bilahn

The phrase "worst movie I have ever seen" gets thrown around a little too much by "reviewers" who have an axe to grind, but this wretched film would have to be on my short list of truly awful movies.

Raunch and grossness is OK - if the movie is well made and funny. Same perhaps for the simpering repulsive gay stereotypes in this move - if the movie were funny and well made.

But the movie is terribly written, is clichéd to the hilt, it's simply not funny in the least (with maybe 2 scenes a mild exception - one involving Richard Hatch and a good turn by the Mother).

What was nauseating and repulsive about this movie was not the bathroom grossness, but simply the spectacle of these very unappealing young men shouting the worst dialogue and hackneyed rubbish I have seen in a long time.

Terrible. Awful. Avoid it!

Some people really have no sense of humor. I am talking about the ones who dissect the script and the acting, on and on, and say what a bad movie it is. OK, fine, on that basis, I give it a 4! But it's funny, it's campy, and doesn't commit the worst sin a movie can make, that is, it is not boring.

Actually I found it not as bad on its own merits as I expected. But in any case, the garishness, the 60s nostalgia, the unintentionally hilarious dialogue, and of course, most of all the inimitable Joan Crawford looking like a combination of Mae West and Divine.

If you liked Berserk and want to see another "bad" Joan Crawford horror fest, I highly recommend Straight Jacket, which I truly rate a 10!

First of all, I have long loved the original 1988 Hairspray and I haven't seen the stage musical.

I felt like I should have loved this version more, but I just didn't. It lacked any of the campiness and most of the absurd humor of the original, and between the dancing I kept wishing I was watching the original. I realize it is a different movie and what is the point of just redoing the original, but there really needed to be a way of capturing the edge of the first movie. To me, they did not do it, and that is the problem.

Nikky Blonsky did as about as good a job as anyone could, but lacked the sassiness of Rikki Lake. Michelle Pfeiffer was quite good as Mrs. Van Tussell - Christopher Walken - boring. John Travolta is the worst thing about the movie, he is absolutely awful. Only a real life drag queen can play the role of Edna.

The dancing sequences were certainly entertaining, well done and fun- but think of Grease - just not in the same class. Take away the dancing, and it is just a highly watered down version.

To be fair, Hairspray 2007 is not a "remake" of the 1988 film, but a film version of the 2002 Broadway show whidh was "inspired" by it. I can imagine the stage show would be naturally more exhilarating than the new movie. I know some who liked show without using the old movie as a comparison, but had more trouble doing that in this film.

My partner chastised me for constantly checking off comparisons to the original - but that's me - I have to do it. I can well imagine for someone knowing nothing of the Hairspray history, or who is able to forget the original, it will come off much better. But i think anyone who has spent the last 18 years watching Hairspray as one of their favorite guilty pleasures, is probably going to be disappointed.

I saw Evita and Chicago about 12 times each, not to mention the 1988 movie. Dreamgirls would be worth another viewing for me, if not more than that. I am glad I saw this Hairspary and it is worth seeing - but I wouldn't see it again. Something was missing.