The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

The tagline on the first posters released for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo advertised it as "the feel bad movie of the year." That is a hard line to argue. The film lacks warm fuzzies, happy endings, and redemption. It is not a movie that one goes to for a fun night out. However, it is a film completely worth seeing; or not seeing, during the parts that make it nearly impossible to resist covering your eyes. 

The film is based on the first novel in the incredibly popular Swedish Millennium trilogy by Stieg Larsson. This isn't the first film adaption of the novels; all three were translated to film in Scandanavia, and released in 2009. I have read the first book and watched all three of the original adaptations. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is hard to classify: I view it as an action movie, a thriller, a murder mystery, and a drama. The plot is hard to define and hard to explain. Mikael Blomkvist, played by Daniel Craig, is a disgraced journalist who is offered retribution for the events that lead to his downfall if he is able to solve a decades-old family mystery. Along the way, he finds that he requires a research assistant. Enter Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander. Lisbeth is a sight to behold; tattoos, piercings, crazy black hair that she sometimes fashions into a mohawk. She has intentionally made herself as unapproachable as possible. She is unfriendly, impolite, to the point. She doesn't want to know anyone, she just wants to hide in herself and in her computer hacker world. 

The film starts off slow. After the mindblowing animated sequence during the opening credits, it goes into a lull. Because it is a story with a lot of layers, it requires a lot of exposition. There's a lot of talk and not a lot going on. The first half is a little ho-hum at times, but it's worth sticking with it. As the movie starts cracking the surface of Lisbeth, and then when she and Blomqvist meet, it takes off. Craig plays Blomkvist with a subtle bemusement and affection towards Mara's Salander. They have a unique chemistry as the unlikeliest pair of allies. 

I know that I am not alone in my belief that Lisbeth Salander is one of the more memorable characters to come out of modern literature. I think fans feel very protective of the character. Rooney Mara, who is best known for playing the girlfriend who dumps Mark Zuckerberg in one of the first scenes of The Social Network, is nothing short of a revelation as Lisbeth Salander. The character of Lisbeth is tough as nails, but she's also incredibly fragile. She is a delicate balance of a character, and it would be difficult as an actor to pull it off. Mara does. Because of her appearance and her antisocial behavior, Lisbeth can seem like an unsympathetic character. Rooney Mara's ability to show the fragility of the character with just a glance or a turn of her mouth is amazing. And dare I say, Oscar worthy. There are a lot of dark places she has to go as an actor in this film. I don't know how an actor could pour themselves into some of the difficult scenes, two of which are brutal and impossible to watch without flinching, and go home at the end of the day unaffected. Her performance is brave, unsettling, and exactly what it should be. 

Daniel Craig, who is best known as the most recent James Bond, is perfectly cast as Mikael Blomkvist. He is exactly who I pictured in my head when I read the original novel. The entire cast is excellent, including Christopher Plummer as the man who offers Blomqvist the task of solving the murder of his niece, and Stellan Skaarsgard, as the older brother of the murder victim. 

The film is directed by David Fincher, who is the cinematic king of dark filmmaking, (for example, Seven, The Game, and Fight Club). It is dark, brutal, unflinching, and it pulls no punches. The film is also beautifully shot. The cinematography is gorgeous and the musical score, done by Trent Reznor formerly of the band Nine Inch Nails, is stunning without being distracting. This is a well done piece of film. You won't leave the theater feeling uplifted, but you'll leave feeling satisfied that your money and your time was well spent. 

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

The Mission Impossible film franchise has been a rare bright spot in the overcrowded action market. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is the fourth film in Tom Cruise's revamping of the TV series that ran in the 1960's. It is also the best Mission Impossible film. It's directed by Brad Bird, who before this film had only directed two films, both animated (The Incredibles and The Iron Giant). I think that when he came up with some of the concepts for the action sequences, he forgot he was going to be dealing with real people instead of cartoons. There are some intense and insane shots, made more insane by the fact Tom Cruise does his own stunts. Most action scenes in movies are pretty unrealistic. The scenes in this movie are completely unrealistic. Yet they work. There are many action scenes that are absolutely implausible, that would never in a million years happen. But I was so nervous that my palms were sweaty while I watched, which has never happened to me in a movie. My head was saying, "oh, come on. Seriously?" But my stomach dropped anyway from some of the dizzying overhead shots. The director recognizes that humans have an instinctive fear of falling, and he exploits it successfully by staging most of the action shots using heights. 

The plot of Ghost Protocol is acceptable, if slightly confusing and unoriginal. Nuclear war, get the codes, blah blah blah. Who cares? It should be about the action, anyway. One thing that I think made this film surpass the others in the series is that it didn't introduce a love interest for Ethan Hunt, Cruise's character and the main protagonist of the Mission Impossible films. The first three movies introduced a new love interest in each film. Really, how believable is he as an emotionally sensitive tough guy if he has commitment issues? I like what the script did with his love life. It was a sad, romantic, and sweet touch; thankfully, it was also a very minimal part of the story that added just enough emotional depth. 

The best part of Ghost Protocol (other than the action sequence shot at the world's tallest building in Dubai) is the supporting cast. Simon Pegg, who starred in one of my all-time favorite comedies, Shaun of the Dead, plays an ultimate action cliche; the goofy sidekick. I usually find that cliche grating, but he makes the character likable instead of irritating. Paula Patton does a good job as the obligatory female agent. Usually, the women who play these roles are wispy little girls who would never be able to hold their own in a fight. I love that Patton, although gorgeous with a killer body, actually looks like she could throw a punch. Or a kick in this case, which she does in one heck of a fight scene. I was excited to see that Michael Nyqvist from the Swedish film versions of  The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy was cast as the villain in this. I'm a huge fan of the films (and yes, I plan to see the US version, and it has a lot to live up to because the Swedish version is exceptional). Then there's Jeremy Renner as an analyst with a secret, and what can I say about this guy? He is one of the best of the new generation of great actors. If you want proof, watch his Oscar-nominated turns in The Hurt Locker and The Town. The guy is amazing, and I love to watch him. He elevates "action movie" acting in a role that could have easily been hammy and overacted.  

If you're going to see Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol for a good story, you're either 1) mistaken, or 2) lying to yourself. The story is acceptable, but it's all about the action. It is a thrill ride of a movie. The action is some of the best I've seen, with sequences that are suspenseful, exciting and most importantly, unique. The performances elevate it from popcorn movie status to a quality moviegoing experience. 

Back By Popular Demand

Okay, "by popular demand" may be slightly grandiose. But I have been asked by quite a few people to start my movie reviews again, and that's about as popular as I get.
 I don't go to the movies as much as I used to; that requires makeup and hair-fixing. I'm a nursing student now. Redbox and pay-per-view have become a big part of my movie geek life, because I can watch in my pajamas with a textbook in my lap so I can at least feel like I'm studying. Hard to pull that off in theaters (although I'm noticing a disturbing trend towards wearing pajamas in theaters, and I fully disapprove).
The reviews will probably be a mix of recent home releases with some new movies mixed in. If anyone has requests, let me know. I know it's a pain to subscribe to my blog; most people who read it aren't subscribers. If you don't want to mess with subscribing but want to comment or make requests, you can email me at brookers528@hotmail.com or send it to me on Facebook.
To those of you who have asked about it over the past couple of years, I hope that you appreciate the new reviews as much as you did the old ones. Hopefully nursing school hasn't taken up so many brain cells that I've forgotten how to write a decent review. Thanks for asking me to do this again. It really does mean a lot to me to know that people actually enjoy my writing and my opinions. Lord knows I have a lot of opinions.

Last House on the Left

I believe in forgiveness and I believe in mercy. However, if someone were to terrorize one of my children, I don't know that I could find solace in that. I know that I would want cold, hard revenge. This movie is for people like me to live through vicariously.

The movie opens on the textbook family as they leave for vacation in, of course, a secluded cabin in the woods. Mary, the daughter of John & Emma, is so perfect that you just know something terrible has to happen to her. And boy, does it. She meets up with her friend who lives in the town near their vacation home, and naturally the friend accidentally leads innocent Mary into the wolves den. It's not giving anything away by saying that there is a graphic rape scene that is not for the squeamish, or anyone else, for that matter. If there is a person out there who can watch it without covering their eyes, I highly recommend psychological help. While I was watching I found myself wondering if it was really necessary to be that graphic, but I guess the first half of the film is all about the buildup to act 2. Without the gratuitous & somewhat exploitative scene, viewers won't be quite as excited in the second half.

And what a second half it is! The first half is what you have to get through to get to the good stuff. In essence, Last House on the Left is a revenge fantasy. Probably the only movie that will ever make me clap in my seat when someone's hand is ground up in a garbage disposal. The first part of the movie is manipulative in the way it throws gut-punches to make you really, really hate the bad guys. But it's so worth it to hate them so much, because it sure is fun watching the creeps pay. Big time. Little do they know, the house they seek shelter in during a storm after they finish with the two girls belongs to innocent little Mary's parents. They offer hospitality to the 4 strangers who show up at their door, treating their injuries and offering up hot cocoa. After setting them up in their guest house, the couple realizes their daughter has been victimized, and she has been victimized by their guests. Thank goodness Mary's dad is a doctor, because not only does he know how to heal, he knows how to hurt. He makes that abundantly clear to the villians.

Most of the performances are slightly above adequate. It doesn't usually take a whole lot of talent for these movies. The sole standout was Monica Potter, who was supposed to become a huge star years ago, but it never happened because she's never really shown any range. I thought she was surprisingly excellent in this. She must be a mom, because she conveyed the range of emotions I would expect a mom to go through in an unimaginable situation. Heartbreak, disbelief, and raw anger. She's ferocious as a mama bear protecting her cub.

Overall, I would recommend Last House on the Left, but only for those with strong stomachs who can handle watching teenage girls go through graphic & violent situations that are conveyed in a disturbingly realistic manner. It's not a horror movie, it's a psychological thriller that really does thrill and really does mess with your psyche. It is fun to watch the revenge. And Mari's father proves that the old adage was wrong; revenge is a dish best served hot, not cold. Literally.

Watchmen

Watchmen is the brilliant, infuriating, dragging, stunning film adaption of the graphic novel (which is the fancy term for comic book) of the same name. Watchmen the graphic novel is considered to be one of the greatest pieces of literature in recent history. For those of you who don't speak nerd, comic books actually can be literature. I personally have never read Watchmen, so my review will not compare the film to the source material, as so many rabid fans have already been doing, I'm sure. I do know that Watchmen the graphic novel is deeply political, speculative, and aggressively thought-provoking. Archie & Jughead it is not. It is a complex and multi-layered piece that takes history and shakes it up like a snow globe, smashing one era into another and creating an alternate universe much like the one we are in with a few very strange tweaks. It is definitely a little weird. Can something that deep & complicated be made into a good movie? Yes. But can it be made into an enjoyable movie? Maybe not.

Watchmen opens with the murder of a former superhero named the Comedian, a cigar smoking sad sack in a filthy terry robe. The year is 1985. Nixon has been elected to his third term as president (I told you it was weird). Superheroes were once celebrities, hob-nobbing with the elite and appearing on magazine covers, but they have been banned by President Nixon in an attempt to end vigilante justice. The film is based around the Watchmen, the once-powerful group of masked avengers, and their lives after the ban, and how they resist, then succumb to, the urge to use their powers again. The world is under nuclear threat, and the Watchmen may be the world's only hope.

I could try to give a detailed outline of the plot, but I don't have that kind of time, and I'm sure there has to be some kind of word count limit on this blog. Beyond that, you would probably be kind of bored and very, very confused if I tried to summarize it. I don't know that I could summarize the plot, anyway. In fact, I know I couldn't. Many people were concerned about it being adapted into a film because it is so very unfilmable. Actually, the author of the graphic novel refuses to discuss the adaption, because he never wanted it to be adapted into a film. He didn't think it could be done. And he's pretty well right, I think. The visuals were as mind-blowing as expected with director Zack Snyder at the helm, best known for 300, which made blood soaked gore almost beautiful. Most of the performances were good, although I'm not a fan of Malin Ackerman as Silk Spectre/Laurie. She couldn't keep up with her more pedigreed costars, like Patrick Wilson & Carla Gugino. Not one person in the film could keep up with the chilling performance of former child actor turned Oscar nominee for Little Children in 2006, Jackie Earle Haley.

Haley plays former Watchmen member Rohrschach, a paranoid and psychotic heroic anti-hero with a constantly moving Rohrschach inkblot for a face. It's hard to imagine that he could get any creepier, but when his mask is removed and we see his real face & hear the story of how he became a violent vigilante, he's downright scary. What's even scarier is that you really want to root for him. This character could've been so mishandled, but Haley is perfect. He's like a mix between Danny Bonaduce and Clint Eastwood. Yes, I mean that as a compliment. He's got the eyes of an innocent child but a face of sheer menace. Haley is incredible.

I liked Watchmen. I thought it was a really good piece of filmmaking. Stunning visuals, (mostly) strong performances, wonderful use of music, the exploration of what it means to be ethical, the redefinition of superhero (the Comedian was the most vile superhero ever created, without question). It's not a popcorn movie, which I think many people will expect it to be. It is a long and complicated thematic film, not a movie to take the kids to see. Some people in the theater did bring their young children, which makes me wonder if people even bother to check the ratings, because it is definitely rated R. Big time. I was tempted to tap the people in front of me during one of the more graphic scenes and ask, "Is this really how you want your 5 year old to get their sex education?" The movie is violent and profane, with plenty of male and female nudity. I'm ashamed to admit that I was a little distracted by the completely blue and completely naked Dr. Manhattan . Hard not to be distracted by blue glowing genitalia, I don't care who you are. In other words, don't take your kids to see this. Just don't. That R rating really is there for a reason.

Although I liked Watchmen, I never want to watch it again. I know that sounds odd. It was a near great movie, but it was not in any way, shape, or form a FUN movie. I didn't enjoy it. There is one other movie that elicited that response from me, Requiem for A Dream. It was a brilliant and horrifying movie about drug addiction. It was quite possibly one of the best movies ever made, but it was the most miserable watching experience ever. I still cringe even thinking about it. I don't want to see Watchmen again, but for very different reasons. It was good, I'm glad I saw it, but I couldn't imagine sitting through three hours of it again. So who's watching the Watchmen? Well, me. But only once.

In Honor of the New Year, My Movie Wish List of 2009

In honor of the New Year, I have compiled a list of 2009 releases that I am truly excited to see. Everyone's talking about G.I. Joe and Transformers 2. Not so exciting to me (even though I'm sure I will see them on DVD, for Jamie's sake; he turns on Transformers every single time it's on cable). So, here is my list, in no particular order:

Where the Wild Things Are-Yes, the beloved picture book is finally being adapted into a movie. In the wrong hands, I wouldn't have any faith that it could be done. But the screenplay is by Dave Eggers, one of my favorite authors and the author of one of my all time favorite books, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (if you haven't read it, go get it. NOW). It's being directed by Spike Jonze, who has a keen eye for the absurd (he was nominated for the Best Director Academy Award for Being John Malkovich, which was one of the most unique and most visionary films ever made). This is his return to feature film directing, which he hasn't done since the multiple Oscar nominee Adaptation in 2002. It is also Eggers first produced screenplay.
There hasn't been a trailer released yet, but stills are being posted online.

The Lovely Bones-Also a literary adaption, from the hugely successful novel by Alice Sebold. I'm pretty sure that half of the population has read this book. I read it when it was released and I loved it. It was something different and imaginative. The book is told from the point of view of Susie Salmon, a murder victim who is watching over her family and her killer from her perch in heaven. It sounds like it could be hokey, but it is far from it. It's a beautifully written story, equal parts heartbreaking and thrilling. Again, in the wrong hands, it could go terribly wrong. With Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings trilogy at the helm, I have faith. I think he may be just right for this film. I never would've approved of the novel being adapted into a film because the material would be too challenging to pull off. But if anyone can do it right, Peter Jackson can. With young Saoirse Ronan, already an Oscar nominee for last year's Atonement, cast as Susie, and Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz as her grief-stricken parents, so far it looks like everything's been done right. I won't find out until its December release, but I have a feeling this may be one of next year's big awards contenders.

Friday the 13th-I had to follow up the literary adaptations with a junk food movie, which is definitely what the "reimagining" of the Friday the 13th franchise is. I don't expect class, good direction, or good acting. Although, I will say, the reimagining of Halloween that Rob Zombie directed two years ago did have those things (okay, maybe not so much class; you can't class up a movie where murders are committed by a pencil in the eye). I like horror movies. I don't know what that says about my psyche, but I do. I enjoy being scared. It's escapist fun, as long as you don't take it too seriously. I'm curious to see how this ends up. I can't help myself.

Star Trek-I'm a big nerd in many ways, but I am not a Trekkie by any stretch of the imagination. I know enough about Star Trek to get me by, but I'm not a fan. I think I've seen most of the movies, but I don't remember much about them (other than the earwig scene in The Wrath of Khan). Why would a non-fan want to see the new Star Trek movie? Three words. J.J. freaking Abrams. He could direct a reading from the phone book and I would watch it. This is where the nerd in me comes in. Anything that he is affiliated with, I will watch. For those of you who are not total geeks, J.J. Abrams is a sci-fi genius. He created my favorite television show of all time, Lost. If you don't watch it, I'll explain: the title fits what you feel the entire time you watch; completely, utterly lost. Yet the fact that I have never missed a single episode and never will tells you what kind of genius he is. He also created Alias, the TV show that put Jennifer Garner on the map. Before I was a Lost junkie, I was an Alias junkie. His most recent film was Cloverfield, the claustrophobic monster movie released early 2008 that was shot completely on handheld camera. He was behind the iconic shot of the head of Lady Liberty being thrown across New York. The guy has vision. Even though I don't know much about the Star Trek lexicon, I will be happy to let J.J. Abrams be my guide.

Whip It!- It can be pretty fun to watch women on roller skates beat the daylights out of each other, but it's not something I seek out. This film is about a girl who finds a way to deal with her boring life by becoming a roller derby star. I don't know a lot about roller derby, and never really cared enough to learn. However, I am curious to see Drew Barrymore's directorial debut. Not because of Barrymore, but because of Ellen Page from Juno, and Kristen Wiig, one of the funniest women to ever grace the stage as a cast member of Saturday Night Live. This film has the potential to grant a cult following, and with character names like Malice in Wonderland and Smashley Simpson, how can this not be great?

Jennifer's Body-Another horror movie, although this is classified as a "horror comedy." Jennifer's Body is Oscar-winning screenwriter/former stripper Diablo Cody's followup to Juno. Diablo Cody came out of nowhere, and came busting onto the Hollywood scene, looking completely out of place with her tattoos, Bettie Page bangs, and sarcastic, self-deprecating wit. No one could've predicted that she would become a little bit of a Hollywood darling. Following the success of Juno, studios were throwing themselves at her, trying to secure her next screenplay. Rebel that she is, she opted to blow off the pressure to have an Oscar repeat and chose to write a horror movie. Jennifer's Body is about a possessed cheerleader who starts offing male classmates, and her best friend who tries to stop her. Bucking conventional wisdom, Diablo Cody is sticking her tongue out at people who are questioning whether or not Juno was a lucky shot. Who cares? She knows Juno was lightning in a bottle, and has chosen to write what she wants to write. I'm sure it won't be Oscar material. But I don't care. Juno is one of my favorite movies, and I can't wait to see what happens with Jennifer's Body. Sidenote: I can't wait to see Diablo Cody's first foray into television writing and production, The United States of Tara, premiering on Showtime in January. Co-produced by Steven Spielberg and starring the always fantastic Toni Collette, it can't possibly be bad.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince-Come on, do I really need to explain this one? Other than the fact I'm still angry that the studio pushed the release of this film from November of 2008 to summer of 2009, there's really not much to say. There's a boy wizard, he has to save the world and stuff. If any of you don't know this, stop reading now. You have no business even reading movie reviews.

The Watchmen-This adaption of one of the most critically acclaimed and best loved graphic novels (for those of you who don't know, that's a fancy term for comic book) is in trouble. I don't know if it's even going to come out in 2009 now. There was a very public, very ugly lawsuit between Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox over rights to the film. In layman's terms, Warner Bros produced the movie, and after it was finished, Fox sued, saying they had first dibs on the rights to adapt the graphic novel into a film. On December 26, a judge agreed with Fox, and the film is in a state of limbo right now. Rabid fans of film and "comic books" are incensed, because this movie looks pretty killer. The film was scheduled for a March release, but it was announced today that Fox hopes to put the release on hold and continue to trial. Fox is refusing to settle, which makes the impending release date highly unlikely. In this one, the fans are the ones who are going to lose out. If you ask me, Fox had passed on the project for years because it was very difficult to adapt. But when they saw how well Warner Bros had done with their adaptation and how responsive audiences were to the trailers, they thought, "Hmmm...we should've jumped on that train when we had the chance," so they sued. I'm not saying they're wrong. If they had first rights, they had first rights. It's just a slap in the face to fans that Fox waited until it was finished to act.

Inglorious Bastards-I don't really understand the plot synopses I've read. It's some kind of war movie, and I will readily admit my ignorance of all things war-related. I'm a movie buff, not a history buff, okay? Plus, I think it will forever be difficult to take war movies seriously, thanks to the skewering the genre took in the brilliant comedy Tropic Thunder. This is on my list for one reason: Quentin Tarantino. It's no secret that I'm a big fan of his work. It's always bloody and it's always profane, but his writing ability is unsurpassed. Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill 1 & 2 are among my favorite movies. Tarantino invented a new kind of storytelling with Pulp Fiction, with a story that literally turned inside out. The beginning was the end, the end was the beginning. It's a love-it-or-hate-it film, and I am okay with people who tell me they just don't understand why this is my all-time favorite movie. I understand why there are people who hate it, but I won't be moved from the ranks of people who love it. Kill Bill was equal in its brilliance. Uma Thurman as the Bride (we don't find out her actual name until the end of Volume 2), dressed in a tracksuit, taking out hundreds of masked hitmen armed with only a samurai sword. Awesome. Both Kill Bill movies are iconic. The dialogue is great, the visuals are striking. Tarantino may be crazy, but most geniuses are. So I don't really care what the plot of Inglorious Bastards is. I know I will see it because I know I will see something I haven't seen before. Even when Tarantino pays homage to the films of different eras, it's unique. I can't wait to see this, no matter what it's about.

Mamma Mia!

I am a passionate fan of musical theater, and more than a little bit bitter that I wasn't blessed with singing ability. If it were up to me, I would be a Broadway star. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I just confessed my deepest, darkest secret. I want to be a STAR. For any of you who have not seen my previous theatrical performances, I'm a decent actress. I'm not a terrible dancer. I am NOT a singer. There is a reason I have never been cast in a singing role, people. When I performed in the musical Chicago, the director cast me in the only non-singing speaking role. The lively film adaption of stage phenomenon Mamma Mia! proves that it really doesn't matter if you can sing or not.

I was fortunate enough to see the stage version of Mamma Mia! a few years ago at the Fabulous Fox in St. Louis. I have seen more musicals than I can count on my fingers and toes put together, and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mamma Mia! was one of the most enjoyable shows I have ever watched. People who know me well know that I am an obsessive fan of Rent and Wicked. As much love as I have for those musicals, they weren't fun to watch like Mamma Mia! At curtain call, the entire sold-out audience was up dancing and singing along (even my husband Jamie, who I'm sure will be mortified to learn that I shared that with everyone). It was a blast.

Mamma Mia! is a musical that uses songs by Abba to move the action along. The plotline is just as cheesy and fun as the music. It's about Donna, who runs a hotel in Greece, and her daughter, Sophie. Sophie is about to get married, but she wants her father to walk her down the aisle. The problem? She has no idea who he is. When she finds her mother's journal, she discovers that there were three potential fathers, all of whom she secretly invites to the wedding. They all show up, and of course, chaos ensues.

I was excited when I heard it was being adapted into a film. I became even more excited when I heard the cast announced. Meryl Streep as mom Donna, Christine Baranski and Julie Walters as her friends and former backup singers, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skaarsgard as the potential dads, and relative unknown Amanda Seyfried from HBO's Big Love as Sophie. If performers of that caliber wanted to do it, what could go wrong?

Well, a lot. I have an issue with the casting, because clearly most of the performers were chosen for who they are, not how well they sing. I know it's a movie, but it's a musical. Singing ability should be a prerequisite. I was astonished to discover that the amazing Meryl Streep is not infallible. She can't sing a note. Pierce Brosnan makes her sound like Julie Andrews, though. Every time he sang, I found myself wondering if the fat pockets he got out of the deal made up for the embarassment he has to feel over his vocals. I would imagine he has given up on singing in the shower after hearing himself in the film. Amanda Seyfried is really the only one who is worth listening to. In addition to the singing, the choreography was pretty dreadful. The poor choreography mixed with the subpar singing should've ruined the movie.

Somehow, it really didn't matter that much. Mamma Mia! was still a blast. Watching actors who have no business being in musicals while sitting on my couch with a fever didn't compare to seeing it live with a giddy audience. Still, I had a good time with it. And so what if the actors sort of blew it? It seemed as if they were fully aware that they were miscast, and chose to enjoy it anyway. I know that some reviews were unkind. Some people downright hated this movie. It's a musical, and if you don't like musicals, you won't like this. It's hard to adapt stage musicals to screen. There are few that have done a decent job of capturing the experience of seeing it onstage; Chicago is the only one that stands out in my mind. If you don't like musicals, don't bother. If you do, accept the fact it's not going to be as good as a live experience. And go with it. Just enjoy it. And remember, "You can dance, you can dance, having the time of your life...." All together, now! "Dancing queen...."