For those unfamiliar with 80s' television (why do I know about cartoons that came out before I was born?), Jem and the Holograms was a show by the toy company Hasbro as a way to draw attention to their respective toy and music line. It was, as expected, a massive product of it's time: the glitzy pop music of the decade and multicolored spectacles in the show must have been amusing for it's time- amusing enough to warrant an unneeded reboot so many years later, when Hasbro began to rise back into the spotlight thanks to the ever-popular Transformers and the surprise hit of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. So, why not try to bring another old show back from the grave, this time with a live-action film? After all, Hasbro does have contacts in both the live-action and music industries- Michael Bay had a hand in 'helping' make Transformers a big-budget spectacle, and they could probably talk Daniel Ingram (the head composer for My Little Pony) into bringing his talent for catchy and fun songs into the mix. But apparently the knowledge of the success of the past did not influence the future. Instead of a more intriguing choice, the production group went with John M. Chu (no relation to Pika), who's previous accomplishments include two Justin Bieber biographies (and G.I Joe: Retaliation for some reason), in the director's chair, and Nathan Lanier for musical direction (who's previous credits include a Bieber film and something called 'How My Dad Killed Dracula'). And now we begin to pick apart what makes something from the past flop in the future.
Before we start, let me begin by saying that I'm definitely not a product of the 80's, when glitz and pop had major impacts on both the fields of film and television. So, in a way, is it unfair to judge a musical film based on a musical genre you technically weren't around for? Well, I couldn't tell you. I can't even tell which decade this film wants to be from.
Let's see, we've got the glitzy pop stylings of the 80's, the dreamlike quality of the 60's, the flashy light shows of the 70's, the internet music boom of the early 2000's and the overall mediocrity of modern pop here in one giant potpourri- which, in a way, could be a cool idea, but the film's one crippling flaw is that it forgets what made each of those original decades special. It was unique because not only did the music reflect the differing tastes of generations, but the issues facing each generation- The Village People were so popular because they reflected and spoke out against discrimination based on sexuality (if you put them in nowadays, they'd seem dated as there are now plenty of differing sexualities represented in media), for example. And while it's fair to say that some musicians are reflective of everlasting themes (did the songs about first-world problems create the emos, or did the emos create the songs about first-world problems?), you can't just throw anything into a vat nowadays. With programs like Spotify and Youtube available for small, up and coming artists, the industry has opened up to so many different kinds of unique musicians and styles on the small screen before moving to the big one. But what these groups must remember is to have a sense of pacing, which this film lacks. Characters fly from one scene to another, one musical show to another without any sense of time or importance. I'm fairly certain if you took out the random Youtube clippings and pointless scenes, this film would be shorter than an episode of the old show.
The film is said to tell the origin story for the band's rise to stardom and fame, but I couldn't tell the difference between that and anything else here. It's a typical rise to power story that needs no explanation,except for the after-credits scene that is so hilariously sure of a sequel that I honestly couldn't tell if it was joking or not. There isn't much to say about this one- it's just a teenage band story that sometimes dissolves into the equivalent of, "Look at this thing I found on Youtube!". Boring,messy and unpleasant.
2/10
------------------------------
"Hey, didn't you forget something? A joke you usually pull?"
Nope. Not making that reference this time. Don't care if it's my favorite song.
"So you don't want to bring up Feathery Wings in any way, shape, or form?"
No, the review's done.
"What if this quotation box was to say that someone could make your same argument about why that song sucks?
Then I'd like to know if that quote would like to step outside for a moment.....
Before we start, let me begin by saying that I'm definitely not a product of the 80's, when glitz and pop had major impacts on both the fields of film and television. So, in a way, is it unfair to judge a musical film based on a musical genre you technically weren't around for? Well, I couldn't tell you. I can't even tell which decade this film wants to be from.
Let's see, we've got the glitzy pop stylings of the 80's, the dreamlike quality of the 60's, the flashy light shows of the 70's, the internet music boom of the early 2000's and the overall mediocrity of modern pop here in one giant potpourri- which, in a way, could be a cool idea, but the film's one crippling flaw is that it forgets what made each of those original decades special. It was unique because not only did the music reflect the differing tastes of generations, but the issues facing each generation- The Village People were so popular because they reflected and spoke out against discrimination based on sexuality (if you put them in nowadays, they'd seem dated as there are now plenty of differing sexualities represented in media), for example. And while it's fair to say that some musicians are reflective of everlasting themes (did the songs about first-world problems create the emos, or did the emos create the songs about first-world problems?), you can't just throw anything into a vat nowadays. With programs like Spotify and Youtube available for small, up and coming artists, the industry has opened up to so many different kinds of unique musicians and styles on the small screen before moving to the big one. But what these groups must remember is to have a sense of pacing, which this film lacks. Characters fly from one scene to another, one musical show to another without any sense of time or importance. I'm fairly certain if you took out the random Youtube clippings and pointless scenes, this film would be shorter than an episode of the old show.
The film is said to tell the origin story for the band's rise to stardom and fame, but I couldn't tell the difference between that and anything else here. It's a typical rise to power story that needs no explanation,except for the after-credits scene that is so hilariously sure of a sequel that I honestly couldn't tell if it was joking or not. There isn't much to say about this one- it's just a teenage band story that sometimes dissolves into the equivalent of, "Look at this thing I found on Youtube!". Boring,messy and unpleasant.
2/10
------------------------------
"Hey, didn't you forget something? A joke you usually pull?"
Nope. Not making that reference this time. Don't care if it's my favorite song.
"So you don't want to bring up Feathery Wings in any way, shape, or form?"
No, the review's done.
"What if this quotation box was to say that someone could make your same argument about why that song sucks?
Then I'd like to know if that quote would like to step outside for a moment.....
No comments:
Post a Comment