|
Post by thesuki on Dec 22, 2007 5:30:24 GMT
It's a musical slasher. Of course there's blood. And cannibalism.
|
|
|
Post by artgirlb [a.k.a. Numbuh 138] on Dec 22, 2007 5:55:01 GMT
It's a musical slasher. Of course there's blood. And cannibalism. Well, yeah...I'm just saying there's more blood than the stage version (though it's used to good effect, in my opinion).
|
|
|
Post by thesuki on Dec 22, 2007 6:15:38 GMT
That's because they don't have to clean it up between scenes.
Ah, the wonders of modern technology.
There are, of course, the rare occations when a film version is better than the stage version. Like Chicago, by merit of the songs at least. They aren't nearly as effective in terms of symbolism on stage, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by GoldenFlither on Dec 22, 2007 17:24:09 GMT
There's no reason to indict other people's reviews. Everybody's got their own interests and opinions on what could've made a movie better. I exaggerated on Hairspray, but that's only because I'm not interested in those types of films (it sure seemed like a musical to me).
BTW: The making of Hairspray (1988) was partly inspired by the success of Grease (1978). Critics have questioned this in their reviews, and John Waters confirmed it himself in an interview in the Tribute magazine. Not plot-inspired, but inspired, nonetheless.
Heh. XD The perfect way to word it.
- - -
The movie I suggest for the angst fans is August Rush. I thought it was absolutely amazing.
|
|
|
Post by mrrosenschild on Dec 24, 2007 8:54:08 GMT
That's because they don't have to clean it up between scenes. Ah, the wonders of modern technology. There are, of course, the rare occations when a film version is better than the stage version. Like Chicago, by merit of the songs at least. They aren't nearly as effective in terms of symbolism on stage, IMHO. You'd be surprised to see what can be done without computer generated imagery and using camera tricks instead.
|
|