The showed it on HBO the other day, and once again I was impressed in a lot of wats. It's fast-moving, visually gorgeous, dramatic and exciting, tells a story that few English-speaking know well, has wonderful catchy songs that are still running through my head...
And if only they'd used a leading actress with fire and charisma, it would have been great!
But they didn't, they used Madonna.
It was on again today, and I had it on while I ate breakfast because I like the music so much.
Such a waste of film! Madonna couldn't even make a sexy flirty tango exciting, and she has a background in dance and music videos!
Madonna did great in this role. Made it her own.
sharePoor Madonna, she always gets such a hard time!
Granted, she has turned in some truly awful performances over the years and I consider her an actress in the same way I consider Meryl Streep a singer, but you don't become the most successful female recording artist of all time by having no onscreen charisma. She rules music video and that's why I think Evita was by far her most accomplished film role because, let's be honest, it's essentially a two hour music video.
She was also a serviceable bit-player in A League of Their Own, Desperately Seeking Susan and Dick Tracy, because those roles also played to her strengths and didn't stretch her at all. If you're going to have Madonna in your film, you let her do what she does best, and that's why I think Parker made the right choice casting her.
She did good in my books. Decent singing, albeit not to a Broadway musical level.
My only complaint is her age. She was 38 playing a character aged 18-33. Dressing her up in period piece clothing made her look 40s.
But I'm not sure who else they could have cast.
You are right. Her performance wasn't bad, she was certainly a better singer than some of the others in the movie. The real problem not just with her but with the show in general was the casting. A musical shouldn't be cast with actors that the studios think will bring in viewers it should be cast with people that are right for the role which will more times than not be people that can sing and act. Madonna could sing, but her biggest problem as you point out was her age and her not looking right for the part. Over the years I've seen Evita many times with the part of Evita played by lots of different performers... Madonna wasn't the best, but she was by far not the worst I would say from a singing standpoint she was well above average, which is really what should be the biggest factor in casting for musicals.
Now if you want to see some musicals that have been utter shit because of poor casting watch Les Miserables... The movie is filled with shitty singers that were completely miscast and only go parts because of their celebrity status. Hugh Jackman may have gotten his start doing musical theater but that doesn't mean he's a great singer or right for the part... then you had the god awful Russel Crowe... The movie was filled with shitty singers.
I agree. A musical must have actors who can sing to a Broadway standard.
shareIt was a great film.
shareWhy would I give a damn about Eva Peron?đź’¤
shareCome on. Andrew Lloyd Webber made a political musical out of her life and you don't find it interesting at all? Its Webber's best musical, maybe after Jesus Christ Superstar.
share(1) I despise Webber. (2) “best after JC Superstar” is like “best after a peniloscopy.” (3) South America is the most fucked and corrupt inhabitable continent on this planet. (4) I’m not gay.
share