Judy reviews

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote:Not great. Sometimes not good. But worth seeing for Zellweger. Why did she do her own singing?
It made sense. The point of the film is that Garland was not at her best towards the end and Zellweger conveys that.

I agree - she's great, the film isn't. It's also historically inaccurate. It suggests that Garland dumped fifth husband Mickey Deems for good months before she died, but they were still together at the end when he found her dead sitting on the toilet. The film was so morbid at times, I was dreading the ending thinking they were going to show that. The actual ending was quite moving with the audience singing "Over the Rainbow" for her when she couldn't sing it herself.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Sabin »

I like how Owen Gleiberman puts it: "To say that Zellweger “channels” Garland would be to understate the electricity of her acting; she merges with Garland."

I wouldn't be the best authority on this (it's been years since I've seen Garland in anything) but it doesn't seem like Renee Zellweger is doing a Judy Garland impersonation. She captures aspects of her personality and creates something different. Her Judy is as much a comic figure as a tragic one. Because it's been so long since we've seen Renee Zellweger in anything the film gets a charge as a comeback vehicle for her. I spent most of the film feeling like I'd undervalued her as a performer.

Tom Edge's screenplay is a mess, which is a shame because I'm such a fan of his TV work. The film never quite settles into a groove and there's a generic quality to the flashbacks that clash with the present day scenes. The threads don't all come together and it’s all a bit dull. But the film does encourage the lightness in which Zellweger thrives and there are some interesting visual choices. And there's a warmth to the film that separates it from other biopics.

Not great. Sometimes not good. But worth seeing for Zellweger. Why did she do her own singing?

RE: her Oscar chances, I think she's going to face a similar struggle that Glenn Close faced for The Wife. There are certainly differences. On one hand, Zellweger's moment is all about the performance she's giving while Glenn Close's moment last year was more about her career. On the other hand, Zellweger already has an Oscar and Close didn't. But they both have one thing in common: it's hard to imagine voters desperately excited to watch their films. And Judy is even more retro than The Wife. Zellweger benefits from the fact that her competition isn't likely to include an Olivia Colman (a "Who is this?" head-turning performance in a Best Picture nominee). She's certainly the favorite at this point, but she's no lock.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Precious Doll »

The only reason this film is worth sitting through is for Renee Zellweger's performance. Its not perfect - I don't know if she tried to imitate Judy Garland's voice but I could hear Renee Zellweger's voice coming through at times.

It really is a second rate film that starts off rather poorly, gets better and then botches up the last part with an overdose of sentimentality. Aside from a few well known facts most of it never rings true and its a credit to Zellweger that she rises above it. The flashbacks are rather distracting.

While I cannot remember a frame of the Judy Davis made for TV film/short mini-series I do recall it being somewhat better than this and Davis being more impressive but given it covered more ground than this film gives her an advantage.

I don't think Zellweger deserves the Oscar nomination she will receive and if she does win the Oscar, as Mister Tee has said there are a lot more less deserving winners out there.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by dws1982 »

Bog wrote:
Sabin wrote: Nor did Hillary Swank. Well, yet, I should say.
For fear of derailing this too much...I'd argue 2 things:
1) Swank was quite, maybe more deserving for her first win than even her second statue
2) I'd have very possibly voted for her to win for The Homesman...let alone be nominated...but maybe that is a very crazy opinion and I'm mis-remembering.
She was great in The Homesman; I think she was second only to Marion Cotillard in The Immigrant for me that year. I think it's every bit on the level of her two Oscar wins. It's definitely a strange career though.

To bring this back to Judy and Zellweger: I was planning to see it this weekend before it leaves town, but we're now expected to get something like 4 inches of rain Friday and Saturday, so I'm not sure if I'll get out into that, especially since the theater I would go to (I do the AMC program) is a pretty long drive. I will be out of town at a conference early next week, so I may try to find a theater showing it then.
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Bog »

Sabin wrote: Nor did Hillary Swank. Well, yet, I should say.
For fear of derailing this too much...I'd argue 2 things:
1) Swank was quite, maybe more deserving for her first win than even her second statue
2) I'd have very possibly voted for her to win for The Homesman...let alone be nominated...but maybe that is a very personal only and out there opinion and I'm mis-remembering.
Last edited by Bog on Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Sabin »

Big Magilla wrote
OK, I agree with La Liz, but unlike Davis, Taylor never gave a remotely Oscar-worthy performance in anything after her second win. Which one will Zellweger follow? Sadly, I suspect the latter but I suppose she could surprise us again.
Nor did Hillary Swank. Well, yet, I should say.

I wonder if Renee Zellweger might have an additional narrative going for her. A “this one’s for real” narrative. Her Cold Mountain performance was not exactly universally beloved and it’s hard to imagine her winning in a different field when her main competition was Shohreh Agdashloo.

She has a few different narratives going for her this year.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

OK, I agree with La Liz, but unlike Davis, Taylor never gave a remotely Oscar-worthy performance in anything after her second win. Which one will Zellweger follow? Sadly, I suspect the latter but I suppose she could surprise us again.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

Big Magilla wrote:She's really impressive in the second trailer for the film.

Bette Davis has always been perceived as having won her first Oscar undeservedly for Dangerous after losing both an official nomination and an allowable write-in vote for Of Human Bondage, then went on to win a generally acknowledged deserved second one for Jezebel. Unless I'm forgetting somebody, if Zellweger pulls it off, she will be the first one since, having lost for Chicago and then won for Cold Mountain conceivably as a make-up.
I obviously missed this when you posted it back in September. Another, maybe not 100% analogous case would be Elizabeth Taylor, who won her embarrassing first for, yeah, the tracheotomy, but just as much for the three losses in three years (a newcomer who almost died wouldn't have been so feted), and then won her second for a performance most would have thought beyond her powers.

Anyway...this movie is pretty much a check-the-box-on-your-Oscar-bingo-card. I remember someone writing "I already know more than I needed about Judy Garland's private life" sometime in the 70s. This movie doesn't find any unexplored avenues -- it just works us through the familiar paces (LB Mayer, boo!; gay fans, hooray). The present-day action is all during the last-gasp years, and it has a fair amount of that losers-losing thing I've always hated (Mickey Deans' "I've got the deal to rescue you" is a bubble set to burst on arrival). When the first gig, after the jittery lead-in, goes well, I thought we'd be spared on-stage meltdowns, but oh, how wrong I was, as we get not one but multiple such episodes, climaxing in a baroque finale. This finale includes a song you might know...let's say, it's the one I'd always heard made Garland audiences groan, because they knew it meant the end of the show. This movie follows that rule.

But, of course, the central role is, like Edith Piaf, one that an actress can devour like a Porterhouse steak, and Renee Zellweger is fully up to the job. I know we all hate the "she disappears into the role/she IS Judy" stuff, but I can say that pretty much from the start I accepted her as latter-day Garland rather than Renee Zellweger. She has the dry, winning humor I can remember from Garland in that period, as well as the desperation that was driving her for at least the last decade. The movie gives her one Oscar clip after another -- maybe too many, in the end. (The film does drag on.) But I have no doubt she'll be a strong contender for the Oscar win, and there have been many less deserving victors.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Judy reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

She's really impressive in the second trailer for the film.

Bette Davis has always been perceived as having won her first Oscar undeservedly for Dangerous after losing both an official nomination and an allowable write-in vote for Of Human Bondage, then went on to win a generally acknowledged deserved second one for Jezebel. Unless I'm forgetting somebody, if Zellweger pulls it off, she will be the first one since, having lost for Chicago and then won for Cold Mountain conceivably as a make-up.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Judy reviews

Post by dws1982 »

I think you could make an argument that Zellweger's Cold Mountain Oscar was a net negative for her career. It's one thing to win an Oscar soon after a loss, but Zellweger did it in the worst possible way--for an easy-to-parody performance in a would-be frontrunner that disappointed. (And I say this as someone who likes Cold Mountain and more-or-less enjoyed her in it.) The backlash was inevitable, and she certainly didn't help herself in the years just after with the choices she made.

That said, I'm kind of happy for her. After being dismissed as a joke, after lots of cruel online snark about her plastic surgeries, I'm glad she's got a movie that's giving her a chance to redeem her reputation. Just a few years ago, I remember posting on another message board that the next step for her career would probably be headlining a network procedural. This movie doesn't seem like my type of thing (although Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool didn't, and I was pretty receptive to it), but good for her.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Judy reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

Universal opinion: mediocre movie, but "Renee IS Judy!" And we all know what suckers Oscar voters are for that.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/revie ... ew-1235901

https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/j ... 1203316871

https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/jud ... 32.article
Post Reply

Return to “2019”