Sad In My City

Sex and the City 2
Long review short: I walked out.

Long review longer: The film opened today in the U.S. and opens tomorrow in the U.K. (I hope the U.K. doesn't read any of the U.S. reviews...or maybe I do...)

I knew NOTHING about this film until the bad reviews started being posted everywhere (of which, I read none. And yes: I CAN read!) and then people started posting Liza Minnelli's cover of Beyoncé's 'Single Ladies' all over the Facebook. (So there's that spoiler.) OH and then of course EVERYONE knew that Aidan was back.

Anyhoo, the movie MORE OR LESS brings the audience up to speed on what the girls have been up to in like the first 10 minutes of the 2 hour and 30 minute film. (You heard me: Two and a half hours...I lasted one and a half...where the movie SHOULD have ended.) After that there's a wedding (see how I don't ruin things?) and this is when we find out the film should have been called BUDGET and the City. Good GOD that wedding scene looked fucking expensive. People were shitting diamonds and eating gold while swimming in emeralds and burning hundred dollar bills to frighten away the unicorned swans.

We get it kids, you got money this time...A LOT.

Where was I? Oh, so as we all figured anyway, Big and Carrie are having marriage issues (yawn), Charlotte isn't as happy as she'd thought she be (Um, didn't I see this in the Act Two opening of Into The Woods?), Samantha is having trouble getting it up (quelle surprise!? Is that ALL they could come up with?) and Miranda is still married to one ball with that NOT cute kid of theirs.

Now, it doesn't matter how, but a Sheik approaches Samantha to go to Abu Whatsitcalled to make his hotel as big a star as she made Smith Jarrod.

*At this point I would like EVERYONE to relax. The entire film DOES not take place in the Middle East. Only the last hour. Unless they left the middle east when I left my middle seat.

When they get on the airline to go to Kareem Abu, this is when the TRAGIC tourism commercial starts and doesn't end until you...well, I walk out. Seriously, it's laughable. We get it: THEY FINANCED THE FILM. But what I don't get is that these girls are the cream of the crop and have seen and done everything. Living in a GIANT hotel and flying on a private plane doesn't need to take up 20 minutes, which really feels like 20 years.

Whatever. Anyway, after we see ALL that Morocco Abu Ghraib has to offer, Carrie runs into Aidan while shopping for...wait for it...wait for it... shoes.

I have no idea what this movie is and/or was about. I even went on to Wikipedia to read what happens and I STILL don't know, or care, what happens. The scene the sent me over the edge was as they were driving from the shopping alley through the desert, they past a billboard of The King of Siam or whoever and they do this weird zoom thing that gave me immediate flashbacks of Protocol with Goldie Hawn and thought if THIS is where they're going with this: I'M OUT!



I guess as you can tell I actually hated the film and didn't realize it until I started typing. I just wanted it to be SO good. I wanted to catch up with my girls and have a cosmo (you should have at least 2 if you still plan on going to see it) and get inspired by their clothes. But I didn't. I mean on top of everything else, the film just felt stale as a whole. Like WE had grown and they had not. Which I can't get. If even not at characters, at LEAST as actors they should have grown a little.

I will say Sarah Jessica Parker as Carrie, was the only one who didn't seem schticky. Sure the character still had life issues but the actress kept it real. She still made you smile, she still made her perfect jokes, she still justifiably argued really well and she still dressed like a million bucks. (minus that hat at the wedding. Is that thing even REALLY a hat? ) Samantha seemed exhausted and at a few points it looked like they did pickup shots months later and she had had some kind of 'procedure' done. But PEOPLE: We expect her to get laid, we expect her to be naked, we expect to see some hot guy's ass, but after you show all of that in the first 25 minutes of the film, it's the same old stuff (but not good this time) and it's boring. LIKE TWO MORE HOURS BORING.

Add to that Charlotte is now just a caricature of herself. ( It's all eyes and headbands, people.) and then there's poor Kate Jackson Miranda. Ouch. Jokes falling flat, outfits not quite perfect, rushing to get her out of every scene. Wow. It's just...wow. Kill her off already for God's sakes!

I did not see this scene but it looks like Patricia Field took a day off and Edina from AbFab took over.

Didn't see this scene either. Don't care. They're still on sand hiding their denial. I did that in eighth grade.

This was the photo I saw that should have given me the heads up the film wasn't going to work. Karaoke? Really? I hate you.

No good can come of karaoke in a movie. Didn't the writer see Duets?

See What I Wanna See

This past Sunday I had the PRIVILEGE to see the west coast premiere of See What I Wanna See at The Blank Theater.

It was AMAZING.

To begin to tell you what it's about is a little hard. It's a musical by Michael John LaChiusa based on three short stories by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa. It sounds SUPER arty, but it's not. Don't let that scare you. It's not artsy for arts sake, it's thought provoking, moving, interesting and compelling.

I'm one of those guys that will happily click through itunes when they give me suggestions of things I might like. One time SWIWS was featured and I clicked through to it. Not knowing ANYTHING about the show, there WERE a few songs that I downloaded because they were SO good (Including Kesa and There Will Be A Miracle). The soundtrack as a whole is REALLY hard to follow and sounds WAY off-broadway, which is SURE to turn some people off (think Drowsy Chaperone), but in context the music is wonderful, creative and new. (Again, think Drowsy Chaperone)

Leading the talented cast is 2009 Olivier Award (the UK equivalent of the Tony Awards) Winner Lesli Margherita as the role originally played by Audra McDonald in conception and Idina Menzel in production and I gotta tell you: Lesli gives them a run for their money, not just vocally but as an actress and performer. Margherita gives you the entire package and actually made me think there was NO WAY Idina could have done this role justice. Lesli makes you laugh, cry, think, hate and love. There wasn't a single thing wrong with her performance.

Doug Carpenter is the male lead and again another brilliant performer. His voice is sexy and luscious, his performance provocative and his undertaking of making the subject matter relatable, understandable and justifiable is a talent all in it's own. (If you want to just see him be handsome and sing his guts out, check out his upcoming cabaret debut at Sterling's Upstairs May 30th!)

The rest of the fabulous cast is rounded out with Jason Graae, Perry Ojeda and Suzan Soloman. Graae gives a classic Broadway performance, Perry is awesome in the second act and Suzan did a fabulous job singing one of the songs I downloaded (and didn't want to be ruined OR I'D KILL HER) There Will Be A Miracle.

Of course I'm BITTER that I didn't see this sooner so that I could tell you all to go out and see it, but since it MUST CLOSE on Sunday May 30th, 2010 YOU HAVE TO GO SEE IT! BUY TICKETS HERE!!!

MacGruber

Here's the thing: it got me. I don't know HOW, but it got me.

Was it hysterical? Yes, parts. Was it boring? Like two parts but that's okay, it gives you time to recover from some hysterical scenes and go over what you want to do after the movie, in your head. (We're VERY busy people you and I!). Is it worth $13.50? Yes and no. I didn't walk out, so I didn't feel gypped but I would have TOTALLY felt like it was WAY worth it if it were a $7.50 matinee. (Do they even still have those? *sigh* I don't want to get old...)

Story Synopsis:
MacGruber is about... well, MacGruber.

First thing: I hate Ryan Phillippe. Second thing: I hate stunt casting. (Sorry Mr. Witherspoon you're shit out of luck on this one.)

Will Forte (who is KILLING on 30 Rock right now) as MacGruber is EXACTLY the way he is in the SNL skits, so if you don't like 'em, I don't know if you should go. Whenever I watch the skits I always think: "I get that they're supposed to be funny, I just don't know why I don't laugh."


The reason I went to the film REALLY was for Kristen Wiig. (P.S.: that link is to her super useless website) As Vicki St. Elmo she's funny, but just like MOST SNL flicks, something is ALWAYS falling short. Like why is she dressed like the 70's when it's OBVIOUSLY a movie that takes place in the 80's? Is that supposed to be funny? I don't know. She's funny, but she's not always funny...and that clothes gag isn't funny at all. We get it: your Cords have Cameltoe. NEXT!

(Not a good upsale, I know. Fine. She's funny. As a matter of fact Daniel and I laughed for the rest of the day after one of her lines... so she was FRICKIN' HYSTERICAL!!!)

Um, whatelse? Uh, Val Kilmer got hungry. Like REAL hungry. I don't know WHAT they're feeding these aging male 80's stars, but Val Kilmer is more bloated than the new Two Tons of Fun: Tom Hanks and John Travolta.

Yeah you know what, I'm still not upsaleing this movie yet... IT'S FUNNY! It's funny because you don't know what to expect or maybe because you hate the skits and think there's NO WAY it could actually be funny, so since you're expectations are so low there's no way it could fail.

I think what people are going to be amazed by are "A" There's an ACTUAL plot. It's simplistic, but it's a plot. "B" The sight-gags, gross out humor and lines crossed. There's a lot of them and they're funny. I don't know WHAT Ryan Phillippe got paid to do some of the stuff he did, but I'm sure it wasn't enough. (Or apparently, it was.)

I will say this: I wanted it a little more Naked Gun-esque. THEN it would have been genius.


In closing: SNL movies are usually so "Bubblegum" and this was NOT. This was VERY Something About Mary humor, you know back when that first came out, and it made you wonder if this is what SNL would be like if it were on cable.

..and if being on cable would be a good thing.

How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying

Reprise! concluded their 2009-2010 season with Frank Loesser's homage to corporate America HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING. In these current times when businesses are failing, this production does not.

The most I REALLY knew about this production was the performance from the 1995 Tony Awards featuring Matthew Broderick and favorite Broadway diva Lillias White. It's a 'classic' musical, as my friend Daniel says, which always makes me think of Oklahoma which ALWAYS makes me think of slitting my wrists. WHO CAN SIT THROUGH THAT SHIT?!

Well, boy was I wrong.

Long story short, this musical is about a guy who wants to climb his way up the corporate ladder and can't take any time to be detoured by slackers, missed opportunities...or love. (Ahh, musicals.) Josh Grisetti stars as THAT guy: J. Pierrepont Finch. He was WONDERFUL. Charming, funny, talented and a great voice. His arch-nemesis, Bud Frump, is played by The Big Bang Theory's Simon Helberg. On one hand he was great, on the other hand it's really a hard role to play because there is NOTHING redeeming about him so in the end you hate the character's guts and in the VERY end, I'm talking curtain call people, you don't want to clap for him 'cause he's such a douche. I couldn't figure out if that was Simon's fault or that he was just the victim of a good playwright.

John O'Hurley was totally enjoyable as the big boss Mr. Biggley. At our performance he flubbed a line and sent the entire scene, actors and audience into hysterics. It was VERY Hairspray's 'Timeless To Me' banter (if you're reading this website I'm assuming you'll know what I'm talking about). I was VERY proud of 'Finch' for being able to hold his own with the big boys and giving us one of the moments and reasons we attend musical theatre. Nicole Parker from MadTV was lovely. I don't really have much to say about it because it's a SUPER whiny-female-in-the-50's-I-have-to-get-married role that I just can't deal with.

With that said: Vicki Lewis, one of my ALL TIME favorites from TV's Newsradio, stole the show as secretary to the stars: Smitty. EVERYTHING she did was hysterically brilliant. Entrances, exits, holds, looks. All of it. She's doing an upcoming version of Funny Girl in Sacramento, that I may just have to go and see.


Here's a clip from the Tony Awards of the 1995 revival:


Although our production didn't have a sassy black woman who sang her ass off, this production worked it's ass off like any good employee who should be promoted does. This is the third production I've see at Reprise! and this one will bring me back for another. Congrats gang. Hopefully our economy will have the perfect happy ending that your production provides.

A Nightmare on Elm Street

I didn't hate it. Let's just get that out of the way: it wasn't a complete nightmare. (Pun possibly intended...)


Much like while watching the new Clash of the Titans, I tried not to hold against this film the experience I had watching the original movies when they first came out. (Um, when did I start getting old enough for them to remake my childhood films?! Mom, Non-Dad, I apologize for mocking your anger when they remade Alfie and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner).

Things I liked about this new version: I was scared. Like covering my eyes a few times because I knew I wasn't going to be able to handle being scared out of my chair and then mocked by the entire theater. (Yes, I'm referring to my experience watching Misery in 1990. Full theater + me screaming = Entire theater laughing at me and Jeff not coming to my rescue...this would continue on through most of my Freshman year in High School...).

I liked what they updated to... you know: RELATE to today's teenagers: Ipods, micro-naps, cops that taser you and yell 'Fuck' a lot for no reason. (Back in my day, they didn't do that. They said you're under arrest and then you said 'Okay' and then you got in the car and enjoyed your scenic, though screened, ride to your jail cell).

I also liked what their take on the UPDATED Characters is/was/are/were:

"Rod" Jsu Garcia / Thomas Dekker "Jesse"
Apparently sexy ethnic transfers to Adam Lambert knock-off

'Glen' Johnny Depp / Kyle Gallner 'Quentin'
See, in the 80's boyfriends supported you and wanted to just hang out and listen to their Walkman with their over-sized headphones. NOW they just want you to take their prescription medication and shut up.

That's not nice, 2010 boyfriends.

'Tina' Amanda Wyss / Katie Cassidy 'Still Tina'
Take a look people. See what 20 years did to sluts? On the left, just a girl who likes to have sex and then get murdered. She doesn't LOOK like a whore. She doesn't DRESS like a whore, she just simply IS one. (and we know that by her 1984 Madonna eyebrows) The New Tina however, has more tits than hair extensions and believe me when I say: that's a lot. Her constant lip gloss, even when sleeping, along with her constant short shorts...yep, even when sleeping, leads you to WANTING her to get killed just so that then the homeless drag queens of America will have enough cosmetic supplies for the rest of their lives because of all the products she'll have left behind.

'Nancy' Heather Langenkamp / Rooney Mara 'Edgy Nancy'
Judging by the the picture on the left, that girl would be classified as a nerd. But she wasn't. Nerd Girls don't wear sweater vests, only rich ones do....DID. Sure her mom was a drunk, but that's okay because our girl's perm is growing out. Yes, kids THAT was an 'Outsider' in the 80's. Here in the "Zeros", the girl on the right is all edgy and dirty and can't dress herself well so she comes off as alternative but she's gonna prove she's actually someone by sketching with charcoal because charcoal is depressing (like her oily hair) and color-pencils mean that she hasn't struggled enough in her teenage angst years while watching Daria and totally relating.


Things I didn't like: Drunk Mom is now Tina's mother and gets one line and is never seen again. EVERYONE LOVED how drunk mom stole every scene she was in, in the original. Now: nothing.

Umm, I didn't like Freddy's new make-up. You can totally see their thought behind it: "We have money now, let's make him look like an ACTUAL burn victim. You know where stuff is melted together so they can't really talk and it's hard to understand them and you can't really tell what they're doing? Yeah like that!" Um, yeah..and that's JUST how it came across: He couldn't move his mouth, everything was dubbed and he hid in the shadows for 7/8ths of the film because it was NOT a good make-up job. He looks like a dusty Mummy.

I hated that Nancy couldn't do it alone in the new version. This is SUCH a typical message nowadays. I thought about it while watching a particular scene and said to myself that Nancy was a MUCH stronger female character in the original. Girl's could walk away thinking they could do anything, come up with anything and protect themselves while doing it. Not this one, honey. You need a man or else you're dead.

I REALLY HATED that they go into what Freddy REALLY did for the parents to turn on him. I guess in the '00's no one has imagination or can't figure anything out so EVERY THING needs to be spelled out and then explicitly shown, whereas 'back then' we could figure it out/knew what was going on and thought that 'spelling it out' was amateurish. DUH HE WAS A PEDOPHILE!!! NO SHIT!!!! I DON'T WANT TO WATCH SCENE AFTER SCENE ABOUT SEXUAL ABUSE. I'm good. It's not scary. What's scary is that the filmmakers think that they're smart and cool and newfangled because they're telling you what you already knew, but you had never SEEN it before, so it doesn't count that you knew it.

The final thing I hated (POSSIBLE SPOILER!!!!!) was that Freddy no longer drags his claws to make that screeching noise that gave us ACTUAL nightmares. Um, ARE YOU KIDDING ME PEOPLE!?!?! That's a signature move. Taking away that screech is like taking away Saved By The Bell's Screech. It just doesn't work without it.