen anything by Mamet I would at least start with Glengarry Glen Ross.  Heist gets a reserved recommendation from me.

Hollywoodland (2006) Allen Coulter

Posted in H on October 17, 2012 by moviemoses

Production Budget: $14 million

Worldwide Gross: around $17 million

Hollwoodland is a docudrama about the real life death of Superman television actor George Reeves (here played by Ben Affleck).  Reeves death was cleared a suicide by the LAPD.  Reeves mother goes to private investigator Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) to find enough evidence to re-open the case.  Simo finds inconsistencies in the case as well as many would be suspects.

Hollywoodland is kind of a cross breed of a “true Hollywood story“ with Reeves‘ story and a film noir with Simo as the hard on his luck private eye.  I can see why the death of Reeves can make for a good conspiracy crime story.  Reeves was found bruised from an assault and there were other bullet holes in the bedroom where Reeves was found.  There were also aspects of Reeves‘ life which would seem like choice “juicy gossip“ on the surface.  What is strange is that when we actually dig deeper into this gossip, what should be sleazy Hollywood dirt becomes rather tame.

I’ll give you an example.  If you heard George Reeves was having an affair with the wife of a big wig at MGM you might think that is really scandalous or there is a huge motive for the husband to kill Reeves.  But then in the movie the other woman Toni (played by Diane Lane) explains that her husband has a woman on the side and he is perfectly fine with her having a relationship as well.  They even go out together in public.  You end up thinking the whole affair is pretty normal; well, Hollywood normal.

When you get right down to it, the movie doesn’t make a good case for any of the “suspects“.  Again, you feel quite the opposite (or at least I did).  SPOILERS if you care.  You don’t think Toni did it because she was more an crying emotional shut in due to the break up rather than a woman in a murderous rage.  Neither do you feel Toni’s husband Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins) is the type of person capable of pulling the trigger (or hiring others to murder).  Mannix is perfectly fine with blacklisting Reeves in Hollywood and killing his career and spirit rather than hiring some goon to put a bullet in him.  Neither do you feel Reeves‘ then ex-fiance Leonore Lemmon (Robin Turney) would have done it.  The movie implies she was a gold digger and upon Reeves breaking off the marriage she murdered him for the money.  But then the movie goes right back around to admit Reeves wasn’t worth much of anything at that point in his career and Lemmon didn’t give a crap about the break up.  I’ve never seen a true Hollywood style film like this where all the muck is cleaned up and the suspects practically cleared.  Compare this with Auto Focus which was about the dark side of Hogan’s Heroes actor Bob Crane.  After seeing that you feel like you want to take a long shower and take off a layer of skin with some pumice.

When you get down to the nitty gritty, the sad story of George Reeves is of a typecast actor.  The general feeling was George Reeves had the potential to be the next Clark Gable.  He got stuck doing a crappy kids show which, while it gave him temporary fame, didn’t pay that well and killed his legitimate career.  It is a sad story for sure but unfortunately a dime a dozen in Hollywood and not something you can build an entire movie on.

I haven’t mentioned Simo’s story up to this point but even compared to the tame Reeves‘ storyline I could not care about this one.  Simo comes off as too slimey even by antihero film noir characters.  You see him drag good people through the mud just for a couple of bucks and you never buy the change in his character that he all of a sudden cares about uncovering the truth of any of it.  We are not told enough about the character to really justify his world weary attitude and of what we do see turns the audience off.

Hollywoodland tries to do two different stories but ends up making both mediocre.  The real life mystery of George Reeves of course doesn’t have a satisfying resolution and the audience won’t even find the mystery all that engaging.  The private investigator plot is similarly unsatisfying and the main character is not likable enough to get invested.  The acting is all around solid.  Adrien Brody really tries as Simo but you wish he had a meatier role to work with.  Ben Affleck gives a very good performance at a time when the public was more than ready to label his career dead.  The production is well done and there are moments when you really do feel for George Reeves.  Hollywoodland is an okay movie, but there isn’t enough of any of the elements to make it worthwhile for others to check it out.

How do you Know (2010) James L. Brooks

Posted in H on April 13, 2011 by moviemoses

Production Budget: $120 million

Worldwide Gross: $47 million

There are some bombs which grab full attention of the media. Movies like Heaven’s Gate gained such notoriety by the megalomaniacal director and bankrupting a studio and all. Shanghai Surprise and Gigli got more attention by the public romances which annoyed the hell out of the public (and…you know, sucking). The point is if you asked people what one of the biggest financial debacles in several years would be How Do You Know. Hell, I was barely aware this movie was coming out at the time of release. I know this is a question that is brought up all the time but I guess I will bring it up again. What the hell is Hollywood thinking when they make comedies this expensive? Seriously, did you think some bland rom com starring anyone would make over $240 million at the box office?

This isn’t even like Evan Almighty where a large chunk of the budget went to an overblown special effects sequence. This is the run down of the budget of the movie: “Brooks (about $10 million) and the four major stars Witherspoon ($15 million), Nicholson ($12 million), Wilson ($10 million) and Rudd ($3 million) and another $50 million on bland interior shots of our actors talking (Wikipedia). This is also from a director who hasn’t had a hit in thirteen years. Brooks still seems to believe that you can make big bank just based on the stars on the poster and it is simply not the case anymore. But I can’t simply judge a book by a cover. That’s not what this box office bomb blog is all about. So I have finally seen it and am ready to give my full opinion on it.

The movie is about Lisa (Reese Witherspoon) who is cut from the USA softball team because she is too old and is having an early mid life crisis. She doesn’t know what to do with her life and she is in a love triangle between Matty (Owen Wilson) a self centered playboy ball player and George (Paul Rudd) the nice guy who is currently being indicted by the government due to the actions of his corrupt father played by Jack Nicholson.

Well I guess I’m going to be cutting the tension short by already talking about the things I don’t like. One of my problems I guess is the fact all of the characters are rather unlikable. Matty is a self centered prick who sleeps around, Charles (Jack Nicholson) is a corporate swindle who wants his son to do time for him, Lisa is a neurotic and frantic to the point of very annoying, and George is a doormat. Now I understand that many stories have a flawed character that grows during the course of the story. But it doesn’t help when all the characters start out insufferable and end up moderately annoying. This sort of transitions to my next problem which is the acting.

First off, don’t bother watching this movie for Jack Nicholson. He is a supporting character and of the time he is there he is not that funny. You are expecting some classic “Jack: manic rambling but he doesn’t do any of that. In fact, it is a running “joke” that he has to tone down his mood swings because he doesn’t want to upset a pregnant woman in the office. It’s not funny. I didn’t come to this movie to see Jack Nicholson give a reserved performance, I came to see him chew $50 million dollars worth of scenery. Paul Rudd, who shares about half the screen time, is (in my opinion) woefully miscast as George. Paul works best as kind of a dick who throws out funny one liners at people. In this movie he is playing the part of a spineless loser. He lacks confidence, he does not stand up for himself in anything, and is such a doormat for Lisa he is practically begging her for sex. Those traits are not appealing to women nor are they charming for the guys in the audience. The only person I somewhat liked was Owen Wilson but he is just doing the same Owen schtick he has always been doing.

Apparently this movie has been in the works since about 2005 and Brooks really cared about the story lines about both the female softball player and about corporate corruption. The problem is he really has nothing to say about anything. There is no satire about corporate America or anything resembling that. This movie is all a rom com about Lisa choosing between Matty and George. That’s it. There are no twists or surprises in this script either. Pretty much what you think is going to happen does. The only thing this story does do is take what should be a light hearted comedy and make it rather melodramatic. Characters are always stressed out about this or that, they are snipping at one another, or they are crying because life is sitting on their faces. I was feeling more exhausted by this movie that anything else and it doesn’t help this movie is just at two hours. By the end I was just so done with everything: the characters, the story, the lame humor, everything.

I really didn’t think I would hate this movie as much as I did. All of these actors usually have enough natural charisma as to make even the lamest movie somewhat enjoyable. It’s too bad that Brooks singles each actor out and gives them characters tailor made for them to play against their strengths. I hated this movie and I don’t think anyone else should go out and see this. Let it bomb.

 

Horsemen (2009) Jonas Akerman

Posted in H on April 7, 2011 by moviemoses

Production Budget: $20 million

Gross: $1 million

Recently widowed police detective Aidan Breslin (Denis Quaid) is brought in for a set of murders which follow somewhat with a passage in Revelation…sort of…well no.

SPOILERS IF YOU CARE

I wasn’t expecting to see a bunch of Se7en rip offs this month but with Suspect Zero and Horsemen it seems to be the case. Except this is Se7en with a bit of an emo tinge to it. So there are supposed to be four murders and four killers which assume the mantle of one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Revelation is themed all throughout but what does it factor into as far as the plot? Absolutely nothing. I’m serious. For all the quotes from the Bible and all the religious subtext when you find out what the killers are really after it has nothing to do with the Bible. You would think this has to do with devil worshipers or some religious cult. Nah. Okay, I guess I better go into the plot.

So when we first start out Breslin is looking after horrible torture deaths with no apparent motive behind it. All of the victims have a family member that is somewhat associated with the murder. Each victim has a killer which is linked to some personal tragedy in the family. For example, Ziyi Zhang plays a daughter of a sexually abusive foster father played by Peter Stormare (yeah, Peter Stormare plays a creepy guy, original). So Ziyi murders Stormare’s wife…who was completely innocent of everything. You see how this doesn’t make sense? Ziyi explains it by saying “What would hurt worse: killing the man responsible, or having him live with the pain of losing his wife forever?” I’m pretty sure death hurts worse. Plus it doesn’t change the fact he could still be sexually assaulting you. How bout this, how about you actually imprison or kill the person who is raping you all the time?

The second suspect kidnaps his brother who hates the fact that he is gay. The suspect hangs up his brother and kills himself in front of him. What purpose does this serve? Nothing, because he still hates gay people. Meanwhile, Detective Breslin is taking his wife’s death very hard and has been detached from his family life. And if you haven’t guessed the twist, don’t worry, they slam you over the head with it about a billion times. Yes, it turns out Breslin’s son is the head of the Horsemen and is also the head of an online group in which thousands of others have pledged to be Horsemen. Breslin’s son started the group and has been organizing the crimes so that deadbeat parents all over the world can realize the harm in not being there for their children. And with that, he commits suicide in front of Breslin and Breslin promises to be a better father to his much younger child.

Oh my aching ass. So let me get this straight, this guy takes care of all your needs. He feeds you, clothes you, puts a roof over your head, and works his ass off because he is the sole provider of a family of three. This is the same guy who was a loving and caring parent up until about a year ago when his wife died and he is having emotional problems because of it. So because this guy has not been as good a father as he once was and is having difficulties, he is AS BAD as a rapist father and a bigoted brother who probably physically abuses his sibling? Bite me.

The thing is, I don’t really have a problem with a horror movie about kids rebelling against deadbeat parents. In fact I think it is an interesting idea. Upon reflection, this seems like a theme which is handled better by the Asian film market. With a movie like Pulse, you have the kind of alienation felt by the Internet age represented as ghosts that take away your will to live. Or for another example, Suicide Club, even though I wasn’t a huge fan of that movie it is for other reasons. Point is, I think it takes a skilled writer/director to pull off a theme like that and not some whiny kid who complains that daddy doesn’t take him to a Red Wings game. Again, I’m serious.

Okay, let’s talk about the acting. Ziyi Zhang’s casting is a complete mystery to me and I have no idea why she is in this movie. I almost think they were surprised she even signed on they had to rewrite the script to make her the only adopted 30 year old girl in an all white family. She doesn’t do well since she has to struggle with her English and there really is no reason for her to be in this movie. Dennis Quaid is also miscast in the lead role. Quaid tries his best, but he does not strike me as the career driven detective who is a hard on his luck deadbeat when he is off the clock.

The movie tries to keep the interest of the viewer with a bunch of different red herrings. The director distracts us with gory images, a sub plot about a hanging fetish, and red herrings about the Bible but he can only distract you for so long. The movie only runs about 80 minutes and even there the plot feels stretched to the limit. The movie is competently made and I guess I can give the director credit for trying. I didn’t really HATE this movie, but at the end of the day it is a bad and forgettable movie.

 

Hello Dolly! (1969) Gene Kelly

Posted in H on November 30, 2010 by moviemoses

Production Budget: $25 million

 

Hello Dolly! was a part of Fox’s attempt to cash in on The Sound of Music’s success. Three large scale movies were made: Doctor Dolittle, Star, and Hello Dolly. Even though I don’t have the numbers for Dolly, all three movies were a financial failure and it took Fox several years to get over the loss. One of the more amusing stories I read was about the animosity between Barbara Streisand and Walter Matthau. They apparently despised one another and would only be on set when they had to. Matthau hated her so much there is another story about how he and co-star Michael Crawford going to a horse race. Matthau wouldn’t bet on a horse called Hello Dolly because it reminded him of Streisand and when Crawford won a bet on that horse, Matthau refused to acknowledge him publicly after it (IMDb).

 

The story is about matchmaker for hire Dolly Levi (Barbara Streisand). She was hired by the rich Horace Vandergelder (Walter Matthau) to get him married to another woman, but Dolly wants to marry Vandergelder for herself. Meanwhile, Dolly helps two of Vandergelder’s shop clerks have a fun night on the town and Vandergelder’s niece get married.

 

I would always read about filmmaking in the 70’s and the various New Waves and about how they were rebelling against the old Hollywood. I would read that, but I don’t think I fully understood until I finally saw Hello Dolly! This is the most phoney movie I have seen in a long long time. Everything about this movie is fake and false. There are no genuine emotions, only people badly acting emotions. Like a defective stepford wife, they portray creepy toothy grins that show more an alien understanding of happiness than anything real. The characters talk and talk and talk and talk and talk over the most useless crap. Much like Ichi the Killer, I felt like sticking pins in my ears to make the pain go away. This is like four hours of Three’s Company crammed into a two and a half hour movie; its too much crap crammed in too long a run time for a movie. Why should I care about any of these people? Dolly is an annoying gold digger. She only wants Vandergelder for his money. Vandergelder is uncharismatic cock who deserves major league comeuppance. We are supposed to root for two shallow unappealing douchebags to get together. Oh rejoice!

 

I don’t know if I’m crazy here. Apparently this movie is well liked on IMDb (almost a 7/10 user rating) as well as being prominently featured on the Pixar movie Wall E. But nothing in this movie worked for me: there is no story, there are no likable characters, and the cast is inconsistent to say the least. Walter Matthau is only beat out by Lee Marvin in Paint Your Wagon as an actor I would least like to see in a musical. Yeah, some of the songs are enjoyable, but after two and a half hours of nothing happening, I just wanted the pain to go away. I understand that stage productions need to be long. After all, the customers are buying more expensive tickets and want to feel like they are getting their moneys worth. However I would love to see a movie musical that doesn’t overstay its welcome and moves at a quick pace.

 

I don’t think I’m a grinch. I have liked many a movie musical (although I admit its my least favorite genre) even bombs I previously reviewed. Hello Dolly just got under my skin and makes me hate the Hollywood of the time. It has sparked rebellious tendencies. It makes me want to get a tattoo, shave my head into a mohawk, read about Che Guevara, and watch some Lars von Trier. Chaos reigns!