Tag Archives: review

BEETLEJUICE THE MUSICAL review

Posted on by
1

Stick to the movie. While I seldom review stage productions, whenever there is an adaptation from screen to stage, I am interested in reviewing it! Touring the country this year are Broadway versions of Beetlejuice, Moulin Rouge, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Clue. Quite the season for screen to stage adaptations. The film professor and critic in me is curious as to the narrative and experiential success of the stage version of a beloved classic movie. Some movies lend themselves to stage versions such as Moulin Rouge and Clue, but others require a bit more imagination such as Beetlejuice and Mrs. Doubtfire. I went into Beetlejuice with an open mind, as I had not read any of the reviews prior to watching it. Since I rarely watch trailers before I screen a film, I wanted to be as fair as possible to a Broadway show based on a movie. Suffice it to say, Beetlejuice the Musical failed to live up to the experience, reputation, and storytelling of the Tim Burton classic Beetlejuice.

Unfortunately, my impression of the musical was off to a negative start as the performance was delayed by 30-minutes–then compound that with two additional technical problem totaling about 30 more minutes of delays, and the musical was going to have to really work some magic to overcome the hobbling out the gate.

Since I am an expert in cinema (not Broadway), I am going to stick to my opinion of the translation from screen to stage, including narrative, design, and music.

The two areas wherein the show suffers most greatly is in narrative and music. But before I talk about the story and music, I want to focus on what the musical did well. And that is the set desigg, lighting, and effects.

Even though the set design, lighting, and effects may not be directly lifted from the stylized versions created by Tim Burton, there is a distinct style to the designs employed by the musical. All the sets feel like extensions of the movie, but still an original enough expression thereof. We even get the sandworm!! The appearance of the sandworm puppet was incredibly uplifting and brought the biggest smile to my face! Classic Burton designs are steeped in German expressionism, and that doesn’t entirely come through in the set designs; however, there are plenty of exaggerated shapes, harsh shadows, and emotive expressions in the design that remind us that this is a work inspired by the creative mind of Tim Burton. The technical theatre dimension of the show was outstanding! I adored the lighting and other effects that set the atmosphere and ambiance on stage.

The Broadway musical is a near complete departure from the movie version, and in the opening number Beetlejuice acknowledges that this is not the movie–however, it would have benefitted from being closer to the movie. When the musical is aligned with the movie, it works very well! Regrettably, when it departs from the movie, the plotting, characters, and music suffer. The best scenes in the show are the dinner party, the Netherworld, and the finale, all very much inspired by the movie. Throughout the show, there are movie moments recreated, but far too few. At least we got the memorable “I, myself, am strange and unusual” line. The stage Beetlejuice feels like a different character than Michael Keaton’s in the movie.

The dialogue and performative dimension of each character was forgettable. No one feels like they are an extension of the movie version, but a different character altogether. Even the dialogue was awful. I get it: Beetlejuice’s schtick is his crass, crude humor. But in the movie, it was always balanced out by more grounded characters and a tone of whimsy. This Beetlejuice is crass and crude simply to be crass and crude–with little paying off dramatically. While I appreciate some of the additional jokes, most were simply better suited for a standup routine than for a narrative work. The characters were speaking with the voices of the musical’s writers and not the voices of the characters as written for the movie. Each character is trying to be more over-the-top than the previous character, and what we wind up with is a cacophony of loud, boisterous, annoying characters.

The story is dramatically changed from the movie. To call it an adaptation is being generous, because there is little that is the same in both the plots from the movie and stage versions. Perhaps this is what happens when you take a 1.5hr movie and try to write a 2.5hr musical. There is simply an insufficient amount of plot to fill that additional hour. I suppose the foundation is the same, but the narrative is expressed very different in the stage version compared to the movie. When moments from the movie were included in the stage version, I literally clapped–that was about the only times I clapped during the performance. This musical should have stuck more closely to the plotting and characters of the movie instead of trying to improve upon it. Even though I will admit that some of the narrative connective tissue in the movie is a bit weak and some story elements feel disjointed, it’s in far more stable shape than the story from the musical.

Lastly, conspicuously absent from the stage version is the iconic Danny Elfman score. While there are moments in the musical’s songs and score that are somewhat reminiscent of the Elfman score, its absence was sorely felt. Not once did I hear the Beetlejuice theme music, not even in the overture or prologue. Elfman’s music is as stylistic as Burton’s cinematic visions, and this musical could have benefitted greatly from the music of Elfman. I had hoped that the musical numbers would have been like the musical numbers from The Nightmare Before Christmas, but they were not. They felt like generic AI-generated Broadway songs from another non-Burton-inspired intellectual property. Elfman’s music for films such as Beetlejuice, Batman and Batman Returns, and Nightmare Before Christmas cannot be lifted for and used for any other movie or stage production. His music is a tangible extension of the characters, plot, and atmosphere of the story. What we got was generic modern Broadway music and songs.

All in all, I was unimpressed with the musical, but I appear to be in the minority on my opinion of the show. My advice to anyone thinking of seeing this show is to go into it not wanting a stage adaptation of the movie, but rather a reimagination of the characters and concept from the movie.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOOON film review

Posted on by
Reply

Killers of the tension: an important story in desperate need of a better screenplay and editor. It’s a 3.5hr film that feels every bit of 3.5hrs. I’ve nothing against long run times per se; however, the run time needs to be justified dramatically. But unfortunately, the screenplay mechanics and editing (or lack thereof) hold this otherwise compelling story back from the great potential it demonstrably had. Lacking in any significant tension, this film had me looking at my watch after the first hour and a half. I kept waiting for it to kick into gear, but it never truly managed to amp up the tension. Furthermore, all the individual narrative elements never develop strong connective tissue. Even the performative dimension is good, but there lacks any singular performance that truly stands out. While cinema knows no run time, some stories are best told in 90 or 120mins, and this is definitely one of them.

In the 1920s, members of the Osage Native American tribe of Osage County, Oklahoma, are murdered after oil is found on their land, and the FBI decides to investigate.

One of the most highly anticipated films of the year over-promises and under-delivers. Which is a real shame because it depicts such an important story. While many will fixate on the run time alone, that would be unfair as it’s not the run time that is to blame for the lackluster narrative nature of this film. Rather, it is the screenplay mechanics and lack of precision editing.

As I have written many times previously, most directors are not writers. Are some? Well, sure. But most are not equally gifted in both areas. However, many writer-directors allow their ego to get in the way of excellence in writing because they feel it’s the only way to be a true auteur. Scorsese has nothing to prove to solidify him as an auteur, He is inarguably one of the greatest directors of all time. Scorsese’s Taxi Driver is one of the greatest films of all time and it’s under 120mins (2hrs). However, between The Irishman and now Killers of the Flower Moon, it’s as if he feels compelled to intentionally create films with prodigious run times to separate them from streaming content. Cinema knows no run time. Cinema is an experience, and that experience can be had in 90mins as well as 180mins. Like Nicole Kidman says, cinema is where we come together to experience the same film at the same time on a giant screen. Stories that have both plots and characters that are larger than life or incredibly intimate encounters. But I digress.

When a director is writing the screenplay, or has a significant role in the screenplay, then there lacks adequate checks and balances for screenwriting structure and mechanics. The long and short of it is that the story, ethos and all, may make sense in the director’s mind, but that doesn’t mean that it makes sense for the audience. Whereas when the screenwriter and directors are separate individuals, the screenwriter is able to focus solely on the pages in front of him or her without interference from a director. Killers of the Flower Moon strikes me as the type of story that would’ve benefitted from the director not being involved in the actual process. Because of all the nuance of the story and relationships between characters, perhaps this is a situation in which author David Grann writes the first draft and another more established screenwirter comes in from behind and shapes it into its film form (on page, anyway). We saw this with Jurassic Park, in which Crichton’s original screenplay was too novely and David Koepp was responsible for the final screen version.

Even though the screenplay is partly responsible for the improper pacing and lack of dramatic tension in the film, it shares the blame with the film editing (or dramatic montage). Alfred Hitchcock stated that writers and directors should “start each scene as close to the end of the scene as possible” What this means is that each and every scene should be lean and mean, only leaving room for that which advances either plot or character in a dramatic direction. The editing issue that plagues Killers of the Flower Moon is that scenes were either started too early or weren’t cut off in dramatic time. There is almost too much information in each scene that the lack of meaningful, precise editing acts as an anchor, dragging the film’s pacing. Contrary to popular belief, there is no too fast or too slow when it comes to the cadence of a film; but, there is such a thing as proper pacing. It’s the ideal pacing for the dramatic elements in the story.

Killers of the Flower Moon will make you want to read the book or simply look up information on the murders and investigation thereof. The film looks gorgeous and the performative dimension is solid, but as a total package, the film is underwhelming.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

The Exorcist: Caricature. Believer? How’s about unBelievably bonkers. The soulless derivative sequel to the original Friedkin masterpiece manages to be everything and nothing simultaneously. It’s a bastardization of the source material that demonstrates a gross lack of understanding on so many narrative and theological levels. Honestly, this movie could easily be Scary Movie 6.66 because of how unintentionally laughable it is. The characters are flat, the plot is all over the place, the tone is criminally uneven, and it’s disrespectful of the thoughtfulness of the original at every chance it gets. Representation matters. If David Gordon Green did not have plans to respectfully (albeit creatively) represent spiritual warfare and demonic possession, then he should’ve chosen another property to destroy.

When his daughter, Angela, and her friend Katherine, show signs of demonic possession, it unleashes a chain of events that forces single father Victor Fielding to confront the nadir of evil. Terrified and desperate, he seeks out Chris MacNeil, the only person alive who’s witnessed anything like it before.

I saw a comment on Twitter today calling for a petition to keep Green away form the horror genre, and I concur. Other than his surprisingly good Halloween H40, he has proven to be inept when helming a legacy horror project. William Friedkin’s The Exorcist remains the definitive possession film. While Friedkin was critical of the new religious right in the 1970s, he was still respectful of the rite of exorcism; he crafted a cinematic story about loss of innocence, crisis of faith, overcoming fear, the limitations of science, and the obstacles of religious bureaucracy. But at the end of the day, the film was grounded in Christianity wherein we find the rite of exorcism. Similar practices may be observed in other cultures and religions, but if you’re going to depict the rite of exorcism specifically, then the story needs to be respectful of and grounded in Christianity–not become a mockery of.

Ellen Burstyn is completely wasted in this film, and her character is in no way connected to the Chris MacNeil in the original. Last we say her, she underwent a journey of faith, going from someone mostly agnostic to someone that believed in the existence and power of God after the events of the original Exorcist. Now, she has no belief system and is rather laissez fair about faith, exorcism, and the like. She is a character without any conviction, therefore she has no drive and lacks spiritual grounding in any real sense of truth. If what you believe doesn’t matter, then there is no urgency to believe or batter personal demons in order to battle the real demon in the possessed girls. Furthermore, if it really doesn’t matter what one believes than it devalues all belief systems. Just because you don’t believe doesn’t mean it’s any less true. Besides the hodgepodge of MacNeil’s worldview, her character is greatly lacking in any dimension that would even help to hint at some modicum of compelling character.

When a movie tries to be everything to everyone, then it becomes about nothing and is for no one.

The cardboard character profile isn’t limited to Chris MacNeil, all the characters in this movie are lacking in anything that would make them compelling for the audience. I cared not whether any of the characters lived or died. Personally, I would have preferred the demon win and kill all the useless, lifeless characters. Although, that would only interest the nameless demon if the characters (or this film) had a soul. As it stands, the film and characters therein are soulless. Speaking of the demon being nameless, this is in direct conflict with the rite of exorcism. Whether one chooses to believe the demon possession (is incredibly rare but) real, the demon always has to be named, because having the demon’s name gives the exorcist power over the demon. The least Green could have done is give the demon a name. We are led to believe that it may be Pazuzu, because it recognizes MacNeil, but the name is never uttered by any character.

I found the movie unintentionally funny. With a few tweaks, it could have easily been Scary Movie 6.66. The plot and characters are just so unrealistic and ridiculous that the story and experience plays out at comedic proportions. Moments that were supposed to be scary were funny, moments that were supposed to be empowering were ludicrous, and the showdown was something straight out of Avengers: End Game. The Exorcist: Believer is Avengers meets The Rite meets a SyFy Channel original movie. The only meaningful connection this movie has to the original is the name, Ellen Burstyn, and a brief vomit-inducing cameo by Linda Blair. I’ve seen many other possession films that were way more interesting, entertaining, and thoughtful than this one.

Do yourself a favor, and if choose to watch this travesty, you should rewatch the original to cleanse your cinematic spirit of the demon that this movie will force upon you. While I suspected Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Orlando featured the The Exorcist: Believer house as a means to get people interested in the movie, clearly it was a move to compensate for how bad this movie really is. If it wasn’t for the house, I imagine far fewer people would want to see this abysmal use of a legacy intellectual property.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

A HAUNTING IN VENICE murder-mystery movie mini review

Posted on by
Reply

Starts well, but finishes sloppily. The creepy atmosphere and surprisingly good scares aren’t enough to save A Haunting in Venice from mediocrity. I applaud and even praise Kenneth Branagh for attempting to revive the classic Hollywood murder-mystery movie, but perhaps Christie’s works have been adapted and served as inspiration so many times, that it is nearly impossible to adapt them for the screen–and hope to deliver something new or refreshing. Compared to Branagh’s two previous Christie adaptations, this one excels in atmosphere and character, but the story is underwhelming. Moreover, most of the clues are for the audience and not for Poirot. There is little earned by Poirot in this movie; and what he does discover, often makes little sense logically. At the end of the movie, the audience is left wondering how and why what Poirot learned actually led him to the big reveal.

Probably the shortest review I have ever written. But with this past week being a combination of my birthday and dealing with a personal matter, I am unable to focus intently on this movie. Of course, it doesn’t help that it was neither good nor bad enough to be truly memorable.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

BLUE BEETLE superhero movie review

Posted on by
Reply

High energy! Blue Beetle is a charismatic superhero movie that delivers vivacious action, laughs, and heart. Undoubtedly, Blue Beetle will become a fan-favorite superhero in the coming years ahead. However, the full potential of this movie to forge new frontiers for heroes and characters we haven’t had on the big screen before is ultimately curbed by some character choices and recurring thematic expressions.

Jaime Reyes suddenly finds himself in possession of an ancient relic of alien biotechnology called the Scarab. When the Scarab chooses Jaime to be its symbiotic host, he’s bestowed with an incredible suit of armor that’s capable of extraordinary and unpredictable powers, forever changing his destiny as he becomes the superhero Blue Beetle.

Before you begin thinking that if you’ve seen one superhero origin story, you’ve seen them all, Blue Beetle manages to make fresh a familiar plot to keep audiences entertained. The strength of Blue Beetle is in the casting, lesser so the characters themselves. That’s not to suggest that none of the characters are crafted and developed well, but there are some odd character/screenwriting choices that mitigate the full impact the movie could have had.

Susan Sarandon and Xolo Mariduēna are the standout performances and characters in the movie. Sarandon’s villain and Xolo’s hero are a perfect match for one another. She was cleverly fiendish and he was humble and strong. For me, it’s these two characters and cast members that made the movie for me. I cannot think of two other actors that could have brought these characters to life as well as these two. It’s also incredibly poetic: a screen legend and a relatively newcomer to the big screen. The chemistry and narrative poetry between our hero and villain was excellent. Anytime I get to enjoy Sarandon’s performances on the big or small screen is a good day!

While the plot for this origin story is fairly standard, the method of expression and the character choices give it an air of originality. But it’s in some of the expression of themes and characters that the movie falters, curbing the full potential of the story. Specifically, this is witnessed in the comedic stylings of George Lopez and the recurring commentary and themes borne out of postcolonial theory. While Lopez’ character was intended to be the comedic relief, the method of expression of his comedy became obnoxious and even exhausting. Moreover, his character plays right into negative stereotypes that the movie could have easily avoided.

Likewise, there is conspicuous, recurring imagery and commentary on postcolonial theory that mitigates the positive affects of the movie. It’s as if the screenwriter was message first and plot second. Even when filmmakers desire to exhibit their personal interpretation of a worldview, it is important that the filmmaker employs more clever means of expressing these opinions.

To bring us around to a more positive note, there is a wonderful depiction of a father-son (and father-family) relationship, and I highly respect the movie for this. Far too seldom do we get movies that spotlight healthy relationships between fathers and their families (in this case, the focus is on the father-son relationship). It’s so very important in narrative storytelling to remind the world of the important role a father plays in his family. Does that mean mothers cannot provide the same emotive dimension? Of course not. But there are many more movies that depict healthy, constructive mother-family relationships. This was a brilliant opportunity to spotlight the love a father has for his family and the love the family has for him.

Blue Beetle represents an MCU type of storytelling in a DC movie, but DC still manages to make this expression of a superhero their own. I really like Jaime/Blue Beetle, so I hope that I see him on the big screen again.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry