Student Life Archives

www.telechimp.com

Nov. 11, 2005, was a very dark day for fans of television comedy. In fact, it was a dark day for all of humanity. It was on this day that Fox decided to cut off “Arrested Development,” letting the show finish out its remaining episodes before disappearing. Technically, the show isn’t cancelled, but it is as good as cancelled. The show has always struggled to find an audience, but has never had any trouble with the critics, garnering all sorts of accolades and awards.

Fox has always had trouble with smart, witty shows. For whatever reason, Fox has a knack for finding great pieces of comedy, supporting them for the first four episodes or so, mismarketing them, underadvertising them and finally cancelling them half of a year into their run. Some shows have been so good that they survived most of these attempts on their life, only to get the axe slightly later. “Family Guy” was one such show, and “Arrested Development” is another.

“Arrested Development” is in its third season, which is much farther than shows of this caliber usually make it on Fox. It quickly won over a devoted fan base with its absurd, clever humor, lack of a laugh track and ability to amuse without insulting the intelligence of its audience. It is for these reasons that it has never found mass appeal. The standard plebe needs to be force-fed laughter. He feels stupid when clever wordplay is involved. He is in fact too stupid to realize that his intelligence is being insulted and, as such, doesn’t mind it.

KRT Campus

Pride and Prejudice
Grade: 4/5 stars
Starring: Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFadyen, Rosamund Pike
Directed by: Joe Wright
For fans of: Anything else by Jane Austen
Now playing at: Chase Park Plaza

“We are all fools in love.”

This declaration by Charlotte Lucas (Claudie Blakely) is the perfect epitaph for this movie about the trials and tribulations of courtship in 18th-century England. Set in the lush English countryside, the Bennet household is turned upside down with the news that two very eligible bachelors, Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) and Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen) have decided to take up summer residence at nearby Netherfield Park, along with Mr. Bingley’s sister (Kelly Reilly). Mrs. Bennet, played by a very effusive Brenda Blethyn, immediately begins scheming about marriage possibilities for her daughters.

The Bennet sisters are each unique in their personalities and talents. The oldest sister Jane (Rosamund Pike) is beautiful and modest, Lizzy (Keira Knightley) is headstrong and vivacious, Mary (Talulah Riley) is serious and musical and youngest sisters Lydia and Kitty are flirtatious and often silly. At the county ball thrown by Charlotte Lucas’ family, the Bennets meet their new neighbors. While it’s obvious that Jane and Mr. Bingley are immediately attracted to each other, Mr. Darcy’s reaction to Lizzy is icy and pompous, as he refuses to dance with her.

Though Mr. Darcy’s opinion of Lizzy clearly changes for the better, a transformation that is especially telling is the scene in which a radiant Lizzy walks into Netherfield Park and encounters a dumbstruck Mr. Darcy and Miss Bingley, and Lizzy allows her pride to lead her to a prejudiced opinion of Mr. Darcy. Both Mr. Bingley’s departure and the story of Darcy’s betrayal as told by Mr. Wickham (Rupert Friend) contribute to Lizzy’s refusal of Mr. Darcy’s marriage proposal. Yet through a younger sister’s follies and an older sister’s happiness, Lizzy is made to see the errors of her judgment and revises her first impression of the reserved but kindhearted Mr. Darcy.

Any production of “Pride and Prejudice” will no doubt be compared to the landmark A&E production of the Jane Austen novel, in which Jennifer Ehle gave a commanding performance as the spirited and likable Lizzy and a wet-shirted and britches-clad Colin Firth also made a memorable impression as Mr. Darcy. In this new adaptation, Knightley certainly looks the part of an English beauty, but perhaps due to the shorter length of the film or the distracting way in which she twitches her nose at every opportunity, her performance falls short of Ehle’s. MacFadyen had equally high expectations to fill, and his portrayal of Mr. Darcy highlights the character’s just-below-the-surface desire. Without speaking, MacFadyen communicates a world of emotion. Woods also gives a memorable performance as the charmingly awkward Mr. Bingley, whose effusive affections for Jane are especially endearing.

Ultimately, this movie is about relationships and falling in love, highlighting a woman’s position in Georgian England. As Mrs. Bennet and Charlotte Lucas both know, a woman who doesn’t find a suitable husband is doomed to poverty and spinsterhood. Luckily for the Bennet sisters, they are attractive girls, and in the end, both Jane and Lizzy find wealth and love. Don’t be surprised if you walk out of the theatre wishing to hop on the next plane to England in order to enjoy the scenery and the likes of Firth or MacFadyen. Just don’t expect the fairy-tale ending.

showtime.fxzone.net

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Grade: 3.5/5 stars
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes
Directed by: Mike Newell
Now playing at: Esquire, Galleria 6

It must be hard to make a movie like Harry Potter. You are expected to be true to the original work, to remain consistent with the previous movies and also to create a vision that is your own. Director Mike Newell (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) picks up where Alfonso Cuar¢n left off, creating a darker version of the Harry Potter world than the earlier Chris Columbus movies portrayed.

The movie follows book’s plot relatively closely, so Potter-heads out there should be pleased. The fourth year at Hogwarts brings the Tri-Wizard Tournament, a competition for three older students from three different wizarding schools. One of the schools is Eastern European and all-male and the other is French and all-female – and that simple explanation is essentially all the character development attached to the members of these schools. The tournament presents a series of progressively challenging tasks, where death is a very real possibility for the unprepared participant. Harry is under the age limit but is mysteriously entered into the tournament (of course).

The source material for “Goblet of Fire” is the longest and darkest of the Potter books yet converted, but the movie is neither the longest nor the darkest. The movie is approximately the same length as the others, but it feels much more rushed. Major characters are given less background information than pieces of chocolate were given in the first movie. This is all the more shameful because several new characters are forced to make the ultimate sacrifice, and the audience spends more time wondering who the person is and why they should care as opposed to actually feeling for the characters.

Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint all do wonderful jobs, and they seem to have grown up comfortably with the roles. God only knows if they will ever be able to outlive their Harry Potter characters, but at least they will never have to be embarrassed by their past. Harry Potter newcomer Brendan Gleeson does a good job as “Mad-Eye” Moody, the newest in a long line of Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers, although he, like so many others in this film, is not given adequate screen time.

The movie is certainly enjoyable, coming close to the great heights of “Prisoner of Azkaban.” The only real complaint is that it just feels far too rushed. Two and a half hours to cover 800 pages is just not enough – an extra half hour could have done so much to support all of the new characters and show all of the action that was only hinted at. It might be unreasonable to expect children to sit through a three-hour movie; however, the movies are quickly leaving the realm of children’s fantasy and entering the darker realm of regular fantasy, as was clearly evidenced by the multitude of screaming children at my screening.

If you are a fan of Harry Potter, you have surely already seen the movie – and for those of you who haven’t yet, “Goblet of Fire” is an entertaining film and should be at the top of your list.

www.musical.it

The Producers
Rating: 4.5/5 stars
Starring: Matthew Broderick, Nathan Lane, Uma Thurman, Will Ferrell

For those not knowledgeable on the subject of Broadway theatre, “The Producers” was a hit play a few years back, winning a total of 15 Tony awards, including Best Musical, Best Actor and Best Actress. In this current incarnation, it is a movie based on a play based on a movie about a play. While that might be too many levels of abstraction for most people, the movie is an absolute delight.

The idea behind “The Producers” is that a producer with questionable ethics – in this case Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) – could conceivably make far more money by producing a terrible flop than he could with a hit if he were to have a creative accountant, e.g. Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick). With this idea in mind, the titular producers gather the worst script in history, a horrible director and a miscast cast in an attempt to create the worst play of all time. The play that they create, “Springtime for Hitler,” is worth the price of admission alone and is one of the funniest things ever created, be it for stage, screen or whatever.

All of this is punctuated with a variety of songs, all remaining very close to the original source material. The songs are very well choreographed and contain a lot of physical humor and wordplay, so all watchers will have something to keep them amused. Showgirls spring forth from filing cabinets, old ladies have a dance number involving walkers and a tall, striking Swedish blonde, Ulla (Uma Thurman), sings that “When You Got It, Flaunt It.”

Both Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick do a great job reprising their original Broadway roles, and it is obvious that they are very comfortable with the characters and with each other. At many points, it is hard to tell if they are actually on-script or if they are just talking in character – the rapport is just so natural. Newcomers Thurman and Will Ferrell, as the hilarious neo-Nazi Franz Liebkind, also do wonderfully.

The only possible fault of the movie is that it is occasionally too close to the original play. While that means it is the closest that most people will get to seeing the Broadway blockbuster with its original stars, it also limits the movie. Some artifacts from the play, such as awkward blocking and low-quality special effects (which wouldn’t seem to be important but for some reason are), mar the otherwise wonderful show. For those who never got to see the play as it was meant to be seen, which, honestly, is probably just about everyone, this movie is a must-see, no matter what you think about musicals.

thezreview.co.uk

Rent
Rating: 3/5 stars
Starring: Anthony Rapp, Adam Pascal, Rosario Dawson, Jesse L. Martin, Idina Menzel

The musical “Rent” by Jonathan Larson is nothing short of a Broadway masterpiece, and it is said to have “defined a generation.” “Rent” speaks to both the tragedy and joy of being young and in love in New York City in the 1990s, as it confronts issues such as AIDS, death and drug addiction. The musical is an extremely powerful force, diving into the true nature of the human condition; yet sadly, the movie adaptation, which features many of the original Broadway cast members, does not recreate that power.

The movie begins with all of the main characters standing on an empty stage, singing one of the play’s most popular songs, “Seasons of Love.” For a movie that neither takes place in a theatre nor has any of the lead characters coming anywhere near a theatre (apart from the opening song), one might claim that the director’s decision to begin the movie on a stage is at least a questionable choice.

After the opening theatre scene, the film launches itself immediately into the “heart” of New York, which at times resembles a Hollywood soundstage and at other moments a real street in New York. This beginning disparity speaks to the basic problem of the film: a general lack of continuity. The film, which follows the lives of eight friends who are trying to simply pay their titular rent, jumps awkwardly back and forth from sun-filled skips down a picturesque city street to gritty “real life” moments in which characters are suffering through withdrawal or other painful experiences. The play succeeds in highlighting both the highs and lows of life in New York, but the movie fails to bring the two together by playing to extremes and failing to show similarities between the breadth of experiences.

Character development is also somewhat lacking in the film, as producers opted to leave some important songs and scenes out of the final cut. This decision also calls back to the initial problem of a general lack of continuity.

The movie, however, does not fail entirely. With a stellar script and libretto, the movie still retains some of the play’s initial power, and many of the original cast members (as expected) turn in outstanding vocal performances. Rosario Dawson, as Mimi Marquez, puts forth an especially spectacular performance as a young exotic dancer who is also diagnosed with HIV.

The movie is not spectacular and could definitely have been produced and directed by more capable hands. The music of Jonathan Larson still speaks to a new generation of “Rent” fans, however, although perhaps a bit less loudly and under less-than-ideal circumstances.

For those of us who grew up watching “The Sound of Music” and “Annie” on constant repeat, the movie musical, for a time, has seemed like a forgotten art, buried along with movie musical greats such as Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Few people today remember the glory days of the movie musical, when songs such as “White Christmas” became instant hits and entire corporations named themselves after a favorite musical film (think of the hotel giant Holiday Inn, named after the 1942 film of the same name).

The 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s witnessed a huge drought in the movie musical, as Hollywood’s fickle favor shifted to bratty teeny-bopper films and the increasingly popular genre of the romantic comedy. Yet due to a number of factors, the American movie musical is currently experiencing a somewhat dramatic and shaky rebirth.

In 1996 Madonna and Hollywood heartthrob Antonio Banderas relaunched the genre with their musical biography “Evita,” which told the story of Eva Peron, a former first lady of Argentina who died tragically at the age of 33. It wasn’t until 2001, however, that the movie musical really gained popularity with Baz Luhrmann’s creative spectacle and box-office sensation “Moulin Rouge.” With stars such as Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor belting out Elton John hits, the movie was an instant success. After the stunning popularity of Luhrmann’s over-the-top musical masterpiece, studios throughout Hollywood grew eager to produce the next great musical hit.

The following year, the big-screen adaptation of Kander and Ebb’s “Chicago,” starring Renee Zelwegger, Catherine Zeta Jones and Richard Gere, cemented the movie musical back into the American mainstream, as it captured the first Best Picture Academy Award for a musical in 35 years. Since the release of “Chicago,” however, the studios’ attempts at recreating musical box-office successes have been somewhat uninspiring. Flops such as 2004’s “De-Lovely” and the dismal success of this year’s “Phantom of the Opera” seemed to prepare the movie musical for another nosedive off of Hollywood’s radar.

But two releases this Christmas once again attempt to revive the somewhat-struggling art form. Jonathan Larson’s ’90s hit “Rent” makes its transition onto the big screen, accompanied by “The Producers,” starring original cast members Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane. These two movie musical hopefuls are featured below. For those of us who belted out “Tomorrow” throughout our childhoods, we can only hope for big box-office profits and a fury of media attention. For those who loathe the genre as much as they loathe musical theatre in general, they can only hope for a quick departure from the theatres.