Evita

source: Evita

I can't tell you how disappointing this film is. The stage version is brilliant and this miscast, misdirected film version is a complete failure. Note; Madonna only received a Golden Globe Award which is SO telling! I'm convinced the GG can be purchased. All kinds of songs were chopped and there was no choreography! Go see the stage version! Madonna's weakness as a singer is clear. She should stick to pop music and video "acting". The wardrobe was done very well but certainly not enough of a reason to see this waste of money. What a shame that every big actress in town wanted this role and this is how it wound up. All of the men were miscast as well. Especially Magaldi.

First off, let me say I hate musicals and don't blame me for hating this one as well. I somehow got talked into seeing this one by a friend so if you don't like what I have to say blame him and his ex girlfriend. I just thought this was one of the most boring flicks ever, the songs stunk and the story did as well too. It of course focuses on Eva Peron who the movie makes out to be a saint, I won't go into it since there may be those who are offended by the truth, let's just say she wasn't. Banderos character was sort of the narrator, and he does a lousy job at it as I found myself wondering what the heck was happening. Let's just say I wasn't crying for her at the end as I would have walked out of the theater an hour and a half earlier if my friends weren't my ride. Though it taught me a lesson, don't go to a film you don't want to go to cause you won't enjoy yourself.

When I had seen Andrew Lloyd Webber and Allan Parker (I think) complain during the Oscar ceremony about how many awards English Patient was winning, just judging from their attitude and confidence I figured they are real proud of their work, and it may be worth to rent it. I was wrong. When some of the critics thrashed this movie, and called Lloyd Webber's music ordinary, they were right. The direction is equally horrible. When during the first scene, Eva's death is announced, the people's reaction instead of being moving is almost comical. The director and writers devoted almost no time describing Eva's accomplishments, instead of one or two brief passing remarks. Instead they devoted half the movie on how she spent money on glamour, and most of all, they gave us step by step unnecessary detail of how she slept her way up. If she was supposed to be a heroic figure, the makers of this movie have completely destroyed it. The foreign press that decides Golden Globes, must have gotten over excited about the fact that subject material is about foreign country and not US. Otherwise, this movie is complete waste of time and resources.

What dreck! What excrement! I have never been so bored by a musical in my life. And this wasn't really a musical. It was, ironically, a CIRCUS. "I can out diva you!" "NO NO.. I'm better!" Let me be positive first, though. Madonna did this role as well as she could. I could see her working her butt off to perform up to the other prima donas who have done their spotlight bits in this pile or rubbish. (Like Patti LuPooPoo.. PLEASE.) Antonio Banderas.. well he did all right. His singing didn't astound me, but it was acceptable. Musical talent is no longer required, anyway. Look at the boy bands. And the shower scene.. yum! The musical isn't the "amazing" thing people claim it to be. They only say so because they're too ignorant to know better. The MTV generation will love this film for it's cinematography. Personally, I felt like I was on a roller coaster and wanted to retch (and not just from the images!). But the music will appeal to the mindless, I'm sure. With a score by the endlessly self-imitating ALW, how can you go right? But the mindless masses will constantly go out and buy his "art." But no matter what I say, people will still flood like herded sheep and shell out the dough. People will continue to think CATS is the greatest musical ever. Forget Sondheim .. that requires you to THINK. Egads! Not that! Forget Rogers and Hammerstein, Shwartz, Herman, and so many others. Go out and see this trash, because you won't have to pop one neuron into action. Be my guest. But I will warn you: if your reading level is beyond that of an eigth grader, do better things with your money. Rent the PBS recording of "Into the Woods" and see good theatre.

Has anyone read Leonard Bernstein's account of how he discovered that "West Side Story" wasn't an opera? He'd written countless different musical interpretations of Maria's final speech, in a variety of styles and musical forms, and none of them had come close to working. The scene was a dramatic climax, and in an opera any such scene would have to be a musical climax as well. But Bernstein realised that for the scene to work dramatically in "West Side Story" the characters would have to stop singing and talk to one another; therefore, "West Side Story" couldn't be an opera. It's a pity that Andrew Lloyd Webber didn't have a similar epiphany. "Evita" clearly thinks of itself as a grand and serious opera, but it's considerably further from being one than "West Side Story" - despite the fact that there's not a line of spoken dialogue. And spoken dialogue would certainly help. Partly because no character can break OUT of speech INTO song - there's not even an undercurrent of recitative - no song feels like the expression of anyone's point of view but Tim Rice's. Almost all songs are sung by nobody in particular. I suspect the transfer to the screen has made things worse. The photography is gorgeous - I never saw it on the big screen, where, I'm sure, it was ten times as gorgeous - but it's all wasted: it simply serves to turn "Evita" into one big, long music video. All the spectacular images are in the form of seconds-long illustrations, vignettes, and flashbacks. If only Alan Parker had had the courage to just ONCE give us a single unblinking shot of ANYTHING, even if it was just of a character simply singing... As it is, this is the coldest musical drama you're likely to see. The characters are so remote I'm not sure they're there. I can't see any larger epic structure, either: it takes more than an army of extras to give a movie one of those. And let's face it: musically, Lloyd Webber isn't up to the task he's set himself. His instrumental music is curiously dead - which, I presume, is why there's so little of it - and even the songs arouse my suspicion. So much artificial respiration: drum machines, modulations, juxtaposition, unmotivated changes of rhythm, choral intervention ... truly memorable material ought to be able to breathe on its own. A film that's going to be ALL score requires a stronger score than this. I agree with those who praise the cast, though.

I recently discussed this film with my brother, and we both agree that on separate occasions we wanted to walk out of the cinema, but we were forced to stay with our friends (who seemingly wanted to suffer the horrible music). All we wanted was for the singing to stop for one second ... but NO! It's nothing to do with Madonna's appearance in the film, we are not anti-Madonna (we quite like material girl, but we are sick of hearing about the African child and wish the press would let it lie) we mainly object to the incessant caterwauling. There really is not a moments peace in the whole farrago. I recommend people stay clear of this awful movie/musical.

It sounded like a good idea. One of the century's most widely admired and successful modern operas; a reunion of the composer and lyricist to personally adapt the material for the screen; a huge budget; and the very problematic Madonna at last cast in a role seemingly made for her: the manipulative, power-hungry, blonde bombshell role of Eva Peron. How could it go wrong? Very easily. In order to get permission to film in Argentina the producers had to remove virtually everything from the stage show that actually made it memorable--and to cover the gaps Rice and Webber added fluff. Madonna never had the opportunity to play the cut-throat Evita; she was instead given a poor little pitiful me Evita--a role that even the greatest actresses of the day would have difficulty putting across. And as for that mammoth budget... well, let's just say that the entire film has the look of an expensively made videotape. Madonna does the best she can with it, but there aren't any fireworks in the reworked material. Both Banderas and Price seem more than a little miscast in their roles of Che and Juan Peron. And the action drags and drags drags. Extremely, extremely disappointing. Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

I've noticed that this movie continues to sink in the IMDb ratings, having dropped from 6.4 to 6.1 in the three years since I first looked it up. Apparently, Evita is not a film that grows on you. Loving it or hating it is in your DNA. I guess I'm fortunate in my DNA, because I am heart-and-soul addicted to this film. I own the DVD and have played it dozens of times. I watch the film anytime I catch it on cable. I cannot account for my passion. I am not a Madonna fan; I have no desire to see Madonna in anything else. I have no special interest in Antonio Banderas, and although I've sought out other Jonathan Pryce films, I have yet to find one I've really enjoyed. I love all three in this film. I cannot imagine anyone else playing the roles. I've seen Evita on stage in three different presentations and each time I left the theater asking myself the same question, "Who are these impersonators playing Evita, Che and Juan?" I know there are Jimmy Nail fans who consider his role in Evita to be a practical joke. To me, Jimmy Nail is the only possible Agustin Magaldi. Am I interested in Argentine history? Am I a political scholar? Do I have a long-standing fascination with Juan and Eva Peron? No, no and no. I will take a guess at what "attracts" a dedicated minority to this film. It is because, I believe, we are born romantics -- sensitized, heart-on-your-sleeve romantics, which is to say, we are opera lovers. And it turns out that the first "opera" many of us ever saw was the film version of "Evita." It was the first time we ever saw characters talk to one another exclusively in song, the first time we ever shared the unrelenting intimacy that addressing each other in song evokes. And so we hear "I would be good for you" and "You must love me" rather than the oblique prose that people substitute in conversation. How is this different from a standard musical? It is different in that the song is not superimposed upon the dialogue. You are not asked to adjust to the manic-depressive world of the musical, where prosaic characters suddenly burst into unlikely melody. Instead, Evita draws you into an operatic setting, where events unfold to a rhythmic cadence, where the characters move always to the music, where prose reality is saved for the final stark revelation: "Eva, you are dying." Rather than a musical, Evita is a story told in music. Why the film, not the stage play? Because of the remarkable cinematography that lifts the opera from its stage setting to a enormously evocative time and place. What is it about the dusty funeral procession on the sun-baked plain, the arrival of Agustin and Eva in the bustling city, the fall of darkness upon the city's tango bars that is so nostalgically compelling? Why do we pine for this Argentina of long ago? Which of us who loves this film does not hope one day to visit Buenos Aires and find, by a miracle, that the city that greeted young Eva awaits us. Well, that's my personal attempt to explain an addiction. If someone knows a sure-fire method of withdrawal, kindly keep it to yourself.