Reviews

The original film was one of the best animated movies ever made by a western studio, so I was excited to watch this recording of the long-time-coming stage adaptation. There is certainly a great deal of fan service achieved by upholding the same style, structure, and goosebump inducing music that made the 90s picture so amazing. As far as its modern innovations, however, this adaptation can frankly be skipped. Dozens of songs were added, and none of them landed like the original soundtrack. Also accompanying the new (and old) music were extremely on-the-nose dance numbers, mind you, performed by amazing dancers, but they were still an ill fit. This story didn't need dance at all, let alone a heavy incorporation of it. It seemed like the producers tried too hard to "show-tune" up a classic that was never meant to embrace that style to begin with.

The script didn't help matters, with the addition of transitional scenes that were unneeded and expository, plus a refusal to cut other scenes that probably should have been. Action packed chariot races, hieroglyphs coming to life, among other sequences are fun ideas to explore in animation, but trying to imply them onstage only makes the final product much more campy. One couldn't exactly cut elements like the burning bush, parted sea, or the plagues when telling a story about Moses, but those are also reasons why the story is so hard to bring into a theatrical space. Mixing a Bible tale with stage effects gives a sensation of a novelty show from Branson, Missouri rather than anything from the West End.

I did not much like the cast as a whole. The vocals were overall impressive, with perhaps the exception of Christine Allado as Tzipporah, who seemed intent on passing as a pop star. I particularly enjoyed the leading man, Luke Brady, who brought to the table a stunning voice along with very competent acting. Unfortunately, I think that's where it ends. This is the price that is paid when deciding to film a musical, as the acting style seldomly works in closeups. The most notable "weak links" are Tanisha Spring as Nefertari, one of those aforementioned unneeded additions. Her stereotypical snobby demeanor was eye-roll inducing whenever she took the stage, necessary for the character, but not for the show. There was also the problem of Adam Pearce as the High Priest. His performance was over-the-top, yet serious, extra infuriating considering he replaced the original's comedic relief. Why is that? Well, the show needed him to be the token bass, part of a larger musical cliché, an obsession with deep voiced villains to contrast the overabundance of tenors in the cast. This poor choice additionally altered one of the better songs of the original. They should have added more baritones to the ensemble, but not at the expense of "Playing with the Big Boys."

This character is also a large part of objectively the worst element of the show, the ending. Ramses had a confusing babyface turn at the conclusion, hugging Moses and letting him escape. This allowed the High Priest to very briefly become the main antagonist, mind controlling the Egyptian army before all of them were swept away by the Red Sea. It's one of the worst creative liberties I have ever seen. The Prince of Egypt is not Star Wars!

There were ways this show could have been great, as was evidenced by my excitement to initially see it. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, they missed the mark by a wide margin.

I first saw this movie when I was a young and impressionable film student. I disliked it back then almost entirely due to it beating out the near perfect "Saving Private Ryan" for Best Picture. I still hold this opinion, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how much has changed. I got my degree, not in film but in theatre, and I am now an expert on Shakespeare, both his life and works. It has only caused me to be even more critical of this film.

There is certainly some impressive writing on display, as one would expect from an intellect like Tom Stoppard. He added small, brief, yet clever details about the historical period one can only find if looking. The language is beautifully constructed and true to the time period and region. Stoppard also expertly justified how this openly fictitious love affair could have been plausible, considering the timeline of Shakespeare's whereabouts and activity. That all being said, Stoppard and the other writers had to make exceptions to their research.

For starters, "Romeo & Juliet" could not have been inspired by a real love story because it itself was not a love story. R&J was a tragedy with hardly any sympathetic protagonists. Certainly poetic, perhaps, but not written to be one of Will's romances, nor was it his most popular work. Viewers at the time much preferred his histories and comedies. R&J also could not have been an original work because it was already based on previous ones, particularly a poem, character names and all. The filmmakers should have either made a romantic comedy or a historical biography. Instead, they tried to meet in the middle, and it only resulted in numerous inconsistencies.

Outside of the writing, the problems became even more evident. The casting was poor. No one accurately looked their part, particularly Fiennes's Shakespeare or Everett's Kit Marlowe. Playwrights at the time were far from dreamboats and barely even local celebrities.

The actors did not get the job done, either. None of them were huge negative standouts to me, except maybe Affleck and Paltrow, but to win two acting Oscars? That seems absurd. I love Judi Dench as much as anyone else, but she practically did nothing for her brief 8 minutes on screen. Her convincing portrayal of the queen was more a testament to the costume and makeup, rather than her acting performance. Paltrow, however, was just plain bad. She was a cliché romantic lead with the most drab of deliveries, not to mention how horribly unconvincing she was in drag. She certainly did not deserve her hardware. Going back to the writing, the story would have benefited from limiting her role and instead introducing his wife, Anne, and the children. Perhaps doing away with Paltrow altogether exploring one of Will's real-life rumored love affairs would better sell the realism, especially considering one was with a man... It was still alleged, but nevertheless more intriguing than anything written for the screen. The drama regarding Will's infidelity would have been a much better choice, as opposed to focusing on a contrived "romance" and glossing over the fact that this fictional version is, in fact, a cheating dirtbag.

Despite this movie lacking in writing, directing, acting, and bad hair design (both facial and on top), it still made up some ground in other production elements, such as costumes and scenic design. For long time fans of the Bard, this movie could still perhaps be immersive, and I can certainly recognize its strengths, but its weaknesses drastically need to be acknowledged more frequently.