Saturday, February 05, 2011


At one point while watching BURLESQUE, I stopped to think, which would be the worse version of hell, having to see this movie again, or having to see BABIES again?I'm going to have to go with BABIES as the worse hell.

Although everything about BURLESQUE was putrid, there were a couple of musical sequences that were watchable. In fact it's everything BUT the music that makes this movie a colossal misfire. Seriously, you get Christina Aguilera, who has a voice that can make the walls shake, and you wait until AN HOUR into the film to let her sing? She really can't dance for shit, and we have to watch her dance for an hour?

Then there's the plot point that they all lip sync except for our heroine, who wants to really sing. This is a major mistake in a movie because in a film musical, THEY ALL LIP SYNCH EVERYTHING. It only draws attention to the fact that they are lip synching in scenes where they are not supposed to be lip synching!

And the basic premise is just weird. We're supposed to believe that in present day, there's a burlesque house on Sunset Blvd? And it's popular? And men spend money to see women lip sync with their clothes on??? The movie should have either been a period piece, or been in Vegas, or both. And even then, they should have shown some naked women for the unfortunate hetero guys in the audience. It could have been the perfect sequel (or prequel) to SHOWGIRLS.

The movie could have been a good half-hour shorter by cutting out the so-bad-it's-cringe-inducing dialogue. And much of the cast is outright terrible, including all the male leads in the film, except of course for Stanley Tucci, who steals every moment he is in.

But there were a few decent musical numbers, including Cher's song, which was so good it was completely out of place with the rest of the film. But not enough to make me ever sit through this again.
Post a Comment