erigby - you & I are definitely on the same page here. I like the way you think about this.
I thought in general the movie was very fun, if self-conscious about it. I loved Abba anyway and it was fun to see the songs incorporated into it. However…
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
And when was this daughter supposed to have been conceived anyway? Supposedly, she’s 20, so she had to have been born c. 1988, but then they show pictures of Pierce Brosnan in 60’s hippie garb and sing about the “time of flower power.”
[/QUOTE]
This was one part that bugged me throughout. Same with Ya-Ya Sisterhood where the 60ish women (in the 90s) were supposed to have gone to the premier of Gone with the Wind (1939) as late-teenagers. Use Flock of Seagulls haircuts if you want to show how goofy the guys were.
But the worst part was Meryl’s Streep’s mannerisms. It was like she went to the Diane Keaton school of hand fluttering and hemming and hawing. So distracting.
My apologies if the thread is supposed to be purely appreciation.
Oh, and we watch everyone else with their tongues down each other’s throats but the gay guys only get to hug. I understand the reluctance to show same-sex kissing in a “mainstream” movie, but with everything else that was going on it’s hardly over the top.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I saw Mamma Mia this afternoon. I’m sorry, but I have to agree with the critics that it’s dreadful. The only good thing about it is the songs, and even then, it’s better just to listen to original Abba recordings.
I could forgive a lot just for the music, but the story was so insultingly stupid, the characters such morons and the performances so over the top and cheesy, that the movie just wasn’t toleable for me. The girl playing the daughter was awful. She’s eye candy, sure, but she overacts all the way through it. Everybody overacts in this thing. It’s like they all think they’re in a stage production. Everybody is shouting all the time and they’re all WAY too over excited, but the daughter ramps it up to where it was almost obnoxious. She needs to tone it down about 12 notches.
And the story is really, REALLY idiotic, even for a chick flick. Seriously, all these dudes are just going to up and go to Greece at the drop of a hat because (they think) some chick they banged 20 years ago is inviting them to her daughter’s wedding? Then they’re all going live secretly in an attic? Then the mom is just going to believe they all showed up at the same time just by coincidence?
And when was this daughter supposed to have been conceived anyway? Supposedly, she’s 20, so she had to have been born c. 1988, but then they show pictures of Pierce Brosnan in 60’s hippie garb and sing about the “time of flower power.” Another character references Johhny Rotten when he talks about the time in question.
I could go on and on and on about the myriad inanities, both large and small in this film, but I won’t. I don’t know anything about the stage show and maybe it all comes from that, but I couldn’t get past how stupid the story was. I think it was also poorly directed and cast. Pierce Brosnan can’t sing. Meryl Streep can, and it goes without saying that she can act. She’s probably the best thing about the movie other than the songs and Amanda Seyfried in a bathing suit, but the material is beneath her. I think even she overdoes it with her overwrought performance of “Winner Takes it all.” This movie needed a director whith the ability to reign in the the overly theatrical performances and honestly, if the script came straight from the stage show, it needed to be overhauled as well.
ETA, for the record, I liked Hairspray, and I thought I would at least enjoy MM for the music, but the horrible story and direction made it difficult. I still have the goddamn title song going through my head, though. What infernal demon wrote all those Abba hooks?
[/QUOTE]
Word
My daughters (who saw the stage show and loved it) and I saw it last night. They thought it was terrible. One said that it took every good thing about play and ruined it. I thought it was fairly crappy. The one saving grave was Tanya - Christine Baransky who always manges to emerge smelling like a rose in whatever septic tank she enters.
Supposedly the director had all the leads sing their own songs because she WANTED it to sound crappy and like an American Idol group song gone horrible wrong. Mission Accomplished.
I can only assume that the intervention by Pierce Bronson’s family and friends went for naught as he very successfully ruined his career as a dashing leading man when he opened his mouth in song. I will never again be able to look at him without remembering the frog croaks he tried to pass as singing.
I saw it this weekend and thoroughly enjoyed the ride!! It was silly and inconsequential, very much like (as one reviewer pointed out) the early comedies of Shakespeare. It was a great counterpoint to the recent crop of movies featuring flawed super-heroes. In fact, the only movie I have enjoyed more this year was “Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day”.
And Christine Baranski… Rowrr!
I hate going to the movies, but I really *really * want to see this. It looks like perfect mindless escapism, and I love *love * ***love ** * just about everything ABBA ever recorded. So, the question is - do I agree to go see something my spousal unit wants to see, then get him to go to this with me, or do I just wait till it makes it to cable?
Decisions, decisions…
Go to see this, by yourself, if need be. The last thing I’d want in a movie theater is a spouse there on sufferage. I’m sure you’ve seen any number of films you didn’t want to, so now it’s his turn. But, I would not want anyone bringing me down from my fun, so I say go alone.
Or rent the DVD when it comes out, but why wait? Let the sheetrock go hang and go have FUN. You deserve it. 
Yeah go see this at the movies. You might wind up with a crowd that claps and sings along. You also get to see the fantastic Greek isle scenery on the big screen. Oh, and Pierce Brosnan in a wet t-shirt on the big screen too
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Go to see this, by yourself, if need be. The last thing I’d want in a movie theater is a spouse there on sufferage.
[/QUOTE]
Why would anyone want to vote in a movie theatre?
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I don’t expect to change your mind and you are welcome to your opinion, but consider this: this is one of the very few movies in which men of Colin Firth’s, Pierce Brosnan’s and the Swedish guy’s age not only don’t get the woman young enough to be their daughter, but also show NO interest in her in that way. For that ALONE, it is worth the price of admission. To see middle aged male characters actually finding their female peers attractive is a miracle for Hollywood.
[/QUOTE]
So? Are you making a comment on the sexism of Hollywood? 'cause I think both genders get shafted when it comes to genres aimed at the opposite sex. Like how all men in so called “chick flicks” are just female fantasies in human form.
I went to see it on Saturday, just so I could answer the age-old question: Which movie is gayer: Mamma Mia! or The Dark Knight? (Mamma Mia! pulled ahead to stay with the closing credits sequence)
In all seriousness (which I understand is against the rules when discussing this movie), there were some brilliant moments, and some duds. Part of the problem is that ABBA, in their time, produced some incredibly exciting, catchy music… but beyond the title song, Dancing Queen (that scene was almost worth the price of admission), and a few others, the rest is just OK. There’s not a catalog that can carry a whole movie, especially one as weakly written as this.
I never saw the stage show; I’ve seen enough stories in both forms to understand that a brilliant stage musical can be destroyed in the transition (i.e. The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas).
Across the Universe was weak, I thought, but that Beatles catalog could hold up four more weakly written movies without repeating a song. Most of the music couldn’t carry this movie, though it would be interesting to see what Rob Marshall could have done with it…
Haven’t seen it yet–but I have seen it on Broadway so I’m not exactly worried about spoilers.
That said–Amanda Seyfreid overacts? That’s surprising, because in “Big Love,” she’s one of my favorite actresses to watch…she was also good in “Mean Girls.” This is a different sort of role, though.
I haven’t seen this movie but I don’t plan on it either.
I am a theatre major,thus, I am totally against casting big-name actors who can’t sing to save their lives. I would much rather they cast people from Broadway who actors who are astounding singers who don’t carry a big name.
I saw Mamma Mia! when it came to my city on tour and I LOVED IT!! It was so fun and full of energy! But Meryl Streep!!! Ugh!!!
I don’t think I could take seeing another musical turned movie that they just ruined. First, Phantom of the Opera, then Rent, then Hairspray, now Mamma Mia!.
I wish they would stop.
[QUOTE=queenquimarie]
I haven’t seen this movie but I don’t plan on it either.
I am a theatre major,thus, I am totally against casting big-name actors who can’t sing to save their lives. I would much rather they cast people from Broadway who actors who are astounding singers who don’t carry a big name.
[/QUOTE]
I felt that way about “Chicago.” I was so wishing they’d have Bebe Neuwirth as Velma. And anyone but Renee Zellweger as Roxie.
Re this age thing–why is it assumed that this movie is supposed to be today, that is, 2008?
I put the older women to be in their twenties when ABBA’s (aka Donna and the Dynamos’) hits were hits (after all, they are supposed to be nostalgic for their commercial success), so they were say 24* in 1978. For those of you who weren’t around in 1978, there were still hippies around. I went off to college in 1980 and in Boulder CO, there were STILL hippies laying about.
Colin Firth’s character was a punker/ headbanger, but the time was a mix of dying trends and emerging new sounds.
Anyway, that makes the movie smack in the late 1990s. There were cell phones etc back then. Frankly, the most implausible bit is that Villa Donna does not have internet, but given the way Donna talks about it (he’s going to get me on the line), it sounds like it was the late 90s when its usage and prevalence was just exploding.
BTW,I meant sufferance, but a bit of Mrs Parks would have been interesting!
*I’m guessing the age. If “Donna” had “Sophy” when she as 20, then the time of their success was even earlier, perhaps 1976 when more hippies etc would have been in evidence. The 70s didn’t do pregnant girl groups, so I think Donna and the Dynamos had to split up. Also, don’t overthink this. The YaYa movie was so bad that I missed the whole bit about GTWT and the sisterhood… :eek:
See I didn’t mind Catherine Zeta-Jones as Velma because she actually got her start in live theatre. So she actually possesses (sp?) singing and dancing ability.
[QUOTE=queenquimarie]
I haven’t seen this movie but I don’t plan on it either.
I am a theatre major,thus, I am totally against casting big-name actors who can’t sing to save their lives. I would much rather they cast people from Broadway who actors who are astounding singers who don’t carry a big name.
I saw Mamma Mia! when it came to my city on tour and I LOVED IT!! It was so fun and full of energy! But Meryl Streep!!! Ugh!!!
I don’t think I could take seeing another musical turned movie that they just ruined. First, Phantom of the Opera, then Rent, then Hairspray, now Mamma Mia!.
I wish they would stop.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but Chicago was successful and Rent tanked. There could be other reasons for this than the casting of course, but there’s something to the “cast big film names” approach. Hairspray had some big names in some good roles, and did mediocre at the box office.
Enjoy,
Steven
Any time you try to move a show from stage to screen there are compromises, edits re-writes, any number of issues that potential disaster associated with them. It is going to be a different show, and should be judged on its own merits rather than compared to its predecessor.
I liked Chicago a lot. Never saw it on stage, with or without Bebe Neuwirth (who I love). I’ll concede that, for those who’ve seen both, the stage show puts the movie to shame, but the movie was great (Oscars, 2002?). I give a lot of credit to Rob Marshall and Bill Condon for the successful transition. I think it would have worked as well with other (maybe even unknown) actors, but it’s hard to say.
Best Little Whorehouse in Texas was a great stage show and it was ruined in the transition. Hairspray worked on the screen (of course it began on the screen). The Producers sucked, even with the original Broadway cast.
I never saw Mamma Mia! on stage; I’m sure it was brilliant. The movie is not.
My wife and I saw it last night on as a fluke. A storm knocked out our power, so we went to the theater and decided to watch whatever movie was playing next. Mamma Mia! it was.
According to my male friends, my ‘guy card’ was cut down in size; to which a woman I work with noted that my ‘husband card’ just got a little stronger!
I actually liked it. I thought Streep did a fantastic job; as did the overacting Amanda whatshername. Unfortunately, I was caught more than once today whistling various ABBA tunes without realizing it. :o
It was good clean fun. After the movie, during the credits people got up in front of the theater and danced. It was pretty cool.
Yes. The people in the theater stayed in their seats and just watched the credits go by, singing along to Donna and her backup girls. And the audience applauded–I haven’t heard that in a long time–it was nice.
I plan on seeing it again next week. Sometimes just plain fun is enough.