Rocketman (2019)

I was around 17 when I was introduced to Elton John's music and it was love at first sight sound. No matter what mood I am in, there's always room for his music in my life because, whether it's a sad song, a happy, joyous one, or something just danceable, he always makes me feel something. It comes without saying that I was very excited about Dexter Fletcher's Rocketman and, having read plenty of positive reviews, I also had very high expectations. Expectations that were met as Fletcher's is a flamboyant and highly entertaining musical fantasy film, an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.

A dramatization of Elton John's life, Rocketman opens with Elton John (Taron Egerton) as he makes his way into rehab rocking a devilish outfit, and starts telling his life story. 

The son of an apathetic father, Stanley (Steven Mackintosh), and a distant mother, Sheila (Bryce Dallas Howard), Reginald Dwight (Matthew Illesley) shows interest in playing the piano at a very young age and emerges as a child prodigy. 

An older Reggie (Edgerton) begins to perform in pubs, soon adopts the stage name of Elton John — Elton from Elton Dean, and John from the famous Beatle, although the latter is not actually true —, teams up with songwriter Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell) and lands a record deal with Dick James (Stephen Graham). From here, his life soon spirals out of control as alcohol, drugs and John Reid (Richard Madden) make their way into his life. 

One of the most striking aspects of Rocketman is the way it chronicles Elton's life. While it covers early life, rise, high and lows of a career like most biopics do, it does in its own unique way. Once the transition from Reggie to Elton is completed, rather than telling its story in chronological order, the film jumps from one song to another, one event to another in a rather random manner — the songs don't even match the time period —, and it's the music that drives the story. It could have ended up being a clumsy mess but the unusual storytelling paid off as each song is wonderfully used to represent the ups and downs in Elton's career and life, and the result is an entertaining feast.

Rocketman comes with some flaws too though. While he does a good job at portraying the rockstar, his excesses and the struggle with his sexuality, director and writer Dexter Fletcher painted the superstar in a completely positive light, almost as a spotless, faultless man who has never done wrong in his life — I'm, however, willing to overlook this as the film is not a documentary but a fantasy biopic. Also, there are countless parts of the rockstar's life that have either been left out or given no importance whatsoever, and John's relationship both as a business partner and friend to Bernie Taupin is quite shallow and under-developed, as it is that with his mother — it lacked emotional power because of this — and with his manager and lover John Reid. I get that Fletcher wanted to make a film about the legend but it would have hurt nobody if he had given more space to those aspects of John's life.

As I mentioned above, the film is musical and it does excellent on that front. Whether it's just Elton performing alone or other people join him — at some point Elton duets with his younger self and it's quite amazing —, the numbers and songs are always entertaining and emotional — I cried, I laughed, I got mad, and I had fun. The numbers are bizarre and often cheesy but they really make the most of the songs' lyrics and their subtexts.

The other striking aspect of Rocketman is the acting, specifically Taron Egerton's performance as he knocks it out of the park as the deeply troubled musical genius. Not only he nails his appearance — he put on weight, shaved his head to recreate John's receding hairline, and painted a gap between his front teeth — but his personality and, especially, his voice as well. It doesn't feel like Egerton is trying to play or imitate John, rather it feels like he's John as he embodies the rockstar's ups and downs to perfection. And his singing is, unsurprisingly as he has sung one of John's songs in the past, outstanding — and yet there are people complaining about Taron doing his own singing as opposed to having him lip-syncing to Elton John's actual songs. It's an Oscar-worthy performance but sadly he won get one because the Academy awarded Malek this year.

The supporting cast also gives in strong performances. Whether it's Jamie Bell as Bernie Taupin, or Bryce Dallas Howard as Reggie's distant, bitchy mother, or Gemma Jones's caring grandma, they all are great.  Richard Madden too does a great job as John's manager and lover as well as the film's villain, his chemistry with Egerton is great and their sex scene is hot.

Will Rocketman be the best film of 2019? No, it won't as it does have its flaws, and it can be incredibly cheesy at times, but it's a fun and enjoyable musical film with wonderful performance, lavishing visuals and gorgeous costumes, that is very likely to be my favourite film of the year.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966)

It was around this time last year when I complained about the fact that there are not enough animated Christmas movies out there and Dell from Dell on Movies suggested How the Grinch Stole Christmas!. Being a bit of a Grinch myself, and annoyed by Jim Carrey's version, I decided to give it a shot. 

As you know, unless you've been living under a rock for your entire life, this short animated film tells the story of the Grinch (voiced by Boris Karloff), a grumpy and hateful creature who hates Christmas and all the people having a happy time celebrating it. For this reason, he disguises himself as Santa and his dog as one of Santa's reindeers and raids the village to steal all the Christmas things so that everyone will have a very sad Christmas this year.

It's a very simple and predictable story but, unlike the 2000 film which got entangled with subplots, more subplots and a background story to explain why the Grinch hates Christmas, it goes straight to the point and successfully delivers the important message that every one of us needs to hear: Christmas doesn't/shouldn't come from a store, but it means/should mean a little bit more. It's not about the gifts and all the commercialism, but it's about family and friends, spending quality time with them and being grateful for everyone and everyone you have in your life. Unfortunately, nowadays it's all about the presents, who's got the best Christmas decorations, who's hosted the best Christmas party, the reason why I'm a bit of a Grinch.

As for the characters, given the length of the film —only 26 minutes—, they too had to be very simplistic. This, however, doesn't take away from them at all as they still manage to have nice personalities, be charming and lovable. The Grinch is nasty without being too scary, Max the dog is adorable and little Cindy Lou Who is sweet and adorable —way more than Taylor Momsen's in the 2000 film.

MGM Television, Warner Bros. Television Distribution

How the Grinch Stole Christmas! also benefits from Boris Karloff's performance which is so good, you forget that his voice is pretty much the only one we hear —he narrates the story and also voices the Grinch. The music is very catchy and fun, and the colourful animation, while very simple, is very charming.

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)

I was looking for must-watch Christmas movies and Meet Me in St. Louis popped out. It was already on my watchlist —I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Birgit over BB Creations talked about it in one of her Thursday Movie Picks post— so I checked it out, and it was a very pleasant surprise —I'm not a fan of musicals, after all. 

Set in early 1900s St. Louis, the film follows Smith family in the months leading up to the city's 1904 World's Fair. The second eldest of the four Smith girls, Esther (Judy Garland), has an endless crush on the boy next door, John Truett (Tom Drake), who hasn't noticed her yet; the oldest sister, Rose (Lucille Bremer), has a romance with Warren Sheffield (Robert Sully) who is now in New York City; the other two Smith girls, the younger ones, Agnes (Joan Carroll) and Tootie (Margaret O'Brien), engage in shenanigans. The family's dynamics are disrupted when the father, Alonzo (Leon Ames), decides to take a new position in New York City.

As you may have guessed, or already know if you have seen it, Meet Me in St. Louis does not have a plot. It's pretty much a mix of random things, mostly spoiled girls who try to get men who look almost identical to like them. Despite the lack of a plot and some dull moments where I almost lost my interest, the film is overall engaging and quite entertaining.

But it sure isn't because of the characters as, just like the plot, they are nearly non-existent. There are very little characterization and virtually no development. And yet they are easy to relate to and, because of the cast, they are very likeable and lovable.

Judy Garland easily shines in here as it's pretty obvious that the film was entirely written to show off her talents. Anyways, Garland gives a very charming performance as Esther. She brings some complexity into the character and delivers the most touching moments in the film —when she sings "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" to her little sister Tootie she is so touching and heartbreaking. The stand out, however, is Margaret O'Brien who plays Tootie. She gives an excellent performance as she's able to make you laugh and cry at the same time.

Loew's, Inc.

As for the musical numbers, some of them are dull, uninteresting and very forgettable, while some are extremely well done as the songs are very enjoyable and the dancing well choreographed. At last, Meet Me in St. Lous is quite stricking visually. From the technicolor cinematography to set desings to costumes, the film looks beautiful.

Ultimately, this is a flawed film but it's also an entertaining and heartwarming, feel-good one that fits the holiday season very well.

The Lure (2015)

While I was searching the most popular movie websites for horror movies to watch for the 31 Days of Horror challenge, whether I was looking for musicals or foreign language, there's a movie I stumbled upon multiple times, The Lure (Polish: Córki dancingu), a Polish fantasy, horror, romantic and musical film. In other words, a movie I could not pass. 

Set in Warsaw in the 1980s, the film follows two mermaid sisters, Silver (Marta Mazurek) and Golden (Michalina Olszańska), who are adopted by a family of musicians after assuring them they won't eat them and soon start performing at a nightclub as strippers and backup singers. While Silver falls in love with the bassist, Mietek (Jakub Gierszał), Golden cannot escape her bloodthirsty nature and kills people.

This is arguably a very unique and dark take on the famous tale by Hans Christian Andersen, The Little Mermaid. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough for me to make a compelling film as the plot is interesting but never engaging; if anything, it gets pretty boring. Also, there's a romantic subplot that feels a little forced and like it wasn't exploited as it should have been.

The characters are kinda messy too. Although the main ones have a nice development and make a very intersting group of characters, there are too many characters popping out of nowhere and soon disappearing --we know absolutely nothing about them and they don't even have a role in the story, so what's the point?

The cast, however, is evenly good. Marta Mazurek and Michalina Olszańska are both great in their roles of mermaid sisters, more innocent and kinda naive the first, very alluring the latter. And Kinga Preis provides a solid support as the nightclub singer who adopts the two sisters.

Kino Świat

The direction by first time director Agnieszka Smoczyńska is also pretty solid. Although the mix of genres --fantasy, horror, romance and musical-- doesn't work as good as it could have, she was able to establish an intriguing and mysterious atmosphere which make the horror part work very well. And she makes the musical part work as well --the lyrics to the songs are completely nonsensical (at least they are in the English subtitles. I don't know, maybe they make sense in Polish) and yet they are enjoyable and entertaining. Definitely one of those soundtracks you want to purchase after the movie.

At last but not least, The Lure is visually stunning --not only the cinematography is impressive, but the makeup and costumes are so good they make the two sisters look disturbingly real.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

I have mixed feelings about Joel Schumacher as I loved Phone Booth and Tigerland, but I hated Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Ergo, although Katy said very nice things about it in her Against the Crowd blogathon entry, I didn't know what to expect from The Phantom of the Opera.

The film tells the story of a disfigured man known only as the Phantom (Gerard Butler) who lives beneath the Paris Opera House. He falls deeply in love with Christine Daae (Emmy Rossum), a talented and young chorus singer, and starts tutoring her while terrorizing the rest of the opera house and demanding leading roles to be always given to her. When Christine meets back up with her childhood friend, Viscount Raoul de Chagny (Patrick Wilson), and they fall in love, the Phantom, insane with jealousy, kidnaps her.

I never saw the original stage musical nor read the French novel upon which it's based on so I wasn't very familiar with the story whose execution turned out to be a huge disappointment. I don't know who is to be blamed for it, but it doesn't make a lot of sense, especially the ending --if the opera house burned down, how come there's no sign of a fire at the beginning of the film as it start in 1919 and then goes back to 1870?--, it is cheesy and predictable, simply not compelling enough to keep me interested. It is pretty much a boring love triangle story with a little bit of insanity.

I found the characters to be just as uncompelling. They are just a bunch of stereotypes with no depth, not even a personality --Minnie Driver's Carlotta, the opera house diva, is the only with some and she was fun-ish to watch. There isn't a single sympathetic character and because of that, I didn't care about any of them at all.

And the performances, oh boy they are bad. Emmy Rossum has such a lovely singing voice and her acting isn't terrible as she manages to convey the character's fragility, but she is not entirely believable as she often does things that don't make a lot of sense --surely, the blame is on Schumacher. Gerard Butler is absolutely terrible. His singing sounds like that from a drunk on karaoke night --he should have taken some singing lessons; his acting is bad as always. Patrick Wilson's performance is nothing short of bland. Miranda Richardson as Madame Giry is the only who gives a decent performance and for some unknown reason, the only with a French accent. Dear Schumacher, if you do accents, then everyone has them, not only one person.

Warner Bros. Pictures, Odyssey Entertainment

However, Schumacher's The Phantom of the Opera isn't a complete misfire. The songs, although some feel forced and the lip sync is off, are pretty good, both lyric and singing wise, and I really appreciate that the cast, with the only exception of Minnie Driver, does their own singing. 

At last, the visual aspect is nothing short of great. The cinematography is unique and charming. The colours are vibrant and the use of colour and black and white is interesting --the present, 1919, is in black an white; the past, 1870, is in colour. And the sets, scenery and costumes are gorgeous.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

I don't know exactly how I discovered The Rocky Horror Picture Show as cult movies weren't something I'd watch. I just know that, when I first watched it, many years ago (I believe I still was in my teens), I was not ready for it but I loved it nevertheless. Since I'm doing this Horror October thing, I figured it was time to rewatch it. 

The film follows Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon), a newly engaged couple whose car broke down in the middle of nowhere during a rainstorm, and, while seeking a telephone, stumbled upon the castle of Dr. Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry), a transvestite from transsexual Transylvania. From then on, a series of weird and bizarre things begins to happen.

The plot is wacky, silly and makes absolutely no sense, but it still has to offer more than most movies nowadays as it is one of the most interesting and original plot you'll ever see, and you'll be drawn so much into it that you won't even care about all the nonsense going on.

The characters are just as weird and absurd as the plot, if not even more. But they also are funny and lovely; you won't judge any of them, no matter how insane or wrong are the things they do, but, on the contrary, you will feel sympathy for each one of them.

Dr. Frank-N-Furter is arguably the most intriguing and insane of the bunch. He is an evil person but you won't be mad at him for his awful actions, you'll feel sorry for him as he is just a lonely, unhappy person/alien seeking love and approval. Tim Curry's performance is nothing short of spectacular. He dominates the film every single time he's on the screen; he is funny, delivers his lines perfectly and his singing is amazing. But most of all, I don't know what it is, he is so sexy in drag, it's confusing (I'm a straight woman, fyi).

20the Century Fox

Although they are not as fabulous as the transvestite from transsexual Transylvania, the supporting characters too are delightful and the rest of the cast does a pretty good job. A young Susan Sarandon is an absolute treat --not only her performance as Janet is great, but her voice is so cute and Disney-like that makes the film even weirder. Barry Bostwick is just lovely as the nerdy Brad. Richard O'Brien --he wrote the stage show-- is terrific as Riff Raff, the handyman. Patricia Quinn and Little Nell too are mesmerizing in their roles of maid Magenta and groupie Columbia respectively.

As for the musical aspect, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is pretty much flawless. The songs not only are catchy and stuck with you long after you finished watching the movie, but they are an integral part of the film as they advance the plot. The musical numbers are inventive, energetic, entertaining and a lot of fun.

And let's not forget about the costumes, makeup and set. They are strange and quirky, they are colourful and transmit happiness. They are hypnotic.

Burlesque (2010)

I'm not a Christina Aguilera fan, nor Cher's, but they both have phenomenal voices and I like many of their songs, and I'm also fascinated by burlesque, so I thought I'd give this musical a chance. 

The film follows Ali (Christina Aguilera), a young waitress from Iowa who leaves her small town to pursue her dreams in Los Angeles. Once in L.A., she tries and fails every audition she does; then, one night, she finds herself in a burlesque club and falls in love with this art. When Tess (Cher), the club owner, refuses to audition her, Ali begins serving customers at the club as a waitress until she finds a place for herself in the show. Meanwhile, Tess must find a way to save her club from bankruptcy.

Too bad the execution leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, the plot to Burlesque is a mess. It's cheesy, filled with clichés, predictable and quite absurd, and the subplots --the backstabbing, the romances, the financial problems-- aren't very compelling. 

The characters aren't that sharp either. Ali is your typical ingénue turned star demanding attention. Also, the transition from small-town, innocent girl to queen of burlesque happens to fast. At least she is likeable. The other characters are paper-thin stereotypes --the bitchy rival, the sassy gay backstage manager, the club owner with a heart of gold, the super rich guy who wants to buy the club, the handsome bartender. Not to mention the many male characters that have no reason whatsoever to be in here.

Despite the lacklustre screenplay, Burlesque still manages to engage and entertain, and most of the credits go to the cast. Christina Aguilera, despite her non-existent acting skills, carries the film on her shoulders. She brilliantly displays her acting skills and shows off her powerful voice; when she does not sing, she has the charm to keep us interested and glued to the screen between songs. Cher's acting is terrible too, mainly because she is so botoxed it's a miracle she still can move her lips, but, just like Aguilera, her vocals are so on point you forget about everything else. Stanley Tucci, on the other hand, gives a good performance as, you guessed it, the gay manager. He is funny, and probably the only person in Burlesque who is familiar with acting, as the rest of the cast either show off their voices --Aguilera and Cher-- or serve as eye-candy --the other dancers and Cam Gigandet.

Screen Gems

The musical aspect of Burlesque is a bit disappointing though. While the songs are nice and catchy, and wonderfully performed, the dance numbers are good but ruined by the editing. Also, they lack originality as it often feels like watching scenes from Bob Fosse's Cabaret, Rob Marshall's Chicago and Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge!.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

There's something I've noticed over the past months as I started watching more musicals and reading what other people think about them; most of the time, people either love them or hate them. Moulin Rouge! too has such a divided audience, and, curious to see where how I'd feel about it, I decided to watch it.

The film is set in 1889 and tells the story of Christian (Ewan McGregor), a young English man who moved to Paris to pursue a penniless career as a writer. Once there, he meets a group of Bohemians, led by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (John Leguizamo), who tells him he should write a musical show for them to be performed at the Moulin Rouge. While in the process of selling the show, Christian meets Satine (Nicole Kidman), the night club's star and courtesan, and falls for her. She eventually falls for him as well but the club's owner, Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent), is planning to sell her to a Duke (Richard Roxburgh) who will help him turn the night club into a theatre only if he can have Satine.

It's definitely not very original and pretty clichéd as it's your typical poor poet loves girl but girl belongs to rich man kind of plot, and it's also rather simple and predictable, but frankly, I didn't really care as Moulin Rouge! is not one of those movies who has to rely on twists or a sophisticated plot to engage and entertain its audience.

One of the many aspects the film heavily relies on is the cast. Although the characters lack characterization and development which makes it kind of hard to develop an emotional attachment to them (I didn't think I had any, to be honest, but, as the film was coming to an end, I realised that I really was rooting for Christian and Satine), and most of them don't really have a reason to exist other than for the sake of appearing in the musical numbers, the actors do a wonderful job and give the characters much more dimension and depth.

Ewan McGregor is great as Christian, the romantic and naive man who falls for the Moulin Rouge courtesan; Richard Roxburgh as the evil Duke and John Leguizamo as Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec both bring to the film the right amount of comic relief; Jim Broadbent is menacing enough as Harold Zidler; it's Nicole Kidman though that simply steals the show. Her Satine is very sensual and seductive but, at the same time, she is very vulnerable and fragile. Her chemistry with McGregor is beautiful and their voices complement each other.

20th Century Fox

Another of the reasons why Moulin Rouge! works is that it is a musical. The dancing is frenetic and outlandish, and, although I didn't find some of the choreographies to be particularly memorable, it's very entertaining. And the music, oh, the music! Buz Luhrmann made some sort of musical collage with songs from Madonna, Elton John, David Bowie, and more, and it works and makes for a quite an emotional ride even if listening to the soundtrack alone.

At last, Moulin Rouge! is visually stunning. The cinematography, the editing, the production design and sets, the costumes and makeup, they all contribute to making the film a colourful feast for the eyes.

High School Musical 3: Senior Year (2008)

I remember when I first saw High School Musical 3: Senior Year and all these teenage girls, myself excluded, were screaming when Zac Efron made his first appearance on the screen. That's all I could remember about the film as I've never rewatched it. And I even have it on DVD. The reason? It's simply terrible.

This time around, the East High School kids are getting ready to graduate which means each will go their separate ways. Troy (Zac Efron) and Gabriella (Vanessa Hudgens) are those having a tougher time as Troy is planning to attend the nearby University of Albuquerque and Gabriella wants to attend Stanford University in California. Meanwhile, Sharpay (Ashley Tisdale) still plots to steal Troy from Gabriella and to get her part in the school Spring musical.

Excluding the college part, High School Musical 3: Senior Year essentially has the same plot as the two previous movies. It's still tremendously stupid, predictable and filled with nonsense --why on earth does Sharpay end up with Zeke at the end of each movie and yet at the beginning of the following movie she acts like she doesn't even know him, she still goes after Troy, and that poor guy tries to win her "heart" all over again? And the subplots, oh Jesus, they are terrible. There are hints all over High School Musical and High School Musical 2 that Ryan, Sharpay's twin brother, is gay and now he's developing a romance with Kelsy? What the actual fuck, Disney?!

The characters somehow manage to be even more shallow than they were in the previous movies of the series. Unfortunately, complexity isn't their only lack. They also are incredibly boring, not to mention the new characters who basically are clones of the original characters. They are made even worse by the cast. Other than delivering terrible performances as these kids can't act shit, the actors lack energy. There's a better chemistry between the main actors, but it alone is not enough to save the film.

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

As for the musical part of the film, it's pretty awful. All the songs just sound like those of the previous two movies, still very silly but not so catchy and fun. The dancing is beyond terrible as pretty much all they do is jumping. And there's a number, a Zac Efron solo, that looks like something straight out of Magic Magic. So that's appropriate for a kids movie, but having a gay character isn't?

 

High School Musical 2 (2007)

I don't know why, but High School Musical 2 has always been my favourite of the three. I would watch it over and over, especially when I was in bed, sick. I guess it's because it was more colourful --there's a lot of bright pink though-- and it wasn't set in the school. 

In this second entry, summer has arrived and Sharpay (Ashely Tisdale) still hasn't given up the idea of having Troy (Zac Efron) all for herself so she has him hired at her parents' country club. Unfortunately for Sharpay, all the Wildcats get a job at the country club, Gabriella (Vanessa Hudgens) included. As if having to compete with Gabriella for Troy wasn't enough, Sharpay also has to fight to win the talent show hosted at the club like her brother Ryan (Lucas Grabeel) and she do every year. 

Plot-wise, the film is just like its predecessor. Silly, predictable, with more holes than Swiss cheese, and many stupid and pointless subplots. Not to mention how unconvincing the ending was. In order words, it shouldn't work. And yet, just like its predecessor, it kind of does. It isn't the most interesting of stories, but it's a tiny bit entertaining. 

The characters are still very idiotic, with very little characterization and no development whatsoever --and this time around even the adult characters get this poor treatment. However, some of the minor characters from the first film gain some importance, especially Sharpay's brother, Ryan, who is, finally, no longer just Sharpay's brother but a person of his own. Which I guess it's one of the reasons I always liked High School Musical 2 better as, unlike most if not all teenage girl, I didn't have a crush on Zac Efron but on Lucas Grabeel. 

As for the acting, it's still pretty bad, especially from Vanessa Hudgens --seriously, she is unwatchable--, but at least the cast seems more comfortable with each other and their characters. 

Disney-ABC Domestic Television

The songs are still lame and cheesy and don't move the plot a bit forward but, to be honest, I love them all. They are catchy and fun and make the film much more enjoyable. Also, the musical numbers feel more believable. The awful lip-syncing is still a no-no for me though. 

High School Musical (2006)

It was summer 2007, about a year after it premiered on Disney channel, that I first watched High School Musical and I loved it. I was 13 at the time. I'm 24 now and, while wandering through the shelves, I picked High School Musical's DVD and rewatch it because, you know, we all need to do something stupid once in a while.

It's New Year's Eve at a ski resort. Troy Bolton (Zac Efron), the star of a small-town high school basketball team, and Gabriella Montez (Vanessa Hudgens), a math genius, are forced to sing karaoke together and instantly click. After the break, Troy returns to school only to find that Gabriella is a new student there. They become friends quickly and decide to audition for the upcoming school musical but the cliques they belong to don't approve and try to separate them. On top of that, drama queen Sharpay Evans (Ashley Tisdale) and her brother Ryan (Luca Grabeel) try to prevent them from getting the leading roles in the musical. 

Or I could just have said, it's the Disney channel version of Grease, which translates into, unoriginal, quite stupid and predictable story that doesn't make a lot of sense and it's filled with plot holes. Moreover, it does have absolutely no drama and no climax. Despite that and the fact that I'm an adult woman, I still found it a tiny bit engaging and, no matter how old you are or what's your generation, it's not that hard to relate to the story. I didn't/do, but I can imagine people relating. 

Same goes for the characters. They are terribly written as they are nothing but a bunch of idiotic high school stereotypes, with very little characterization and even less development --actually, there's none--, and they are atrociously played --seriously, these kids can't act for shit. Also, where's the chemistry between Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens? Weren't like dating at the time?-- but a few of them, the good guys, are likeable and quite sympathetic. 

Disney-ABC Domestic Television

The songs are pretty lame and cheesy, just like everything else about High School Musical, and they don't move the plot forward one bit, but they are also pretty catchy and quite unforgettable. I mean, it's been 10 years since I last saw this movie and I still know the lyrics to most songs. The musical numbers, however, are all lip-synched and the audio/video synchronization is completely off. 

But again, in spite of all the flaws, I still was able to enjoy High School Musical. 

A Star Is Born (1954)

I've been meaning to watch A Star Is Born since the dawn of time but I kept putting it off because of its length. Having read great things about it eventually got the best of me. I guess it's because I had very high expectations but I didn't find it that special, just an average musical. 

The film tells the story of Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland), a talented young singer with a band, and Norman Maine (James Mason), an alcoholic movie star whose career is on the wane. He drunkenly stumbles into her act one night, he is smitten by her voice, takes her under his wing and gets her a screen test at the studio he works for. She becomes a major star, their relationship grows and they eventually get married. But soon Norman loses control as he can't control his alcoholism.

A Star Is Born's is a very simple and familiar story, and it is completely predictable because we know exactly where it's going right from the start and yet it's interesting. Only a part of it though. While the first part, depicting Norman's attempt to make of Esther the person he used to be, is very interesting and compelling, as soon as the two get married, the story becomes heavy and tedious and it gets pretty hard to keep watching.

In spite of that lack, the film still works fine as a portrayal of a marriage destroyed by alcoholism, of alcoholism itself and of someone who is married to an alcoholic. Esther is a (classic) co-dependent wife who is in real pain because of her husband. The problem with her is that she has no resilience and she is too easily humiliated which makes us sympathize with her alcoholic, self-destructive husband, Norman, on whom, by the way, the film focuses too much in my opinion.

Anyway, the actors both go a good job with their roles. Judy Garland does great as Esther as she makes the character's pain so real, and her singing is of course fantastic. James Mason is terrific as Norman as he brings to the screen a character that is so believable it's frightening. Also, the chemistry between Garland and Mason is pretty good.

Warner Bros.

The biggest issues I had with A Star Is Born is that it is a musical. While most of the songs, if not all, are great and quite memorable, and the numbers are wonderful, some should have been cut off the movie as they add absolutely nothing to it, they only make it longer and serve as an excuse for Judy Garland to show off her singing skills.

Actually, there's something else that bothered me more than the pointless musical numbers, it was the choppy editing and the usage of still photos taken from the production photo library with dialogue playing behind them. Those parts looked terrible and sounded terrible. Sure, it does give us a glimpse of what the movie was supposed to be as it was cut against the director's will, but it just didn't work for me.

Labyrinth (1986)

While searching the web for a musical that wasn't too long --which is basically an impossible task since most musicals last more than two hours-- I stumbled upon Labyrinth. I had never heard of it before but I did see pictures of David Bowie from this movie which is why I ended up watching it. 

The story follows Sarah (Jennifer Connelly), a teenager with a very vivid imagination. When her father (Christopher Malcolm) and stepmother (Shelley Thompson) go out and leave her to babysit her stepbrother, Toby (Toby Froud), she is so annoyed with his continuous crying that she wishes the goblins would take him away. Which they do and Sarah must solve the Goblin King's (David Bowie) labyrinth before midnight or else Toby will become a goblin.

The plot is very simple and far from being great, meaning that it kind of comes out of nowhere, it develops too fast and yet it takes too much time to get to the ending. Also, it isn't very original as it has some elements of The Wizard of Oz. And yet, as flawed as it is, the plot still manages to be interesting and entertaining. 

Also quite interesting are the characters Labyrinth is filled with. At the beginning, Sarah is an innocent but immature and spoiled brat who only cares about herself and finds herself in an Alice in Wonderland kind of scenario, but, as the movie moves forward, she becomes this mature, no longer selfish young woman as she learns many life lessons. A very young Jeniffer Connelly does a wonderful job in the leading role. She is so lovely and makes all the interactions with the fantasy creatures look so natural! Hoggle, the coward and stubborn goblin is quite an interesting guy, and Ludo, a hairy monster that looks like Chewbacca, is cute and lovable. 

TriStar Pictures

However, the character that truly stands out is the villain, the Goblin King, the reason obviously being David Bowie. He is simply wonderful. He is evil and menacing and yet so humorous and charming, it's hard to decide whether to hate him or to love him. Also, whenever he starts singing, which happens very often, it's an incredible joy.

Labyrinth also has some pretty solid special effects. While they do look dated and you can often spot the use of the green screen, they still are quite charming and add some magic to the film. The owl, for example, although it looks cheap compared to today's standards, is very impressive.

There is one thing that about Labyrinth that quite disappointed me, the fact that it isn't really a musical. There are just some weird musical numbers that don't advance the plot, nor add anything to the film, they are just there to give David Bowie the chance to sing. While I love listening to Bowie sing, it just didn't make sense to me. 

Newsies (1992)

Since I'm out of musicals to watch (it's not entirely true though as I have A Star Is Born, the 1954 version, but I'm not ready to commit to such a long musical. I'm not to that point yet), so I let the internet inspire me. In spite of it being a Disney production, I ended up watching Newsies because I was very curious to see Christian Bale in such a different kind of movie. 

The film is set in 1899 in New York City and focuses on the newsies aka young boys who sell papers. When publisher Joseph Pulitzer (Robert Duvall) raises the distribution price one-tenth of a cent per paper, the already poor newsboys feel outraged and, led by the voice of the group, Jack Kelly (Christian Bale), and the head of the group, David Jacobs (David Moscow), they go on a strike. 

I don't think I need to tell you how the story goes because this is Disney and we all know they like to sugar coat everything. And that's exactly what happened here, they took an interesting, compelling true story and they turned it into some sort of fairy tale with a happy ending. Another of the problems is that the intriguing plot unfolds in a two-hour running time and it gets heavy. 

In spite of that, Newsies still manages to be a little enjoyable and that's mainly because of the characters. While it's hard to keep in mind everyone's name as there are a lot of characters in the film, most of them are very likeable and lovable, and, as the relationships between them grow, we begin to get involved into their story and care about them.

The fact that the cast does an overall good job deserves most of the credits for this. As usual though there are a few standouts. Christian Bale really shines as Jack Kelly as he showcases his acting, dancing and singing abilities. Also, he pulls off the New York accent pretty well. Bill Pullman is wonderful as Bryan Denton, the reporter who helps the newsies in their strike. His singing, however, is not that good. At last, Robert Duvall is very good as Joseph Pulitzer and makes for a pretty good villain.

Buena Vista Pictures

As for the songs, overall they are good, but some are so similar it's hard to distinguish from one another and most are quite forgettable. A few though are pretty catchy and makes you want to sing along. The numbers are a bit cheesy but they are nicely choreographed. 

Mary Poppins (1964)

I never cared for Mary Poppins as a kid, which is why I never watched the film before. I loved Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music though and I'm kind of interested in seeing Mary Poppins Returns, the sequel starring Emily Blunt, so I checked this one out. 

Set in Edwardian London, the film tells the story of the Banks family. The parents, George (David Tomlison) and Winifred (Glynis Johns), advertise for a new nanny for their rowdy, neglected children, Jane (Karen Dotrice) and Michael (Matthew Garber). The children, not happy with the previous nannies, write their own advertisement for a kind and sweet nanny. All of a sudden, Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews) arrives and, with the help of Bert (Dick Van Dyke), a chimney sweep and performer, uses music and adventure to improve the family's dynamic.

The plot is very simple so it's very easy for kids to understand but I didn't find it compelling enough to keep me, an adult, engaged or interested. Truth to be told, I was bored, so bored that's a miracle I finished the film. Sure, it's a story that delivers several messages, like the importance of family and imagination, especially at such a young age, but it was tedious. 

Not even the characters were able to make me enjoy this. I'm blaming the plot again as the characters are pretty awesome and memorable. Though I was not a fan of the kids as they looked stupid from start to finish and they were kind of annoying too, I loved Mary Poppins. She is such a lovable governess and Julie Andrews gives such a sweet and charming performance, it's impossible not to like her. The standout, however, has to be Dick Van Dyke and his Bert. I wasn't crazy about his Cockney accent but he is so cheerful and fun, he brings so much energy and enthusiasm into the film, and his dancing and singing are fantastic. 

Buena Vista Distribution

What I also liked about Mary Poppins is how the filmmakers were able to combine live-action and animation. They are combined wonderfully, especially considering this film was made in the 1960s. It does look old today but it still is quite charming and kind of magical. 

As for the soundtrack, some songs are so catchy and memorable, but some, I just didn't care for them. Not to mention that some songs are completely unrelated to the story. 

Yentl (1983)

I added Yentl on my watchlist ages ago when I decided to watch more musicals but I kept putting it off because of its length. Also, the title didn't really appeal to me and make the film sound kind of boring (does that even make sense?). And I was right. 

Set in 1940 Eastern Europe, the film follows a young Jewish woman, Yentl (Barbra Streisand), who lives with her widowed father, Reb Mendel (Nehemiah Persoff). Rather than becoming a devoted wife, Yentl would like to study but it is prohibited by her religion. When her father dies, she leaves her village disguised as a young man so that she could gain admission to a Jewish religious school. Her life gets even more complicated when she falls in love with Avigdor (Mandy Patinkin), one of her colleagues, who in turn is engaged to a devoted young woman, Hadass (Amy Irving). 

The plot is fairly original and it's also quite interesting at first, but it eventually becomes utterly ridiculous as nobody figures out Yentl is actually a woman, especially considering how much feminine makeup Barbra Streisand has on her face --Yentl either is a woman dressed as a man or a man who likes to wear makeup, and I'm not sure which one would have caused more outrage. And it gets a little bit boring as well as it turns into a not-so-interesting love triangle type of story.

Which is a real shame because this was a story that had a lot of potential in terms of gender equality as the film could have been used to highlight how many silly restrictions are placed on women. The theme is there, the problem is that it isn't as developed as it should have. The filmmakers preferred to focus on the love triangle rather than such an important topic. 

On the other hand, there are the characters. They are quite complex, with well-rounded personalities and well-defined psychology, and they are also compelling which kind of makes up for the partially boring story. 

MGM/UA Entertainment Company, Twilight Time

The acting is pretty good too. While she was too old to play Yentl --the character is supposed to be 18, she was 40 when the film was made--, Barbra Streisand is very charming and engaging and she keeps you glued to the screen. Her singing, however, is the talent that truly stands out here. Mandy Patinkin also gives a great performance as Avigdor, the object of Yentl's affections. Amy Irving, on the other hand, was not so good as Hadass. She looks good but she is also dull and doesn't display a lot of emotions so that Oscar nomination, for me, was totally undeserved. 

At last, there are the songs. Maybe it's because I don't love musicals, but Yentl would have worked better without the songs. They add absolutely nothing and most of them are forgettable --actually, Papa Can You Hear Me is the only memorable one-- and they are just an excuse for Streisand to show off her singing abilities. 

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)

I really enjoyed Marilyn Monroe in Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot so I decided to check out some more of her work. My first choice fell on Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as I had heard of it many times before and was curious to see what it was about (yes, I still don't read plots before watching movies. I like it better that way). 

The film follows two showgirls and best friends, Lorelei Lee (Marilyn Monroe) and Dorothy Shaw (Jane Russell). Lorelai is engaged to a wealthy nerd, Gus Esmond (Tommy Noonan), whose father (Taylor Holmes) disapproves of their relationship and is convinced that Lorelei is only after his son's money. So when Lorelei and Dorothy go on a cruise together, Esmond Sr. hires a private detective, Ernie Malone (Elliott Reid), to keep an eye on her. 

The plot is basically non-existent, it's pretty silly and doesn't make a lot of sense --and it's not only because of the plot holes but because it is just a weak mess. And you can tell how it's going to end right from the start. And it isn't even the most interesting of the stories. 

However, that didn't bother me at all and didn't prevent me from enjoying Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. The cast is what does the trick here. I think we can all agree that Marilyn Monroe isn't the greatest of actresses, but she manages to find a way to shine. She fits the role of the very shallow and dumb blonde who has a passion for diamonds and men with money very well, delivers well her lines and is great at making fun of herself. Jane Russell though completely steals the show. She has more sex appeal than Monroe if you ask me, and her performance as Dorothy, an intelligent and strong-willed woman, is more natural than Monroe's. The male actors, although they all portray pretty stupid and single-minded men, do a good job as well. As for the chemistry, it's incredible between Monroe and Russell but there's a huge lack of it between them and their male costars. 

20th Century Fox

It also helps that Gentlemen Prefer Blondes isn't just a romantic comedy, but a musical. I know I said I'm not a musical person many times before, and I'm still not a musical person, but the numbers are so dazzling, colourful and engaging, they actually improve the film. 

Something I really disliked about the movie? How it portrays women as shallow and golddiggers --but I guess it's normal considering how old the movie is.