More importantly, tomorrow's "American Idol" results show is going to be a doozy. I'll admit it, I spend a good chunk of time redialing to vote a few dozen times for Adam Lambert. However, I also can admit that Kris Allen and Danny Gokey did well tonight. I can't help having a weakness for theater guys and please, no one else is in Adam's vocal league. "One" was a phenomenal choice for Adam - and I say that meaning that the beginning, the low, controlled, untheatrical (yes, I said it) part was gorgeous. Yeah the man can see like a woman and it's crazy, but he also proves his talent when he stops all of that and shows vocals like that. Loved it. It's not quite as fun to watch "Idol" without my equally critical roommates, though. My mom is a great lady but I'm not sure she much cared what I had to say about the trio.
I'm just full of pop culture today. Saw "17 Again" last night with my best friend. I suppose if the economy has got you down, grab a date and spend $19 to see Zac Efron with his shirt off. Yeah, $19- you read that right. Maybe Buffalo is behind the times, but that much for two movies tickets? It strikes me as down right painful. Get yourself an Entertainment Book or six and rip out those $6 coupons. Regal Cinemas does not need my hard earned (or won!) money.
As for the movie, I loved it. First of all, Efron has the right amount of nonchalance, confidence and charm to play a lead in a major motion picture. He even throws down some non-HSM dance moves that remind the audience that he has more talent than just a quick tongue (I mean in delivering his lines wittily you dirty-minded reader) and perfectly coiffed hair. Side note: I just Googled "coif" for the spelling - it's not even hair! It's a close fitting cap. So when I'm talking about Efron's coif, I am specifically praising his lovely locks. They certainly are the kind a girl would want to run her hands though. Thus why I dislike Vanessa Hudgens. Oh and her lack of singing talent, but I don't believe I'm discussing her. I'm discussing how well Efron delivers lines - except when he says "weiner" for the male genetalia, I mean come on dude, the movie is PG-13 isn't it? - that aren't sung. He must have stage training though. Every scene he is in, he is "on," constantly reacting, always staying with his character. There are no dead fish eyes on this guy. It's almost out of place next to his six-pack.
Was it better than "Star Trek?" Hell no. But I'm convinced that Zac Efron - or young Christian Bale, or a serious Ashton Kutcher-type - could have played James T. Kirk just as well as Chris Pine does. The man has the face of Apollo, no doubt, however, the troubled rogue part is not a difficult one to play. Spock, absolutely nailed by Zachary Quinto, on the other hand, much be terribly hard to play. Instead of flashing devilish smiles at the ladies and making sarcastic remarks, Quinto has to not smile. He has to keep his face and voice as expressionless as possible. It's staggering to even think about that and Quinto's ability to pull it off makes it even better when his Spock loses it. But I'll try not to ruin any more of the movie. It's great! JJ Abram's film takes a well-known mythology and challenges it while staying true to it. "Star Trek" forces die hard fans to think back on what they know and question it, compare it, hope that the newest installment is not found wanting because of some minutiae about the Romulans or Vulcans or the Federation.
I'm still sorry Data is dead. But it's good that Matthew Perry has come back to life.
Like how I tried to tie that all back together? Yeah, it doesn't do much for me either.
No comments:
Post a Comment