drjgardner

I came to the show hoping to see a film, but instead I saw a filmed version of the stage show. In most cases, filmed versions of stage shows fail because they are two very different environments. In the early part of the 20th century this was less true because neither films nor stage productions were seen by many, and also because the technology of film production was still in its infancy. Nowadays, with film production techniques so advanced, the film allows so much more than the stage, that filming a stage production is difficult to do successfully.

I didn't see Wicked on stage, but having viewed the film, I can see how it was a very good play, But what kind of a film was it? Very poor. Let me start.

The lip syncing was done very poorly, which is easy to see on a big screen. The cgi was amateurish at best, detracting from the film's value. The dancing was pure theatric, with little use of the camera except to record it. Great in a theater, boring on film.

Then we have the Munchkins. When did they get so tall. I thought they were tiny people. Looked stupid to have suich big Munchkins.

More substantially, I didn't think the quality of the voices was up to speed. Good, yes. Very good? No. Judy Garland? Certainly not.

The acting? Mediocre. Was it supposed to be mediocre to make a point? Who knows. Only the Wicked Witch and the Wizard were any good, and the Wizard was simply doing what Jeff always does.

The story. Way tooooooooooooooo long. With such bad direction and mediocre acting I thought I was being punished. At least 30 minutes could be cut doing no damage to the film.

To summarize, nothing in the film deserved to be filmed, but many of us can be happy that now we've seen the play. What a deep disappointment that when given the chance to make a spectacular film they resorted to filming the stage production.

There are so many things wrong with this film it's hard to list them all. Let me simply list the two that most annoyed me. First, there is nothing here that warrants the 20 year time lag between I and II. Neither the action nor the cgi nor the script nor the acting nor the direction nor anything else is better than the 24 year old version. Why make it?

Then there's Densel Washington. A Black American-speaking, modern moving person in a pivotal role. It's laughable. In fact I often laughed when he came on the screen. Ludicrous to say the least. Then there's the fight between the Washington character and the child grown up character and you have to won der why that fight is in the film at all. How can you expect the Washington character to vanquish a gladiator? Just stupid.

The first time I saw Mean Streets I thought it was great. I watched it a few times since and thought maybe it wasn't so great. Just saw it again and decided that, in retrospect, it is not even good. Of course all films need to be evaluated for their place and time. So it's not fair to look back and evaluate. But I'll do it anyway, because there are so many films that last.

Think Public Enemy, Dracula, Frankenstein, Citizen Caine, Wizard of Oz, GWTW, and countless others that managed to keep their value even as decades advanced.

Mean Streets doesn't, for me. The music adds little to the film and often is discordant. Better selections and timing would be good. Yes, at the time it was an innovation, but doesn't hold up.

The ending is just ridiculous. Did they run out of money to film a better ending?