I saw the film over the weekend and kept thinking that I needed to get home and listen to Carnegie Hall. It's one of the great recordings of all time.The film disappointed me tremendously. The flashbacks were very poorly done and the inclusion of the gay couple in the London scenes did not work at all. The art direction and cinematography were first rate, and Zellweger was good. I kept thinking what a wonderful film it would be with a good script.
TotallyEffed said: "Almira said: "Zellweiger gives s largely one-note performance, not much deepthor weight. What you see in the first 10 minutes is exactly the samething you see for the next 90 minutes...,and not being a force of nature herself, her singing is at moments embarrassing especially when everyone around her is describing it as this rare god-given gift to the world.A slog of a film to endure."At last, a voice of reason. While not as offensively bad as I imagined it to be, it doesn’t amount to much. The flashback scenes were particularly laughable, with the sinister, menacing figureof LB hoveringover a young Judy in shadowy corners, delivering deliciously campy warnings before vaguely stroking her breast.This thin biopic will soon be forgotten, even if she undeservedly wins the Oscar. She is committed, but the writing and her barely adequate singing fail her." ITA about the flashback scenes. L.B.s speeches were overwritten and just absurd to listen to. Even if they were intended to evoke a nightmarish past, they totally failed.
Regarding flashbacks with LB I was spoiled by similar scenes in Barton Fink with a great Michael Lerner portraying the studio head. No comparison. I was also very disappointed in those flashbacks because at first it looked like they were going to show the sets for The Wizard Of Oz being constructed - with CGI you can do anything and it could have been magnificent. But the idea was not even partially exploited.
Even the scenes in Mommie Dearest with Howard DaSilva as L.B. Mayer were superior to the Judy scenes. And yes, TE, a more three dimensional portrayal of Garland's handlers would have been more honest. By the way, one detail bothered me-when the unnamed songwriters(of course Arlen and Harburg) played Over The Rainbow for Garland,she hadn't even been cast yet. Didn't they write it with her in mind, AFTER she had gotten the part?
Bettyboy72 said: "Overall, I like Renée but thought the screenplay was lackluster. There’s very little new ground to tread. It’s like beating a dead horse. I understand why Liza and Lorna distance themselves from it. The question I have was Judy really always such a mess? She’s portrayed as pathetic in so much. It’s really exhausting.I did appreciate the handler character who communicated compassion and empathy rather than eye rolling or irritation. It seems people were drawn into her fragility to either care for her or exploit her.SPOILER!!!!! Was the piece about the gay couple true? I found that bit incredibly pandering if it’s constructed. If it’s not true I find it incredibly manipulative and odd personally. Was it thrown in to pander to gay men? It seemed out of place. The fans she latched onto due to loneliness didn’t need to be two old queens.I like Renée and was glad she didn’t try to mimic but I think her makeup and prosthetics did the heavy lifting. She doesn’t sound like Judy and at times she didn’t remind me of Judy. Actually some of her mannerisms and delivery reminded me more of Charles Busch.However I did like the film and I think Renée deserves acclaim but I’m not as over the moon as others."I, too, was curious about the gay fans included in the script. Quite interesting if true.However according to the Wrap, the story was a total creation of the writers.www.thewrap.com/judy-fact-check-is-gay-couple-judy-garland-befriends-based-on-real-fans-lbgtq/
The film's release is being handled carefully. It only opened on 461 screens (that same weekend, ABOMINABLE opened on over 4,200 screens). It still managed to crack the top 10 that weekend...and also had one of the highest per-screen averages. Last weekend, the film was on just shy of 1,500 screens and still came in at #7 with a high per-screen average.This is no threat to JOKER, etc...but it is definitely holding its own and performing beyond initial expectations.
I thought the gay couple being included was a flight of fantasy- but true to the identity of Judy's fanbase- and the relationship she formed with gay male fans. Just like the audience singing to Judy at the end fo the film- another flight of fantasy- true to the character of Judy and her relationship with her audience- but not true to reality. I thought those creative flourishes added to my enjoyment of the picture- and showed the creative nature of the filmmaker.
Well, let's face it- Judy did not die a happy, fulfilled, rich woman at the top of her game- but her story is fascinating and, though perhaps a cautionary tale- it does give a sense of her enormous talent, her humor and strength- and her victimization as a young performer. I loved it.
BWAY Baby2 said: "Well, let's face it- Judy did not die a happy, fulfilled, rich woman at the top of her game- but her story is fascinating and, though perhaps a cautionary tale- it does give a sense of her enormous talent, her humor and strength- and her victimization as a young performer. I loved it."Well said. I did not go into this movie expecting a factually accurate depiction — just as I did not from any other musical bio I have ever seen — but I expected it to capture a sense of her talent, her pain, her sense of humor, the contrast between her fame and her loneliness, etc c., and I thought it did a very good job of that. I was not a great movie, but it was a god movie and Zellweger was great.
I thought this was interesting...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_oo6zFdPLc
© 2019 Wisdom Digital Media