Wednesday, August 03, 2005

'Glitter' ...

I did not hate this movie.

I have yet to read any of the reviews of it (I don't read reviews before I watch a movie; I read them after), and I won't yet, lest I color my own opinion, but I think Mariah Carey is right: This movie was unfairly maligned.

No, it's not groundbreaking cinema. No, it's not the best performance ever commited to celluloid. But Carey is a singer, not an actress, and as a singer, I think she more than held her own in this movie. She was an ingenue, so I think her lack of acting chops made her performance more genuine.

I thought it was rather ridiculous that once Billie became a star, she was able to freely wander around Manhattan. And I saw the big climactic moment coming a mile away. (Though "Carlito's Way" pulled it off better -- have I given it away yet? Does it matter? Wasn't I the last person on the planet to see this film? Oh, no, wait. As L.A. Dave pointed out, it only made 18 dollars, so apparently a lot of people didn't see it.)

But I did not hate this movie.

Basically, it's the '80s version of Barbra Streisand's "A Star is Born," which wasn't adored by the critics, but wasn't so badly panned, either. And that movie made a lot of money. I guess if a film's singing star has at least one Oscar on her mantel, it's hard to gripe about her as an actress.

So maybe 9/11 did have something to do with "Glitter" flopping. (The nation was in shock, after all. Who was thinking, "You know what I want to do this weeked? Go see 'Glitter'!" Probably a good thing, as It's set in NYC, and there's a background shot of the towers.) Maybe people just wanted to hate this movie and never gave it a chance. It's not high art, but it's not "Battlefield Earth," either.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home