Welcome to The Opinionated B

Theater Review: Newsies!

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:31:00 +0000

Location: Paper Mill Playhouse, 22 Brookside Drive, Millburn, NJ

Website: Official Paper Mill Playhouse site

Starring: Jeremy Jordan, Ben Fankhauser, Kara Lindsay, John Dossett, Andrew Keenan-Bolger, Vincent Agnello, R.J. Fattori, Helen Anker

My Review: Like many red-blooded American women who fell into the 11-16 age range in 1992, I was a fan of the Disney movie musical Newsies. It was a lively, energetic story about a team of underdogs fighting injustice, with some catchy tunes and fun dance routines. The fact that it also starred a whole bunch of cute teenaged boys—led by a young Christian Bale, who now probably wouldn’t even admit to having been in the movie—didn’t hurt, either. It wasn’t a perfect movie, and by all counts was a box office flop, but it had charm and many people still remember it fondly. And some of those people make up the production team of Harvey Fierstein, Jack Feldman, and Alan Menken, who have turned Newsies the movie musical into Newsies! the stage musical.

Just like the movie, Newsies! tells the fictionalized true story of a group of underprivileged newsboys trying to make a living hawking newspapers on the streets of New York City in 1899. When the major paper publisher Joseph Pulitzer decides he’ll see more profit by raising—without warning—the distribution cost the newsies have to pay, he gets more than he bargained for. Led by the charismatic Jack Kelly, the newsies organize a union with newboys from every borough of the city and go on strike, refusing to sell any of Pulitzer’s papers until their distribution cost is brought back down. Aiding Jack in his cause are Davey, a newsie new to the job who acts as the brains of the operation, and Katherine, a reporter for a rival newspaper eager to write about real issues who strives to get the newsies’ cause on the front page.

While definitely entertaining, Newsies! is still a flawed production. Luckily, the flaws are mostly covered by the energy the cast brings. Whenever there was a musical number featuring the entire chorus of newsies (and there were several), each actor threw himself into it with such gusto that you almost felt exhausted on their behalf. Most of the dance routines were very acrobatic, so you couldn’t help but marvel at how many back flips an actor could turn and still easily join in singing.

Jeremy Jordan did well as strike leader Jack. He had enough strength and presence that it made sense that the other newsies would want to follow him into battle, but he managed to insert a vein of vulnerability that kept him from seeming like just some arrogant punk kid. As Jack’s reluctant right-hand-man Davey, Ben Fankhauser was alright, though at times came across so nebbishy nervous you had to wonder how he ever thought working as a newsboy would be the best way to earn extra money for his family. John Dossett as Pulitzer is painted a bit too broadly as a typical Disney villain, rather than just a greedy captain of industry who has no clue what it’s like to be one of his many underlings. Dossett does the best he can with the role, but the newly-added song Pulitzer performs about the joys of being rich and powerful is forgettable and unnecessary. I’m surprised that the producers didn’t add a handlebar moustache to his costume just so he could twirl it while cackling maniacally.

As far as the music for Newsies! goes, all the favorites from the movie are there (“Carrying the Banner,” “Santa Fe,” “Seize the Day,” “King of New York”), and in an effort to flesh out show, original composer Alan Menken was called upon to add some new musical numbers, which he does with mixed success. There’s the aforementioned song by Pulitzer, which is, well, for lack of a better word, stupid. Katherine the reporter gets to sing a song while she agonizes over writing her piece on the newsies, which is a nice comical piece. But the biggest clunker was the love song duet between Jack and Katherine, which brings me to the one really huge, glaring, neon problem with Newsies!: The shoehorned in love story.

In the movie version, the newspaper reporter is a man who becomes a father figure of sorts to the mostly orphaned group of newsies, and the closest thing to a love story is a very brief flirtation between Jack and Davey’s sister (who doesn’t exist in this new production). But somewhere, somehow in the development for the stage production, someone decided that what Newsies! really needed was a full-on romance (it didn’t) and that making the reporter a female and pairing her with Jack would happily serve that purpose (it doesn’t).

Putting aside how unnecessary a romantic relationship is in a story about underdogs making a stand, there’s the awkwardness of the unstated age difference to consider: Jack is all of 17 (which he states…in song) and Katherine is old enough to have a job as a reporter, which would put her somewhere well over 17 (right?). Why exactly is a working professional woman pining for a teenage boy? And why are we meant to see that as romantic? Perhaps the producers felt that since Newsies! is sparse on female roles, they would be alienating the female audience if they didn’t make one of the main characters a woman. But making her sort of inappropriately predatory was definitely not the way to go. And as far as I’m concerned, a couple dozen cute dancing boys should be more than enough to attract plenty of female audience members.

Bottom Line: Much like the movie it’s based on, Newsies! isn’t a perfect musical, but it is charming and entertaining. Fans of the movie will enjoy seeing the big musical numbers performed live, and newbies will enjoy the high-energy story about the little guy refusing to back down. Though with its eyes clearly focused on a move to Broadway, Newsies! would be wise to make the role of Katherine a male role again. Then all its lesser flaws may be forgiven.

Trailer Review: The Hunger Games

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:53:00 +0000

Release Date: March 23, 2012

Website: Official The Hunger Games site

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland, Wes Bentley

My Review: I admit it: I am an adult with no children who is totally in love with the young adult novel series, The Hunger Games. I would take this time to apologize to all the Twilight fans I’ve mocked over the past couple of years, except for one important thing: The Hunger Games is awesome, and Twilight is stupid.

The first story in a series of three, The Hunger Games takes place in a dystopian near future where what remains of the U.S. is divided into separate Districts that are ruled over with an iron fist by the oppressive Capital. At one time in the past, the Districts banded together in an attempt to overthrow the Capital, and when they lost, unlucky District 13 was obliterated as a warning of what the Capital was capable of. As further punishment for the Districts’ insubordination, every year the Capital hosts the Hunger Games; a televised survival game where a randomly selected male and female child from each District is thrown into an arena and forced to fight to the death.

From District 12, 16-year-old Katniss takes the place of her selected younger sister, and enters the arena with fellow District member Peeta, the charming son of the District baker. Luckily, Katniss isn’t your average teenager; she’s an experienced hunter, smart and resourceful enough to live off the land, and willing to fight as hard as she has to in order to survive. She’s even smart enough to let the inevitable love triangle between her, Peeta, and her back-home hunting buddy Gale run a distant second to everything else she has going on (take that, Bella!).

The recently released trailer for The Hunger Games is really just a teaser, and doesn’t reveal much other than Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss running through a forest being bombarded by fireballs. But it’s enough to make me hopeful that the movie adaptation will capture the same suspenseful energy the book has, though I’m still concerned about how much Hollywood will sanitize the story and glamorize the lead players. In any case, it’s bound to be better than Twilight.

Would I Pay For It?: I knew as soon as I finished reading the book that I would pay to see the unavoidable movie that would come from it, though it’s going to be hard seeing anyone other than the version in my imagination playing Katniss. Because the version in my head is completely badass.

Theater Review: Death Takes a Holiday

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:28:00 +0000

Location: Laura Pels Theatre, 111 West 46^th Street, NY, NY

Website: Official Roundabout Theatre site

Starring: Kevin Earley, Jill Paice, Michael Siberry, Rebecca Luker, Matt Cavenaugh, Mara Davi, Don Stephenson, Max von Essen

My Review: Death Takes a Holiday would be a pretty good student production. Unfortunately, it’s a professional one that stars professional actors and charges professional ticket prices.

Based on a play and the 1934 movie of the same name, Death Takes a Holiday is a new musical playing in the current Roundabout Theatre season. Death, in the form of a handsome man, wants to take a break from collecting souls and see what it’s like to live as a mortal, so he invites himself to a summer weekend at Duke Lamberti’s Italian villa. The Duke agrees to play host to Death’s experiment, on the condition that none of the many guests staying at the villa will be taken by Death when he leaves. But when Death meets the Duke’s newly engaged daughter, Grazia, he instantly falls in love with her, and she finds herself smitten with him (despite her new fiancé also being in town for the weekend). Will Death keep his promise to the Duke, or will he take Grazia when the weekend is over? Will Grazia listen to her father’s warnings to stay away from the handsome stranger, or is there a force beyond her control drawing her to him? And most importantly, will anyone remember this musical once they’ve seen it?

Everything about Death Takes a Holiday is amateurish in the worst possible way. The plot plods at a snail’s pace, the characters a superficial and unsympathetic, the songs are tuneless and unmemorable, and the resolution to the whole thing is nonexistent. It so desperately wants to be a sweeping epic love story set to music—in the same vein as The Phantom of the Opera—but it never fleshes out it’s characters enough to make the audience care about them, and it never stops wink-winking at the fantastical story to be emotionally resonant. The entire two and a half hours is peppered with groan-worthy death puns (“I was scared to death!”) that you might chuckle at once if you were caught off guard, but when constantly revisited they only serve to remind you that the plot is totally unrealistic, so why should what happens really matter.

Perhaps the most unforgivable element of the production is how bad the music is. There are plenty of less-than-stellar musicals in existence, but if they manage to include one or two memorable songs, the audience will forgive them all the other shortcomings. Most of the songs in Death Takes a Holiday sound like stream of consciousness prattling set to music; the sort of noise someone who hates musical theater would make while mocking musical theater. The songs could have (and probably should have) easily been removed and replaced by straight dialog, but someone decided this production had to be a musical, despite the fact that it clearly works better as a play.

Bottom Line: There are so many more things wrong with Death Takes a Holiday, but I was bored enough while watching it that I really don’t feel like putting myself through it a second time while recalling all its failings. It may be the death of me! *rim shot*

Theater Review: Royal Shakespeare Company’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:05:00 +0000

Location: Park Avenue Armory, 643 Park Avenue, New York, NY

Website: Official Lincoln Center Festival site

Starring: Dyfan Dwyfor, Mariah Gale, Jonjo O’Neill, Forbes Masson, Noma Dumezweni, Joseph Arkley

My Review: The Royal Shakespeare Company is probably on its way back home across the pond as I type this, but for a few brief weeks this summer they took up residence here in New York at the Park Avenue Armory, performing five of Shakespeare’s classic plays in repertory. As much as I would have liked to have seen all five, my bank account said I was allowed only one, so I went with the classical classic of all classics that ever classiced, Romeo and Juliet.

If I need to summarize Romeo and Juliet, then you either never took a high school English course, or you failed it miserably. In brief, Romeo and Juliet are teenagers from feuding families who meet at a party and instantly fall in love. Unfortunately, the fact that their families hate each other creates some difficulties in their relationship. So with the aid of a drama-loving nurse and a priest hoping to create peace between the families, they secretly marry, only to have Romeo kill Juliet’s cousin mere hours after their wedding, getting him banished from town. The priest hatches a plan that will allow Juliet to fake her death, making it possible for her to escape with Romeo, but when his message of this plan to Romeo goes astray, Romeo hears only that Juliet is dead. As only a lovesick teen would, he goes to her tomb and kills himself. Juliet awakens from her false death, sees Romeo dead, and kills herself. The fighting families mourn the loss of their children and vow to put their petty rivalry to rest. If you’ve ever seen a movie, watched a TV show, or read a book, you know this story already.

This instant familiarity could easily be the undoing of any production of Romeo and Juliet. It’s a 400-year old tale that’s been told over and over again in every available medium, so is it even possible to present it in a new and exciting way? If the RSC production is any indication, yes, it is (and adding fire could help).

Park Avenue Armory

Knowing that bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better, the RSC went minimalist with their production, with a cobblestone thrust stage acting as everything from an outdoor market square, to the inside of a castle, to an underground tomb. Rather then relying on fancy theatrics, they allowed the performances to be the attention-grabbers; a decision that worked brilliantly. Both Romeo (Dyfan Dwyfor) and Juliet (Mariah Gale) shone, and even managed to capture an element of the story that is so often forgotten: Romeo and Juliet are teenagers.

The actors themselves were obviously past their teen years, but they still managed to capture all the wonderful horribleness that is being a teen. Dressed in modern clothes while the rest of the cast was in Elizabethan garb already set them apart, making it clear that they were not of the same world as everyone else. Romeo mooned about, slouching in a hoodie, embodying all the reckless emotions that come with falling in love and experiencing adult feelings for the first time. Juliet was prone to bratty fits of temper and foot-stomping when she didn’t get her way, but wasn’t afraid to show her softer side when the time called for it. Some other reviewers complained about the use of these typical teen antics, but I found them to be a refreshing way to make it clear that Romeo and Juliet is ultimately a story about children.

As is so often the case with this play, Mercutio was a scene-stealer (played by Jonjo O’Neill). He only appeared in a handful of scenes, but reveled in playing the bawdy clown of the show, though his devotion to his best friend Romeo was clear so that his untimely death (400-year old spoiler?) was still tragic. Juliet’s nurse (Noma Dumezweni) was another highlight from the supporting cast, as she begins as Juliet’s confidant but eventually shows her duplicity when she sides with Juliet’s parents on forcing a marriage with the man of their choice. Dumezweni’s nurse was never cruel, but simply a woman who enjoyed the drama of a secret relationship, until she saw how it would negatively affect her employers and was forced to choose a side.

I saw one of the final performances of the RSC, and unfortunately, the production was plagued by mishaps. An unidentified beeping noise in the middle of the first act brought the play to a stop while it was fixed. Even more disruptive, at the dramatic peak of the second act when Romeo enters Juliet’s tomb, a torch bearing actual fire refused to be extinguished, so a stagehand had to appear to carry it offstage. But despite these issues, the cast remained professional, yet playful enough to wink at the audience and let us know that, yes, this kind of stuff can happen even during Shakespeare.

Bottom Line: Given the quality of the production they offered and the reception they received from a New York audience, the Royal Shakespeare Company’s first visit here was a success. Being able to breathe new life into Romeo and Juliet is a task not many could do, but the RSC made it look effortless. I hope they return again soon with some new perspective on other old favorites.

Movie Review: Bridesmaids

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Rated: R

Website: Official Bridesmaids site

Starring: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne, Melissa McCarthy, Chris O’Dowd, Jon Hamm

My Review: I was lucky enough to attend an advance screening of the comedy Bridesmaids, so figured a brief step out of my hiatus to share my thoughts on it was in order. You are allowed to show your pleasure.

Bridesmaids wants very badly to be a female-centric comedy without delving into the realm of romantic comedies and being labeled with the unfairly tainted hallmark “chick flick.” Being produced by Apatow Productions and having Paul Feig as director is a step in the right direction, but the movie still lacks that certain something that would make it the next The 40-Year Old Virgin comedy sensation.

Annie (played by Kristen Wiig) is going through a bit of a rough patch in life. Her bakery business went under due to the recession, so she now works at a boring jewelry store job she got through one of her mother’s Alcoholic’s Anonymous contacts. She shares an apartment with a pair of very creepy British siblings. The closest thing she has to a real relationship is occasional sex with a guy who would prefer that she not spend the night (played by Jon Hamm, so it’s hard to feel too sorry for her). And to add the cherry to her crap-life sundae, her life-long best friend, Lillian (Maya Rudolph) is getting married and wants Annie to be her maid of honor. Wanting to be supportive, but in way over her head, Annie agrees, and is introduced to her fellow bridesmaids, including Helen (Rose Byrne), an overgrown mean girl who is hell-bent on using her rolodex of important contacts and her husband’s money to give Lillian the wedding of her dreams, thus muscling Annie out of the role of “best friend.”

While Bridesmaids tries hard to avoid typical romantic comedy tropes, I wish it had tried a little harder. While the bulk of the movie is about the women and their relationships with each other—the groom only has one line in the whole movie; “I do”—it can’t resist dipping into the familiar well a couple of times. In addition to the cattiness that bubbles up between Annie and Helen in their fight for Lillian, Annie is also presented with the classic dilemma of having to choose between two men: One is handsome, but treats her poorly, the other is kind of nerdy, but adores her. Whoever will she ride into the sunset with at the end?! (Hint: Exactly who you think she will.) There was plenty of comedy to mine in having an inept maid of honor try to make her best friend’s big day memorable, so having to shoehorn in a love triangle and rehash the stereotype that women would rather fight than be friends was disappointing.

Being an R-rated comedy in the Apatow family, Bridesmaids is rife with adult-only humor that you wouldn’t want your children (or possibly your parents) to see. The movie opens with a sequence of Annie having awkward sex with her disinterested fuck buddy, and the biggest gag involves a case of food poisoning that leads to massive uncontrollable vomiting and explosive diarrhea. The laughs are plentiful throughout most of the movie, but about midway through they start to feel kind of cheap. Sure it’s an adult comedy, so things are bound to be a bit raunchy, but most adults can find humor in things other than bad sex and bodily functions.

Though their times on Saturday Night Live overlapped very briefly, Kristin Wiig and Maya Rudolph make such a natural pair of best friends, you would think they’ve been working together for years. The fact that the uptight Helen thinks she even has a chance of coming in between them is almost laughable. But the real standout in Bridesmaids is Melissa McCarthy as Megan, the groom’s sister and one of Lillian’s bridesmaids. If, like me, you were a fan of her Sookie on Gilmore Girls, prepare to be shocked, as brash, bawdy, and vulgar Megan is the anti-Sookie. It would have been easy to stick her in the role of “token funny fat person,” so it was refreshing that she got to be genuinely funny (and kind of gross) with her weight having nothing to do with her comedy.

Bottom Line: Bridesmaids offers lots of laughs, and some heart, but there just isn’t enough there to make it a comedy that you’ll want to revisit again and again, or to pick you up when you need a laugh. If a movie ever manages to capture the true hilarity that can come from female relationships, leaving cattiness and overdone love complications out of the equation, I’ll happily be first in line to see it. But if they wanted to cast Jon Hamm as another casual sex partner, I’d be OK with that.

Going on Hiatus

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:02:00 +0000

For those of you who read my blog (all both of you), you’ve probably noticed that I’ve been slacking a bit in getting new posts published. This was due mainly to being busy with a big project I was working on at my day job, and the general laziness I sometimes fall victim to. But that was nothing compared to the blog slacking I’m about to do as I go on official hiatus.

In addition to my full-time job and the various other activities that fill my time, I’m now taking a paralegal certificate course in an effort to broaden my career aspects (since it’s no secret that the publishing/editing/writing field is struggling to stay alive). The course takes up a lot of my free time, so for the next few months I’m going to take a break from The Opinionated B, with the possibility of doing a post here or there if I come across something worth writing about.

So have a great spring, go see some theater, and eat lots of cake. And if you know of anyone in the NYC area looking for a paralegal with a background in editorial work, please let me know!

Theater Review: Gruesome Playground Injuries

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Location: Second Stage Theatre, 305 West 43^rd Street, New York, NY

Website: Official Second Stage Theatre site

Starring: Jennifer Carpenter, Pablo Schreiber

My Review: After seeing a show, I usually wait a day or two before writing about it so that I have some time to let it all sink in and form a somewhat thoughtful opinion on what I saw. Polarizing shows that generate a ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’ response are easier to get to quicker, while I’ll procrastinate writing about those I have mixed feelings on for as long as I can stand it. It’s been a week since I saw Gruesome Playground Injuries, and I’m basically forcing myself to write about it before I forget everything that happened, which pretty much says everything about how I feel about the show.

The two-person play is the story of the bizarre friendship between Kayleen and Doug over the course of 30 years, told in out-of-order episodes from their life ranging from elementary school childhood to their late 30’s. When they first meet in the nurse’s office of the private school they both attend, Kayleen’s sullen and self-destructive ways immediately bond her to the constantly accident-prone Doug, and the two stumble (sometimes literally) into each other’s lives at lengthy-spaced intervals as they grow up.

Gruesome Playground Injuries is such a mixed bag, and every moment seems to fall slightly short of its aim. When it’s being darkly funny, it generates more of a smirk than an actual laugh. When it’s being touching and poignant, it tries too hard to avoid being mawkish that it misses on being resonant at all. Most of my reaction to the performance can best be broken down into a series of pros and cons:

Pro: The actors. When the entire cast consists of two people, having the wrong two people in those roles can destroy the play before the house lights have dimmed. Luckily, Gruesome Playground Injuries gets its casting exactly right. As Kayleen, Jennifer Carpenter (best known as foulmouthed Debra on Dexter) is perfectly acidic and thorny, but maintains a necessary thread of vulnerability. As Doug, Pablo Schreiber fluidly moves through the various facets of his character, from immature jokester, to Kayleen’s whipping boy, to empathetic friend, to tragic clown as the series of injuries Doug sustains during the course of the show gradually move away from being comic relief. The two actors play their characters at various ages, from eight to 38 and periods in between, and it was amazing at how good they were at portraying the childhood and teenage years without delving into exaggerated stereotypes.

Con: An unconvincing relationship. Kayleen and Doug are best friends. How do I know this? Because the play told me so. Unfortunately, it failed to make be believe it. I believed their awkwardly cute first meeting in the nurse’s office. I believed their stilted flirting and petty arguments as they grew older. But as they became adults and professions of life-long friendship were made, they lost me. It’s established that they don’t see, or even speak, to each other for stretches of years at a time. They conceal major life events from each other. And when they do eventually get together, they do little more than fight with each other. Friendships come in all shapes and sizes, but the one between Kayleen and Doug never felt completely formed or rang true for me, as I found it hard to believe that they really cared about each other all that much (making it hard for the audience to care about them all that much).

Pro: The scenery. Gruesome Playground Injuries is a play that doesn’t need a lot of props or elaborate scenery, so the minimalist Second Stage Theatre was a perfect fit. The stage floor is made of clear Plexiglas cubes, with a pair of shelves with boxy drawers on both sides where the actor’s quick-change costume components are stashed. For each scene a chair, bench, or bed is easily slid in from offstage, then quickly pushed out during the scene change, making the whole production run like a well-oiled machine.

Con: Abrupt ending. The play feels like its building toward something during its 80-minute run, but then it just ends. It wasn’t until the stage went completely dark and other audience members started clapping that I even realized it was over.

Pro: The title. Despite its various shortcomings, Gruesome Playground Injuries is one of the best titles for anything I’ve ever heard.

Bottom Line: A flawed play that is saved by its stellar performers, Gruesome Playground Injuries is nevertheless a play that sticks with you. But not because it’s so memorable or entertaining, but because it’s almost impossible to decide if you really liked it or not.

Theater Review: The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:34:00 +0000

Location: Paper Mill Playhouse, 22 Brookside Drive, Millburn, NJ

Website: Official Paper Mill Playhouse site

Starring: Ephie Aardema, Will Blum, Lyle Colby Mackston, Marla Mindelle, Olivia Oguma, Jerold E. Solomon, Ali Stroker, David Volin, Brandon Yanez

My Review: The 25^th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee is probably one of the most purely fun musicals to come around in the past few years (though it’s still trumped by Avenue Q in that capacity). It’s funny and lighthearted with just enough amount of pathos tossed in to prevent it from being completely unsubstantial. The characters are exaggerated, but still relatable, the story is comical, but not a farce, and the songs are simple and tuneful, but still clever and thoughtful.

Spelling Bee tells the story of six unique students (played by adult actors) competing in a middle school spelling bee. Each dreams of taking home the top prize, but must overcome their individual hurdles to do so. The bee is preceded over by one-time spelling champ Rona and the school’s disgruntled vice principal, and former convict Mitch is performing his community service as the comfort councilor who provides the ousted spellers with a sympathetic pat on the back and a juice box. The spellers relate their various spelling—and personal—woes in a series of songs, including helicoptering same-sex parents and an unfortunately timed erection.

All in all, it’s not an overly complicated show; there are no elaborate set changes, no complicated song and dance numbers, and no need for “serious” actors. Which means that Spelling Bee is the perfect show to let loose with, and each individual production has the potential to be completely unique. There’s even an audience participation element that can be played with by a cast that’s able to think on their feet (a handful of audience members are invited on stage to be participants in the bee).

Unfortunately, no one told the Paper Mill Playhouse that this was a show that they were free to toy around with. I was lucky enough to see Spelling Bee during its Broadway run and found it to be hilarious, and while I wasn’t expecting this new production to live up to those standards, I was still expecting a bit more than what I got. Everything that I saw on stage was very by the book, as if the cast was handed the script and warned about deviating from what was on the page. The resulting production was still amusing, but it could have been uproarious if the cast had just loosened up a bit.

It also didn’t help that they obviously had a stock pile of jokes and quips to be made about the audience participants, rather than improvising in the moment. Maybe this was a conscious decision by the director who felt the cast didn’t have the comedic chops for improv, or maybe it was a huge misstep, but either way, it was noticeable and resulted in a lot of jokes that fell flat.

Bottom Line: For theatergoers who like their musicals frothy and fun, with just a modicum of risqué, Spelling Bee is an ideal choice. Just pray that you get to see a cast that’s willing to play it a little faster and looser than this one.

I Bet I Can Pick More 2011 Oscar Winners Than You

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:46:00 +0000

The nominees for the 2011 Academy Awards have been announced, and my first reaction is, “Can someone please explain the widespread love for Winter’s Bone to me?” I saw Winter’s Bone. I didn’t dislike it, but I didn’t find it to be all that, either. It was interesting to see a primarily overlooked section of America being portrayed, and the acting was pretty good, but in the end it just didn’t move me and it didn’t stick with me.

The nominees are a nice mixed bag of the expected (Black Swan and The King’s Speech both got a healthy dose of nods), surprises (Javier Bardem for Biutiful, the aforementioned Winter’s Bone nominations), and outrages (Christopher Nolan didn’t get a Directing nom?! No Mila Kunis for Supporting Actress?!). And on a personal note, if Time Warner Cable would get its act together and offer The Social Network On Demand, I’d totally watch it before the awards on February 27.

With limited knowledge and no expertise whatsoever, here are my winner predictions:

Best Picture
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

So we’re still doing the 10 nominees thing, eh? Well, I’m going to go ahead and whittle the race down to Black Swan, The King’s Speech, and The Social Network. I know The Social Network is considered the frontrunner, especially after its big Golden Globe win, but I’m guess The King’s Speech gets the Oscar. Oscar LOVES historical dramas. And this one is British! We Americans sure do love us some Brits!

Best Actor
Javier Bardem, Biutiful
Jeff Bridges, True Grit
Jessie Eisenberg, The Social Network
Colin Firth, The King's Speech
James Franco, 127 Hours

OK, I know that out of this list The King’s Speech is the only one I saw, and I’m always a bit clouded by my undying love for Colin Firth, but can’t we all agree that this is his race to lose?

Best Actress
Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right
Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence, Winter's Bone
Natalie Portman, Black Swan
Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine

Well screw you, Julianne Moore! No, not really. I mean, I still like you, but somebody apparently decided you were the weak cog in The Kids Are All Right machine. This category is probably a race between Bening and Portman, and while Oscar tends to love seasoned actors who have been routinely overlooked (like Bening), the statue is more than likely going home with Portman.

Best Supporting Actor
Christian Bale, The Fighter
John Hawkes, Winter's Bone
Jeremy Renner, The Town
Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right
Geoffery Rush, The King's Speech

I haven’t even seen The Fighter, but Bale will probably win, and I pray that he still looks like coked-up Jesus when he goes onstage to accept.

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams, The Fighter
Helena Bonham Carter, The King's Speech
Melissa Leo, The Fighter
Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom

I really liked Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech because it was nice to see that she still has the acting chops to take on sedate, understated roles (we all know by now that she can tackle any number of kooky misfits in the various Tim Burton carnivals she appears in). But Melissa Leo is apparently great in The Fighter, and a lot of people seem to still be rooting for her from Frozen River a couple of years ago. But Hailee Steinfeld was apparently phenomenal in True Grit, and the Academy does like to honor remarkable child actors. But the five people who saw Animal Kingdom can’t shut up about Jacki Weaver. I’d put my money on Leo winning.

Best Director
Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
David O. Russell, The Fighter
Tom Hooper, The King's Speech
David Fincher, The Social Network
Joel Coen/Ethan Coen, True Grit

This is probably between Aronofsky and Fincher. Fincher will probably win for being able to create a compelling story about a bunch of computer nerds. Though in my opinion, getting the masses to go see a movie about ballet is no small feat, either.

Best Screenplay — Adapted
Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy, 127 Hours
Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network
Michael Arndt, Toy Story 3
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, True Grit
Debra Granik and Anne Roselini, Winter's Bone

Wouldn’t it be neat if Toy Story 3 won? It won’t, but it would be neat. Aaron Sorkin basically has this locked for both being a long-time beloved screenwriter and for, like Fincher, creating a compelling story about a bunch of computer nerds.

Best Screenplay — Original
Mike Leigh, Another Year
Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy and Eric Johnson, The Fighter
Christopher Nolan, Inception
Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg, The Kids Are All Right
David Seidler, The King's Speech

I have a feeling this is the one category The Kids Are All Right could actually win. Or The King’s Speech will win, which is probably more likely.

Best Animated Feature
How to Train your Dragon
The Illusionist
Toy Story 3

If you haven’t learned by now that you never bet against Pixar, you never will.

Shenanigans: Happy 2011!

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Years ago, when I was younger, starrier-eyed, and didn’t have to work full time, I would occasionally create these stupid, poorly illustrated stories in MS Paint depicting some ridiculous and/or inane event in my life that would really only be funny to me and maybe two other people. And I called this series of crudely depicted tales ‘Shenanigans.’ So seeing how this is a new year and this is my blog (ergo, I can do what I want with it), I’m tentatively reviving Shenanigans and, well, we’ll see how it goes.

In my first Shenanigans story, I will detail how I spent New Year’s Eve.

For those who know me personally, it’s no secret that I can be a bit antisocial and lazy about making plans. But I was determined to ring in 2011 with some semblance of celebration after the previous year’s New Year’s Eve left a lot to be desired.

I belong to an online listing that offers severely discounted tickets to various events and performances in the city, and they had a listing for a New Year’s Eve party for singles. This seemed like a good idea for several reasons.

So I proposed attending this party to my best friend, who agreed.

Unfortunately, being the idiot I can be sometimes, I failed to see the one big major downside to attending a party specifically for singles: Scores of creepy and poorly socialized people assuming that everyone else there is as desperate as they are for companionship.

Upon entering the club, everyone got a card with the name of one half of a famous couple on it. As an ice breaker game (ugh) you were supposed to find your “mate” in the crowd and win a prize of some sort. My identity was…Barbie.

I wasn’t particularly interested in seeking out Ken in the crowd, but more focused on having a few drinks, eating a few pigs in a blanket, and hanging out with some cool chicks. But this was not the case with the other party guests, and the rest of the night progressed something like this:

Gaggle of creepy dudes aside, it was still an improvement over my welcome to 2010. And no, I never did seek out Ken. Because what am I supposed to do with a guy who can’t bend his joints and whose nether region is as smooth as pigs in a blanket are awesome?

Oh, and kitty still wishes everyone a happy new year.

2011 Golden Globe Awards Post-Mortem

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:53:00 +0000

So was it just me, or were the Golden Globes sort of ‘meh’ this year? There were plenty of good movies and TV shows being honored, but everyone from the host to the nominees to the guests just seemed to not really care this year. I know America is famous for its apathy towards nearly everything, but if we can’t at least get a little pomp and ostentatious ceremony from our overly-coiffed celebrities, the terrorists win!

Second-time host Ricky Gervais delivered on his promise to pull no punches with his zingers, but a lot of them fell flat (not that anyone seemed to care too much). It felt like he was trying too hard to make the most of the time he had on stage, which was precious little, which makes me wonder why the producers bother the get hosts for these award ceremonies. With different presenters for all the categories and a handful of pre-taped bits and montages, is a host even necessary to keep everything tied together?

I didn’t score too badly on my winner predictions, but that’s mainly because I stuck to the big categories only and didn’t even bother to delve into the TV categories. Apparently The Social Network is going to be the front runner at the Academy Awards, so I should really get around to seeing it (which I totally will if Time Warner On Demand would get its act together).

You can see the full list of Golden Globe winners here, and here are some random thoughts/observations from the ceremony:

* Gervais’ trademark mean-spirited comments were hit or miss, but my favorite was his comment about how Sex and the City 2 should have at least received a nomination for whoever airbrushed the movie poster. The best part was the reaction shot of Chris Noth (there for being nominated on The Good Wife) cracking up.

* I watched the first season of Boardwalk Empire and liked it well enough, but did it and star Steve Buscemi deserve to beat out Mad Men, Jon Hamm, and Bryan Cranston in their respective categories? That would be a ‘no.’

* Can anyone explain why The Tourist and The Kids Are All Right are considered comedies (or musicals)?

* Annette Bening totally deserved to win for The Kids Are All Right and looked great in her age-appropriate dress. Now if she could just do something about that crazy troll-doll hair…

* Robert Downey, Jr. has to be one of the most well-adjusted former drug addict sex fiends ever.

* I laughed at winner Natalie Portman’s comment about how good an actor her fiancée is because “he totally wants to sleep with me!” Maybe she can do comedy after all. (No, I still won’t pay to see No Strings Attached.)

* I would love to fault the Hollywood Foreign Press for being Glee fans, since it’s a guilty-pleasure show, not an award-winner show, but then they went and gave an award to Chris Colfer, who is far and away the best thing about the whole show. And his legitimate shock and awe at winning was adorable. So keep on believin’, Hollywood Foreign Press, and hold on to that feeling.

Theater Review: Angels in America Part One: Millennium Approaches

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Location: Signature Theatre, 555 West 42^nd Street, NY, NY

Website: Official Signature Theatre site

Starring: Christian Borle, Bill Heck, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Kazan, Billy Porter, Robin Weigert, Robin Bartlett, Frank Wood

My Review: Three months after seeing the second part of Angels in America, I finally got to start at the beginning. It was a convoluted way of doing things, no doubt, but somehow that didn’t take away anything from the experience.

I already wrote an overly lengthy review of Part Two: Perestroika, so I’ll refrain from blathering on here. My overall impression of the production hasn’t changed, and seeing how I actually like the first part of the play better, seeing them out of order worked out in my favor. Part One: Millennium Approaches is the more engaging and entertaining of the two halves of Angels, as the second half tends to get a bit too preachy for my taste (which I know is a strange complaint to make about a play called Angels in America, but there it is anyway).

Zachary Quinto is more involved in the first half, so I got to form a more well-informed opinion of his performance. He made an excellent Louis, a part that’s somewhat thankless. Louis is a weak man who walks out on his lover Prior at the most critical time of his life, for primarily selfish reasons. It’s hard to feel compassion for Louis when witnessing Prior’s struggle, but Quinto manages to make him sympathetic and while not exactly redeemable in his actions, he’s at least understandable.

Christian Borle and Frank Wood are still the standouts in the cast, as Prior and the horrible Roy Cohn, and Zoe Kazan is still woefully miscast as the emotionally unstable Mormon housewife Harper, as she continues playing her like a stunted child. Billy Porter seems to have toned down the over-the-top sassiness of Belize that he had when I saw Part Two: Perestroika, and truly shines in the few scenes where he portrays Harper’s smarmy travel agent imaginary friend, Mr. Lies.

Bottom Line: There’s no question that Angels in America has become and American theater classic, evidenced especially in the fact that this “limited” run at the Signature Theater has to keep extending due to ticket demand. It’s not a flawless production, but its merits far outshine its shortcomings. And seeing how Angels is a play that doesn’t get revived often, it’s an opportunity worth jumping at.

Trailer Review: The Tree of Life

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Release Date: May 27, 2011

Website: Official The Tree of Life site

Starring: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Fiona Shaw

My Review: I first saw the trailer for The Tree of Life when it played in the theater before Black Swan. When it was done, I leaned over to my friend and whispered, “I have no idea what that movie is supposed to be about.” After watching the trailer a second time, I still have no idea.

Here’s what I know for sure: It stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn.

Here’s what I can infer: Pitt plays the father to a brood of boys in the 1950s. He’s extremely hard on his children, thinking the only way they’ll grow up to be real men is to be emotionally abusive, and as a result, as his kids grow up they distance themselves from him. Penn plays the adult version of one of the boys, and as a result of his harsh upbringing, he’s an emotionally crippled person.

Here’s what I wildly assume: Penn is haunted by some traumatic childhood incident that he blames his father for. He will spend his adult life coming to terms with it. Tears will be shed, lessons will be learned, and emotional growth will occur. Hugging, no doubt, will be involved.

Would I Pay For It?: No. I mean, I do enjoy a good drama, but I don’t enjoy having it rammed down my throat.

Theater Review: Les Misérables

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Location: Paper Mill Playhouse, 22 Brookside Drive, Millburn, NJ

Website: Official Paper Mill Playhouse site

Starring: Lawrence Clayton, Andrew Varela, Betsy Morgan, Chasten Harmon, Justin Scott Brown, Jenny Latimer, Shawna M. Hamic, Michael Kostroff

My Review: As if there aren’t enough things in this world that remind of the fact that I’m not getting any younger, now the musical that ignited my love of musical theater so many years ago is celebrating its 25^th anniversary. Yes, Les Misérables is 25 and kicking off a new U.S. tour at the Paper Mill Playhouse. And in a somewhat futile attempt to scale back on one of the most grandiose musicals ever, the spinning lazy Susan-inspired stage is gone, as is the giant barricade that folds down onto the stage. But the music is all there, along with the enormous cast, and if you’re willing to let yourself get swept up in a musical that takes itself very seriously, the emotional wallop is as strong as ever.

Les Misérables is about a lot of things, and the fact the source novel was able to be whittled into a three-hour show is still somewhat unbelievable. At its core, it’s the story of Jean Valjean, a thief who breaks parole to search for redemption, and Javert, the pious police officer doggedly hunting him across France. There’s also stories of love (sacrificial, first, and unrequited), loss, and a revolution that—despite the popular misconception—is not the French Revolution.

The new anniversary production utilizes the artwork of Les Misérables novelist Victor Hugo to replace the stage tricks that have been removed. A screen in the background reflects various paintings that represent everything from the ocean, an industrial factory, and the sewers of France. In many ways, this works better than the formerly spinning stage—it makes (spoiler alert?) Javert’s suicide scene far more impacting—but for some reason the various dates covered in the production aren’t announced. When a show utilizes a projection screen and covers a time span of 17 years, being kept up to date when we were jumping ahead in time would have been helpful.

Les Misérables employs a cast of dozens, but the success or failure of the show depends on the two men playing Jean Valjean and Javert. In the past I’ve seen a production where both roles were performed perfectly, and one where the actor playing Javert was so weak it was almost laughable that other characters would tremble in his presence. Luckily, this production gets the balance of the two adversaries just right. As Valjean, Lawrence Clayton conveys confliction about his past, but the determination to create an honest life for himself. As Javert, Andrew Varela is angry and intimidating, but with a vein of vulnerability that appears when he’s uncertain about how to conclude his career-long manhunt. When the two share the stage, they create scenes of high tension that also garner sympathy for two men who are simply trying to do what they think is right.

In a vast cast of impressive talent, the one misstep made is in the casting of Eponine. Chasten Harmon has a natural R&B/gospel quality to her singing voice, which would well serve any number of musical theater roles, but unfortunately, an 1830’s French pauper isn’t one of them. Every solo Eponine sings—and there are quite a few—is a bit jarring and sounds out of place in a show that depends on the ability for dozens of different voices being able to blend together easily.

Bottom Line: Les Misérables is a show that even the most casual musical theater fans tend to fall in love with, and the new 25^th anniversary production should be no exception. Just try not to sing along with all the songs, no matter how well you may know them. It can be really distracting to those sitting around you. Trust me.

I Bet I Can Pick More 2011 Golden Globe Winners Than You

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:00:00 +0000

The 68^th annual Golden Globe nominees are out, so here are my picks for winners. I’d include some of the television categories, but I didn’t, so…there.

BEST MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA

Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception

The King’s Speech

The Social Network

I haven’t even seen The Fighter, but I’m so sick of movies about professional fighters, that I’m automatically discarding it from every category it was nominated in. I’d say that this race is between Black Swan and Inception, so it’ll probably all come down to whether voters prefer a mind-bending sci-fi action flick, or a mind-bending emotional thriller. I saw and enjoyed both movies, but if it’s a question of being the better crafted movie, I’d go with Black Swan.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA

Halle Berry, Frankie and Alice

Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole

Jennifer Lawrence, Winter’s Bone

Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine

This is Natalie Portman’s race to lose, which I don’t think she will. No one has seen or cares about Frankie and Alice, and Rabbit Hole is a too generic drama (parents mourning a dead child). Jennifer Lawrence was the best part of Winter’s Bone, but I’m somewhat dumbfounded about the mass appeal that movie seems to be having on people. I haven’t seen Blue Valentine yet, but I find it hard to imagine Michelle Williams trumping Portman here.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA

Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network

Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

James Franco, 127 Hours

Ryan Gosling, Blue Valentine

Mark Wahlberg, The Fighter

Colin Firth. It’s long overdue.

BEST MOTION PICTURE – COMEDY OR MUSICAL

Alice in Wonderland

Burlesque

The Kids Are All Right

RED

The Tourist

The fact that Alice in Wonderland, Burlesque, and the generally panned The Tourist are even nominated for awards is mind boggling. I’ve heard that RED was a fun movie, but The Kids Are All Right is the only movie with any gravitas here. For this reason, I wouldn’t have categorized it as a comedy, but the Golden Globes have, so it’ll probably win.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE – COMEDY OR MUSICAL

Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right

Anne Hathaway, Love and Other Drugs

Angelina Jolie, The Tourist

Julianne Moore, The Kids Are All Right

Emma Stone, Easy A

Again, I’m not entirely sure how The Kids Are All Right is a comedy, but the two women from that movie have the best shot at winning here. Annette Bening had the more emotional performance, and managed to garner sympathy for a hopelessly flawed character, so I’d bet on her.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE – COMEDY

OR MUSICAL

Johnny Depp, Alice in Wonderland

Johnny Depp, The Tourist

Paul Giamatti, Barney’s Version

Jake Gyllenhaal, Love and Other Drugs

Kevin Spacey, Casino Jack

I have no idea here. I doubt Johnny Depp will win for either of his movies since neither one was very good. I don’t know how many people saw or cared about Barney’s Version and Casino Jack, and Love and Other Drugs was hardly an award-worthy movie. But everyone love Paul Giamatti, so maybe he’ll win for that movie no one’s seen.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

Despicable Me

How to Train Your Dragon

The Illusionist

Tangled

Toy Story 3

I’m starting to feel slightly bad for animation studios that aren’t Pixar. They just never stand a chance.

BEST DIRECTOR – MOTION PICTURE

Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan

David Fincher, The Social Network

Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech

Christopher Nolan, Inception

David O. Russell, The Fighter

Again, I’d put this between Black Swan and Inception. Both Aronofsky and Nolan crafted excellent films, but it’s a question of what voters will prefer. I think it might be Aronofsky’s year, but a Nolan upset would be neither surprising nor really all that upsetting.

You can see the full list of the thousand of Golden Globe nominations on their website, and the awards air on Sunday, January 16^th, hosted once again by Ricky Gervais. It’s sure to be spectacularly awkward and giggly.

Trailer Review: Tiny Furniture

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Release Date: Now playing in select theaters in the U.S.

Website: Official Tiny Furniture site

Starring: Lena Dunham, Laurie Simmons, Grace Dunham, Jemima Kirke, Alex Karpovsky, David Call

My Review: No movie genre does quirky families and general life ennui better than small indie films created on a shoestring budget by little-known artists, so Tiny Furniture is definitely on the right track.

Written, directed, and starring comic writer Lena Dunham, Tiny Furniture tells the story of Aura, a recent college grad with little ambition and no direction in life, who moves back home to Manhattan to live with her mother and teenage sister. And that is apparently the entire plot of the movie. Her family (played by Dunham’s real-life mother and sister) is weird—naturally—so they get in each other’s faces and bicker over ridiculous things, like Aura’s post-collegiate malaise making her sound like “the epilogue to Felicity.” And since Aura is single, she gets introduced to a possible new boyfriend (who is also—naturally—weird), who she invites to move in with her and her family. How can one New York apartment contain all this quirkiness?

While I have nothing against small movies that focus more on interesting characters than intricate plots, I hope there’s something more to Tiny Furniture than a showcase for the bizarre family that Dunham obviously adores. Everybody thinks their family is crazy and hilarious, but if we all made movies about them, we’d soon learn that they’re only crazy and funny after spending a lifetime with them. There are few things more potentially annoying to an audience than being presented with someone’s scripted home movie and told to find the subjects charming.

Would I Pay For It?: I’ll probably just wait for it to show up on the IFC Channel in a month or two.

Theater Review: George Balanchine’s The Nutcracker

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Location: New York City Ballet, David H. Koch Theater, 20 Lincoln Center, New York, NY

Website: Official NYC Ballet The Nutcracker site

Starring: The NYC Ballet company

My Review: Confession: Despite my rabid theater geekiness and general adoration for the performing arts, until last Friday I had never attended a professional ballet performance. Shameful, I know. Like many little girls, I took ballet lessons as a kid, but when I started developing boobs and discovered my love of fried foods and cake, I gave it up to pursue extracurricular activities that I could realistically be good at. But my appreciation for the art form didn’t die with my discontinued participation in it, so that it’s taken me so many years to actually attend a performance is kind of embarrassing.

Also kind of embarrassing is that I chose The Nutcracker—generally acknowledged to be geared towards children—to be the first professional ballet I attend. But whatever, it’s Christmas time, The Nutcracker is a classic, and I don’t care what you think.

Before seeing the New York City Ballet performance, my knowledge of The Nutcracker story came from a picture book I had as a kid and some bizarre animated version I saw once upon a time (but can’t currently find any verification of its existence now). At her parent’s Christmas party, young Marie is gifted a handcrafted nutcracker by her odd and mysterious uncle. While she sleeps, the nutcracker comes to life to do battle with the Mouse King and his minions who have taken over his kingdom. Marie throws a shoe at the Mouse King, distracting him long enough for the nutcracker to kill him, the nutcracker is transformed into a human prince, and Marie and the prince go to visit the magical kingdom that is now his again.

But it turns out where I thought the story ended, was just the end of the first act. In Act II, Marie and the prince visit the Land of Sweets, where candy-based characters dance for their enjoyment. Obviously anything candy-related is going to grab my attention, and the majority of the recognizable Tchaikovsky movements from the score are found in the second act. After enjoying the performances, Marie and the prince are taken back home in a flying sleigh, where I’m assuming he turns back into a wooden nutcracker.

While thin on plot, The Nutcracker is a beautiful production, and I can see why it’s become a Christmas tradition for so many. It’s bright and colorful, with plenty of whimsy and magic. The dancing is—naturally—superb, from the group parlor dancing in the first act Christmas party, to the featured solos by the candy people in the Land of Sweets. And it’s short enough (clocking in at just under two hours) that those who aren’t ardent ballet fans are unlikely to grow bored. Though those who are may be inclined to ask, “Is that all?”

My one and only gripe with this production is the cost. Is it worth the insane prices the New York City Ballet charges (with orchestra seats going for over $100)? For one time, maybe, but how people who come back year after year justify the cost (some with entire families in tow), I have no idea. It was a fun, festive evening, and a great was to start off my holiday preparations, but I don’t plan to be back next year.

Bottom Line: If you can get past the sticker price, this production of The Nutcracker is a marvel to see. Nearly everyone is familiar with at least some of Tchaikovsky’s music from the score—whether you know it of not—and seeing it danced to by some of the world’s most talented dancers adds a whole new level of appreciation to his work. It leaves you feeling just like the holidays should (but often don’t): Whimsical, childlike, and with a hankering for something sweet.

Trailer Review: Jane Eyre

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:07:00 +0000

Release Date: March 11, 2011

Website: Official Jane Eyre site

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins, Jamie Bell, Imogen Poots

My Review: It’s no secret that I love a good literary adaptation period drama. So it is with nerd girl pride that I look forward to the release of the umpteenth incarnation of Charlotte Brontë’s gothic love story, Jane Eyre.

Much like any of the novels by Jane Austen, Jane Eyre is a story that has been turned into more movies and TV miniseries than I can count (including one featuring a young Anna Paquin as Young Jane). Each version presents the material in varying degrees of depth, but at its core, the story is always the same: See Jane have horrible childhood. See Jane finally find happiness as a governess. See Jane fall in love with the broody and mysterious Mr. Rochester. See everything go spectacularly insane.

The trailer for this new telling of Jane Eyre hits all the right notes in setting the tone for the movie: dark, morose, and…foggy. However, there are a couple of things that make me raise an eyebrow; specifically, Mia Wasikowska (playing Jane) isn’t British and Michael Fassbender (also not British, but at least European) is way too handsome to play the “not beautiful, according to rule” Mr. Rochester. But Judi Dench is there, too, which sort of evens everything out.

Would I Pay For It?: Well, I would, but the bigger question is, would anyone else?

Trailer Review: The Zookeeper

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:24:00 +0000

Release Date: July 8, 2011

Website: Official The Zookeeper site

Starring: Kevin James, voices of Adam Sandler, Judd Apatow, Jon Favreau, Sylvester Stallone, Cher

My Review: If you count Doctor Doolittle, Stuart Little, Cats & Dogs, and Garfield among your favorite movies of all time, then you’re in for a treat with The Zookeeper. If, however, you don’t have an affinity for talking animal movies and are over the age of four, then you already know you’ll be sitting this one out.

The Zookeeper stars the recently busy (or maybe “slumming” is a better word) Kevin James as the titular zookeeper who works at a zoo where—you guessed it—the animals talk to him. Crazy! And it just wouldn’t be a talking animal movie without a bevy of middling to popular movie stars voicing the chatty critters. This time around you can enjoy the vocal works of Adam Sandler, Judd Apatow, Jon Favreau, Sylvester Stallone, and Cher.

While my kneejerk reaction (a hearty eye roll) to The Zookeeper may be a bit unfair since I—being neither a child nor the parent of one—am not its target audience, I think I’m still justified in being annoyed with the general state of family films that are made these days. I know not all family fare can offer the brilliance of the Pixar movies, for example, but is it really necessary to resort to old, tired movie tropes that haven’t been inventive or entertaining since the 1960s when someone figured out that giving animals peanut butter makes it look like they’re talking? Kids are just young humans, not brainless morons, so it would be nice to see some family-friendly flicks that engage and inspire them, rather than rehashing what’s been done (mostly poorly) time and time again.

Jason Segel and your upcoming Muppet movie, I’m looking at you.

Would I Pay For It?: No, I don’t hate myself nearly enough to see this.

Trailer Review: How Do You Know

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:00:00 +0000

Release Date: December 17, 2010

Website: Official How Do You Know site

Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson, Jack Nicholson

My Review: I like Reese Witherspoon. I adore Paul Rudd. I…don’t actively dislike Owen Wilson. Yet I can’t seem to make myself give a flying you-know-what about their newest movie.

How Do You Know looks to be no different than a hundred other love triangle-themed romantic comedies, though it does have the good fortune to star some quality talent. Witherspoon is Lisa, a woman who is content enough in her relationship with a sensitive, new-age kind of guy (Wilson), though she has doubts about taking the next steps with him. Specifically, do the marriage and kids thing. Then she bumps into an old friend (Rudd) who is in the midst of some serious professional and financial troubles, and her attraction to him brings up a whole new set of questions and doubts.

While I can appreciate any attempt to tell a story about a person struggling between doing what’s right for them and what others expect of them, it’s the “choose the stable partner you know or the crazy newcomer” angle I’m tired of. No matter who gets chosen in the end, it’s all been done before. How do I know? Trust me, I just do.

Would I Pay For It?: No, but I’ll watch it when it appears on basic cable in six months.

Theater Review: Fingers and Toes

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:26:00 +0000

Location: Urban Stages, 259 West 30th Street, NY, NY

Website: Official New York Musical Theatre Festival site

Starring: Leo Ash Evens, Jonathan Monro, Stephanie Gibson

My Review: Taking inspiration from Singin’ in the Rain, Fingers and Toes tells the story of two friends who collaborate to create a new musical, and the talented woman who brings the whole thing to life. “Toes” McGrath is a dancer and the mastermind behind the whole operation. After running into a major Broadway producer in a restaurant and pitching him an idea for a show that doesn’t yet exist, he enlists the help of musician “Fingers” St. Claire to get the production put together in a matter of weeks. After a series of auditions they find triple-threat Molly and seem to be on their way to creating the next big Broadway sensation.

But of course all three bring various dramas and hang-ups with them, causing the creative process to be anything but smooth. Toes is loud, brash, juvenile, and a total womanizer. Fingers is morose and suffering from a bout of depression and agoraphobia brought on by his dissolving marriage. Molly is sunny and bubbly on the outside, but secretly feeling weighed down from carrying on a relationship with an indifferent man. None of them are really in a position to write a musical about love—because what else would you write a musical about?—but that doesn’t deter them from going for it.

Fingers and Toes is a new musical that tries to sound and feel like an old musical, but winds up stuck somewhere between the two. The songs are old-fashioned toe-tappers and sound like they could have come straight from a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney collaboration. Even the overlying concept is as traditional as you can get: Get some friends together and let’s put on a show! While there’s nothing wrong with favoring classic musical concepts, Fingers and Toes loses its way by trying not to be too old school.

A handful of modern day references are made, lest you think this is taking place in the past: a joke about Amy Winehouse, everyone has a cell phone, and more than a few f-bombs are dropped. But the show would have been better served by keeping the old-fashioned concept in an old-fashioned time. Hearing a giddy vaudeville-style tune like the opener “Anyone Can Write a Song” sets a specific tone for the production, so that hearing the characters later talk in graphic detail about Toes’ sexual prowess is a bit jarring.

The best part of Fingers and Toes are the numerous well-choreographed dance routines. Leo Ash Evens as Toes and Stephanie Gibson as Molly are both gifted dancers and make excellent use of the limited stage space at Urban Stages. The performances get a bit hackneyed at certain points, as the cast tries in earnest to use the overly broad acting techniques of days gone by, but they continuously redeem themselves when permitted to bust out their dance moves.

Bottom Line: Though cute and entertaining, enough Fingers and Toes is a bit of a choppy, and ultimately forgettable, mess. Each of the elements work separately—lightweight songs, corny jokes, elaborate dance numbers, a hat tip to musicals of the 1930s and 1940s—they somehow don’t mesh together well in this production. Every moment either feels too broad (when aiming for comedy) or too heavy (when aiming for drama). This lack of cohesion and absence of at least one memorable tune make Fingers and Toes a show that you wouldn’t actively dislike, but ultimately struggle to remember.

Trailer Review: Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:00:00 +0000

Release Date: Limited release in New York starting November 5, 2010

Website: Official Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench site

Starring: Jason Palmer, Desiree Garcia, Sandha Khin, Bernard Chazelle, Anna Chazelle

My Review: With movie trailers constantly giving away major plot points and, in some cases, the movie in its entirety, it’s usually refreshing to come across a minimalist trailer that reveals next to nothing. But this sort of tactic tends to only work for movies with familiar elements to them, so you’ll know what’s coming in that movie without the trailer having to really tell you anything.

If you see, “From the director of Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds” flash across the screen, you already know whether you would pay to see that movie or not. Just like if you see, “Based on the beloved novel by Nicholas Sparks,” you know that unless you are an emotionally unstable teenaged girl, you’ll be skipping that flick. But with a movie like Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench, the trailer needs to reveal a bit more if it’s hoping to fill theater seats.

Here’s what I can gather from the trailer for Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench: It’s a musical, it’s set in a city that may or may not be New York, it’s filmed in black and white, and some of the action takes place in a diner or restaurant of some sort. Oh, and apparently some of the few people who have already seen totally dig it, since the bulk of the trailer is made of quotes pulled from various reviews that sing the movie’s praises.

I’m not saying Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench looks like a bad movie. I really have no feelings about it one way or another since the trailer reveals so little. But I do know that movie musicals are a hard sell to most audiences at any given time, and one that isn’t based on an already established musical, stars people no one’s heard of, and is shot in grainy black and white is going to have a hard time getting viewers to blindly attend a screening.

Would I Pay For It?: I doubt that would even be an option due to its limited release, but I may eventually rent it, due to that whole musical geek thing I have going on.

Theater Review: V-Day

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:23:00 +0000

Location: Urban Stages, 259 West 30th Street, NY, NY

Website: Official New York Musical Theatre Festival site

Starring: David Rossmer, Steve Rosen, Sara Chase, Vadim Feichtner, Hannah Sielatycki

My Review: With a title like V-Day, and a description on the NYMF website that includes the phrase “hates Valentine’s Day,” you would expect this musical to focus heavily on the various things that suck about the supposed “most romantic day of the year.” But V-Day merely uses the holiday as a frame of reference, and instead tells a story about a guy who is trying to break the streak of incredible bad luck he’s recently had.

Josh Cohen is having a really crappy time in life. He’s struggling to make it as a writer in NYC, he’s unlucky in love, his overbearing Jewish parents want to know when he’s going to settle down already, and just a few days before Valentine’s Day, he comes home to find his apartment has been completely robbed. Well, almost completely; the robber had the decency to leave behind a Neil Diamond CD. But being the nice guy he is, Josh tries to be optimistic and looks forward to all the good things that are surely coming his way.

It looks like Josh’s luck is about to change when a check made out to him for $56,000 arrives in the mail. But he doesn’t recognize the name of the sender. Is it a long-lost relative from his vast extended family? Or some mysterious benefactor? Will his conscience let him take the money without fully knowing its origin? Will he ever be able to stop kicking himself if he doesn’t? And will there ever be a time when nice guys finish first?

While funny and enjoyable in the moment, I found V-Day to ultimately be kind of forgettable. It’s only been a couple of days since I saw it, and I’m struggling to remember details that stood out to me, and I’d be hard-pressed to hum any of the songs from it. The style of the show is clever; there are actually two Josh Cohen’s on stage throughout the show. One is in the present day, wielding a guitar and acting as a narrator/balladeer. The other is Josh one year earlier, who is struggling with the robbed apartment and the mysterious check. Present-day Josh tells the story of himself from the past year’s Valentine’s Day, guiding the other Josh through the steps of how the story goes. The two frequently interact (and sing) together, creating a bizarrely funny absurdity of one guy relating with himself.

The bulk of the show’s enjoyment goes to the chemistry between the two Joshes, played by V-Day’s writers and composers, David Rossmer and Steve Rosen. Rossmer is present-day Josh, expertly juggling the duties of narrating, singing, playing the guitar, and interacting with both the audience and the other Josh. Rosen is one-year-ago Josh, and gamely tackles the role of the comic foil, as his Josh has to suffer all the injustices that the other Josh already survived. Both men have great comic timing and play off each other well, which has to be much harder than it looks; if one of them were to miss a line or lose their energy, the entire production would come apart.

While cute and necessary to move the story along, the songs in V-Day aren’t really memorable, which is the opposite effect musical theater aims to have. The same basic riff is used in most of the tunes, and I’ve already forgotten how it goes. The lyrics are clever and humorous, but once they’re done serving their purpose in the show, they are easy to forget. Also slightly disappointing is that none of the songs really felt like the style of Neil Diamond. One of my initial draws to this particularly production (in a festival of over 30 shows) was the promise of some Neil Diamond-inspired melodies. But I failed to connect any of the original songs to Mr. Diamond and all his satin shirt glory.

Bottom Line: At just 80 minutes long with no intermission, V-Day was a highly enjoyable treat on a Saturday afternoon. It loses a bit of steam as it wraps everything up in the end, and the overlying message of “just be yourself, and good things will eventually come your way” felt a little too pat for me (because, let’s face it, that isn’t how life works, no matter how many songs you set to it). I’m not sure the show would really work in a larger setting, since it fits too perfectly into the festival mold of shoebox-size theaters, minimal staging, and narrowly-focused storytelling. But as festival offerings go, V-Day was a charming choice.

Trailer Review: Hereafter

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:06:00 +0000

Release Date: October 22, 2010

Website: Official Hereafter site

Starring: Matt Damon, Bryce Dallas Howard, Richard Kind, Jenifer Lewis, Cécile De France

My Review: I know this statement will likely lead to me being torn apart by various people, but so be it: I find Clint Eastwood as a director to be overrated. Yes, the movies he directs are generally good and they certainly bring in the A-list actors, but I have yet to find them as worthy of all the accolades bestowed upon them. They’re usually very emotional dramas delivered in a very heavy-handed way, and while they are good movies in the moment, I rarely want to revisit them later like I do with movies by more subtle directors.

In his latest work, Hereafter uses Matt Damon as the thread that ties the lives of three very different people together. Damon is George, a man able to communicate with the dead, and for years he used his gift for profit by hiring himself out to the bereaved to give them one last bit of contact with their deceased loved ones. But this kind of work has taken its toll on him, so he’s decided to retire from the psychic medium business.

Unfortunately, having such an extraordinary talent makes walking away a bit harder than quitting most jobs. George is sought after by three people—a French journalist, a British schoolboy, and a working class American—who have all experienced death and desperately need his help. Will George give in to them? And more importantly, when he inevitably does (I hope stating the obvious isn’t considered a spoiler), will what he has to share with them actually be anything they want to hear?

True to form, Hereafter looks like another classic Eastwood-helmed dramatic drama with a side order of extra drama; probably tasty enough, but few would want to go back for seconds.

Would I Pay For It?: No, and I’ll probably only rent it if I’m in the mood to be horribly depressed, which isn’t likely, but never say never.

Theater Review: Angels in America Part Two: Perestroika

noreply@blogger.com (TheOpinionatedB) — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:39:00 +0000

Location: Signature Theatre, 555 West 42^nd Street, NY, NY

Website: Official Signature Theatre site

Starring: Christian Borle, Bill Heck, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Kazan, Billy Porter, Robin Weigert, Robin Bartlett, Frank Wood

My Review: To celebrate its 20^th anniversary, the Signature Theatre is making its 2010-2011 season all Tony Kushner, all the time. To kick things off, they’re offering both parts of his groundbreaking play, Angels in America (Millennium Approaches and Perestroika), in repertory, with tickets going for just $20 for a limited time. Knowing these would be hot tickets to get, I made sure I was on the Signature Theatre website at the exact time tickets became available. Then their website crashed. So I called the box office. And had to wait nearly an hour until I got a representative on the line. Apparently theater geeks from near and far were also anticipating the $20 tickets for this landmark play going quickly. And quickly they did go, as by the time I was in touch with the box office, my only options were to see the two plays out of order or pay full price to see them later in the run. Luckily, having studied Millennium Approaches in school and being familiar with the HBO miniseries, I felt versed well enough with the first half to happily purchase my out-of-order tickets. So now knowing how it all ends, I can’t wait until early December to see how it begins.

Angels in America is a play that’s easy to have an opinion and feelings about, but difficult to write about, mainly because there is just so much going on. Each half runs over three hours and there are so many overlapping and interconnecting character arcs that keeping up with the performance while it’s going on is a feat unto itself.; processing it all afterward is like going through therapy. At its bare basics, Angels in America is a story about homosexuality and the AIDS crisis in the late 1980s. Prior and Louis are a generally happy gay couple living in Manhattan, until Prior is diagnosed as HIV-positive, which—during this time—is basically a death sentence. Louis begins to doubt if he’s strong enough to stand by his partner during his upcoming health battle, but agonizes over what sort of man he would be if he left.

Joe and his wife Harper are new Manhattan transplants, having just arrived from Salt Lake City for Joe’s legal career. Being Mormons, they “don’t believe in homosexuals,” which is problematic because Joe is one, the knowledge of which causes the already fragile and Valium-addicted Harper to retreat into a fantasy world she creates for herself. Joe and Louis find each other, leaving Prior sick and angry with the occasional visits from his friend and nurse (and former lover) Belize as his only comfort, and Harper spiraling into delusional madness. Joe’s mother, Hannah, arrives in town to see what’s going on with her son (and take care of her not-so-quietly-going-mad daughter-in-law), and eventually befriends the jilted Prior.

In case this isn’t enough to keep straight, there’s also the infamous New York lawyer Roy Cohn (best known for his work on the McCarthy investigations and playing a big part in the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg). Having lived his life as a closeted homosexual, Roy is now dying a slow and agonizing AIDS-related death, which he uses all his legal and political clout to make sure is referred to as “liver cancer” in the press. And then there’s that angel that literally crashes through Prior’s bedroom ceiling and tries to convince him that he’s a prophet.

To try to delve into every social, political, religious, historical, and emotional theme touched upon in Angels in America would take forever (grad students have written entire dissertations on these plays). So instead, I’ll just comment on the merits and detriments of this particular production.

While the production is uneven overall, it’s still highly enjoyable and emotionally affecting. One of the more impressive elements is how well the small stage space is utilized. The Signature Theatre isn’t large by any means, and there are multiple scenes that need to be changed and moved around quickly (Louis’s apartment, Roy’s hospital room, the Mormon Visitor’s Center, on the beach, etc). The set designers make all of this work by using pieces constructed on 90-degree angles that can easily be spun around to reveal different settings. For scenes requiring fewer props, a white scrim is pulled in front of the stage where various projections are cast to show both the streets of Manhattan and the fires of Hell.

The cast is where most of the show’s few pitfalls come from. Christian Borle is a standout as Prior, as he manages to convey the fragility that comes with his disease, but is still powerful enough to embrace all the hurt and anger he feels towards Louis. It’s also commendable how the wardrobe and makeup team manage to make him look so sickly for the entire 3+ hours; I’m curious to see how he looks in Millennium Approaches, where he starts out healthy. Zachary Quinto as Louis is probably the most notable actor in the cast, having spent several seasons at the villain on TV’s Heroes, but he doesn’t have much to do here. His role is much larger in the first play, so I’ll save any opinions on his performance until I see more of it. Zoe Kazan as pill-popping Harper is a bit of a confusion, as I’m not sure if she’s playing her as damaged and childlike, angry and self-medicating, manic depressive, or just all-around bonkers, because she samples each of these performances at least once.

Also coming up a bit short is Billy Porter as the sassy nurse Belize (and as Harper’s occasional imaginary friend, Mr. Lies). He’s already up against a stacked deck, taking on the role that the phenomenal Jeffrey Wright originated and won a Tony Award for in 1994 (and played again in the HBO miniseries). But rather than rising to the challenge and making the role his own, Porter seems to be imitating what worked so well for Wright, but with only a fraction of the energy and sincerity, making Belize feel like a weak impression of a stereotypical drag queen. Frank Wood, however (as Roy Cohn), manages to take a character that is so blissfully despicable and manipulative that it would be easy to turn him into a moustache-twirling cartoon villain, and actually turn him into a real person. A real person you still hate, but a real person nonetheless.

There’s no denying that some of the subject matter in Angels in America feels dated today. AIDS is no longer the instant death threat it used to be and the gay community isn’t being rapidly wiped out by this mysterious plague. But it does still exist, as do the many stories that Angels tells. It’s like one part period piece, and one part timeless drama about the human condition. And luckily, for those of us who were too young to enjoy it the first time around, it’s shedding light on an era we weren’t around for and reaffirming some of what we’re all living with at any given time.

Bottom Line: Angels in America is an ensemble production, with the stronger performances helping to elevate the weaker ones, thus creating a relatively harmonious theater experience. At over three hours long (over six for both parts) and an abundance of subtexts, it’s not for the casual theater fan, but meant for those who truly like drama in their drama. Both Angels in America and playwright Tony Kushner are institutes in American theater, and I consider myself lucky to be able to see a professionally staged production of this work. And I eagerly look forward to seeing the beginning in a few months.