[adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

Grease has never been a favourite of mine. I like about two of the songs; I’ve never watched the John Travolta movie all the way through in one sitting; the plot is hazy and the themes it supposedly tackles are simply not there. In fact, as expected of a story set in a high school, the messages it sends out about social and gender hierarchies are disturbing. Its strengths have always been in how upbeat the soundtrack and how lively the dancing is, making it fit perfectly in the stereotype mold for musical theatre, but at the end of the day, that had always been it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdS_yNe02vg

Nonetheless, I admit to being swept up in the hype that preceded FOX’s Grease: Live.

With a big Broadway name like Aaron Tveit starring as Danny Zuko and countless behind-the-scenes videos taking Grease enthusiasts through the rigorous process behind the production, I was hopeful and excited. By the time news was released that Hamilton director Tommy Kail was on board, I was more than ready for Jan. 31.

Unfortunately, all the things that FOX seemed to take pride in with their take on a televised musical — the celebrity-studded cast, the songs specifically composed for this adaptation, the interaction with the live audience, the set design split across the Warner Bros. Studios —  are also the same things that ultimately ruined Grease: Live for me.

That said, the cast was good, but it did not impress more than it could have. While I’d loved Tveit since his Catch Me If You Can days, my appreciation for him as Danny Zuko was half-hearted. His singing did not disappoint, and certainly sparked an eagerness to see him back on the Broadway stage, but standing in the shadow of Travolta’s Zuko and with co-star Julianne Hough overtaking him every choreographed step of the way, his dancing fell a little flat. The opposite holds true for Hough, who despite being one of the best I’ve seen dancing as Sandy Young, gave a half-hearted performance during “Hopelessly Devoted To You.” Her cheerleading tryout scene opposite Heathers’ Elle McLemore as Patty Simcox, however, was by itself enough to establish her as the real star of the show for me, even if her singing was not quite as impressive as her dancing.

Vanessa Hudgens’ performance as Rizzo was incredible in its own right, especially with the passing of her father just the night before the show; the cast dedicated the production of the show to him. Alongside her as the other Pink Ladies are Keke Palmer as Marty and Carly Rae Jepsen as Frenchy, who both delivered where they needed to. Jessie J, Joe Jonas and Boyz II Men all cameo to perform various songs, and with household faces like Mario Lopez in the cast, there was no shortage of applause from the audience when it came to close—up shots, no dancing nor singing needed.

The production went where NBC’s live musicals have not gone before. There is a dazzling charm in the blending of theatre and television that FOX attempted to accomplish with Grease: Live, and it’s certainly different, if nothing else. It was big, it was flashy, the theatricality was impressive, it brought in ratings — and for a FOX production, that probably means they’d checked everything off their list. I am embarrassed to admit I expected more, possibly too much, for if they were willing to try new things, so much so that they would have a new song composed, wouldn’t this mean moving away from the soullessness of the original Grease? To my chagrin, apparently not.

The result of FOX’s attempt at a televised musical is a production that felt like one of Glee’s Super Bowl special episodes which I happen to appreciate more than despise, because it usually meant story and character progress (finally) and a lot of show-stopping songs. With the weaknesses remaining where they always were, and the strengths the same as they always were, my opinion of Grease stands.

Photo Credit: Kevin Estrada/ FOX

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

[adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

By: Joe Jodoin

Hail, Caesar! had everything going for it — a great trailer, a great premise, an incredible cast, and the beloved Coen brothers serving as both the writers and directors. Sadly, the movie just doesn’t work. It has some redeeming qualities of course, but it’s just not entertaining or memorable enough to warrant a recommendation.

Hail, Caesar! constantly switches between being comedic and being dramatic, but it doesn’t succeed at either. While at times the movie is funny, these times are few and far between.

The movie takes place in the 1950s, and loosely revolves around the daily life of Eddie Mannix, a Hollywood ‘fixer’ for Capitol Pictures, played by Josh Brolin. His job is keep the actors and movies free of controversy. This leads to Mannix interacting with all sorts of different characters, one of which is the lead actor in a big Roman epic called Hail Caesar, a Tale of Christ’s Life. The actor, played by George Clooney, is kidnapped by some extras, leading to the main mystery of the movie.

Unfortunately, the movie’s plot just consists of a bunch of different sub-plots, none of which are very interesting. None of the stories have a decent resolution, so you are left feeling very unsatisfied when the film ends. The movie also doesn’t use all of the talent it has. This is noticeable especially when looking at Jonah Hill, who was in all the trailers and promotion but only had five lines in the movie.

Hail, Caesar! constantly switches between being comedic and being dramatic, but it doesn’t succeed at either. While at times the movie is funny, these times are few and far between. This movie is truly unlike any other movie that I have ever seen, but even though originality is usually a compliment, Hail, Caesar! ends up being entirely forgettable.

Despite the movie’s many weaknesses, it has some partially redeeming qualities as well. The best aspect by far is that it succeeds at being a love letter to classic Hollywood cinema. It pays tribute to every different kind of genre film, and pays respect to the thousands of people involved in making each one of these movies a reality. There was also a neat message about how the problems Hollywood faced back in the 50s are essentially the same as they are today.

In addition to Brolin and Clooney, the other big standout of the film is Alden Ehrenreich, who plays an actor struggling to transition from the Western genre to making his first sophisticated drama. He has never had any substantial movie roles in the past, but if this movie is any indication, Ehrenreich is incredibly talented and looks to have a huge career ahead of him.

Overall, I’m really disappointed to hate on a film that was clearly made with so much passion and effort. This is one of those movies that sounds great on paper, and if anyone could have pulled it off, it would be the Coen brothers. Sadly, some screenplays just don’t translate well onto the big screen, and I just can’t say this is a film worth watching.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]