There are three reasons to see the Prairie Home movie: Dusty and Lefty (The always fabulous John C. Reilly and sometimes good Woody Harelson) and Meryl Streep as one of the Johnson sisters. Otherwise, the movie serves only to remind the audience why it is a radio show. There is no story, no plot is developed. Imagine the stellar Tommy Lee Jones wasted on a role where he takes a few drinks of water while we watch him watching some singers with guitars on stage. Wasting his talent is like taking a box of handmade exquisite truffles and giving them to your dog.
When she was bantering with Streep, Lily Tomlin was good as the other Johnson sister, but her singing voice is so bad that she wasn't believable playing the role of a radio singer.
Meryl Streep’s performance almost made the movie worth it for me. She had a lot of fun doing the role, singing, improvising lines, playing Minnesota girl, she was entirely convincing.
As she was in The Devil Wears Prada. With these two movies, Streep is back on my A-list. (I didn't think I'd forgive her after Bridges of Madison County.) She inhabited both roles so completely. In this Prada role, she was smooth and svelte, caustic and unflappable. The movie itself, unfortunately, was boringly predictable and vapid.
Has anyone seen Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang? I highly recommend.
That is all,
Juli Hagstrom
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great post Juli! I haven't seen Prada yet, but I intend to after hearing so many opinions (such as yours) about Streep.
And no, A Prairie Home Companion wasn't my favorite Altman film, but at the same time I thought it not a horrible, light introduction to his kind of filmmaking.... I was entertained.
And if you liked Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang , you'll LOVE Brick.
Agreed, Brick was a great movie. I have not seen Prada yet either, but a local stillwaterian, Rich Sommer, whom some of us know from school, plays a major role... so I will have to check it out sooner or later.
Well, Anna and I saw Prada the other night... we were not impressed. The film turned out to be the type we both thought it would be back when it first came out, before we had heard anything about Streep's performance. Basically, I thought of the film as a feature length E! fashion spectacular (same depth of story, characters...). Anyway,
I can see why Streep is hailed as the film's savior -- and not because of a stellar performance, I would argue, but because it was amusing to see an[y] actress with her credentials in this role.
By the end of the film I found myself pretty confused why everyone was so excited about a performance that, although brilliantly consisTENT, mostly consisTED of ignoring Anne Hathaway's character, the real LEAD female character in this film!
I mean, wasn't she? The whole film was about Andy [Hathaway]-- Streep's character is seen only through Andy's eyes... without Andy present in a scene, there is no boss, so Streep never has her own scenes in the film... our knowledge of Streep's character is that of difference to Andy... so by definition Streep is in the supporting role (ok, the implied definition... I'm not sure if there's an official definition of a supporting role???) Feel free to enlighten me here, but I don't know why Streep was ever nominated for Best Actress.
So Streep makes her presence felt, no doubt, but with only one serious bout of dramatic acting in the film (her 'breakdown') I don't think her role is powerful enough to be out there saving films and earning nominations like it's been doing.
Post a Comment