Yes, maybe it’s just me but the use of non-diegetic music in a film about a fake musical takes me out of the world of the film too much - none of the jokes quite work anymore.
(and nothing against Broderick or Lane, it’s just that the original has two of the greatest comedians in the history of movies, directed by a third - it’s like Peter O’Toole losing out on the Oscar for “Lawrence” because he was up against Gregory Peck in “Mockingbird” that year)
Definitely not an issue for me; I’m a musical theater kid. And I never said the original wasn’t better. Just that 10x claim is a bit of an exaggeration :)
I think Broderick and Lane are both hilarious comedians as well (especially Lane, where Broderick is more of a total-package entertainer). It’s a different show for a different audience, for sure, but let’s not sell those two short, especially after the highly successful Broadway run. I mean, it was so successful on Broadway that they made it into a movie with a lot of overlapping cast (obviously not Wil Ferrell though. His performance was decent but I was not very happy with that casting choice)
Fair enough. Will Ferrell’s casting was terrible, but I wasn’t totally sold on the two of them for those roles either, maybe just because the original actors inhabited them so well - I saw the musical on stage with Brad Oscar as Bialystock and thought he did a better job bringing in that bombastic schemer Ralph Kramden element than Lane did (if maybe not quite possessing the same stage presence overall), and Broderick is just a touch too earnest and cool for Bloom.
Yes, maybe it’s just me but the use of non-diegetic music in a film about a fake musical takes me out of the world of the film too much - none of the jokes quite work anymore.
(and nothing against Broderick or Lane, it’s just that the original has two of the greatest comedians in the history of movies, directed by a third - it’s like Peter O’Toole losing out on the Oscar for “Lawrence” because he was up against Gregory Peck in “Mockingbird” that year)
Definitely not an issue for me; I’m a musical theater kid. And I never said the original wasn’t better. Just that 10x claim is a bit of an exaggeration :)
I think Broderick and Lane are both hilarious comedians as well (especially Lane, where Broderick is more of a total-package entertainer). It’s a different show for a different audience, for sure, but let’s not sell those two short, especially after the highly successful Broadway run. I mean, it was so successful on Broadway that they made it into a movie with a lot of overlapping cast (obviously not Wil Ferrell though. His performance was decent but I was not very happy with that casting choice)
Fair enough. Will Ferrell’s casting was terrible, but I wasn’t totally sold on the two of them for those roles either, maybe just because the original actors inhabited them so well - I saw the musical on stage with Brad Oscar as Bialystock and thought he did a better job bringing in that bombastic schemer Ralph Kramden element than Lane did (if maybe not quite possessing the same stage presence overall), and Broderick is just a touch too earnest and cool for Bloom.