Hair

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful Score, Amazing Choreography
Review: "Hair" boasts one of the most beautiful scores in Broadway history. While the film changes the plot, it keeps most of the songs and even adds some stunning dance numbers.

Set in the 60's, filmed in the late 70's, the film shows its age. Still the amazing score shines. Some of the best numbers include:

*the still popular "Age of Aquarius" and "Let the Sun Shine" both of which became anthems for an era.
*the haunting "Easy to Be Hard," sung by Cheryl Barnes with cutaways of a little boy that will break your heart
*"Good Morning Starshine" sung primarily by Beverly D'Angelo (the Mom in Chevy Chase's Vacation Movies!)
*"Hair" the title song performed by one of the lead singers of the band Chicago

Twyla Tharp, pre her major fame, choreographed much of the movie. It shows.

As for the plot, well it's thin and it has been changed from the play. An Oklahoma boy wanders into Central Park, a few days before he is to ship off to boot camp for Vietnam. He befriends some "hippies," led by Berger "Treat Williams" and falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo), a debutante who ride her horse through Central Park. It's all an excuse for the songs-HOWEVER, the final scenes-including one of hundreds of soldiers marching into a plane heading to Vietanm-turn darker and are far more thought provoking.
I would recommend this movie to those individuals who crave 60's entertainment in any form. Also-if you enjoyed "Moulin Rouge," you probably will like this movie.

Rating:
Summary: A REAL "TREAT" OF A MOVIE MUSICAL
Review: This was one of the biggest movie surprises of the late 70s. It's absolutely incredible, the scope of a director who can follow up the cramped quarters & pent-up energies of "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest," with the exlplosion of the psychedelic generation in "Hair." But Milos Forman accomplished just that.

Forman imbues this movie musical with distinctive touches all his own: particularly the dizzying 360-degree spin around the lead singer in the opening "Age Of Aquarius" number; the endearing comedy of the "Black Boys/White Boys" number; protagonist Bukowski's drug initiation in the extended "Hare Krishna" number; and (my very favorite) the unexplainable warmth and human celebration of the "Good Morning, Starshine" number (shot entirely in close-ups and medium shots, in a convertible car!). The emotional lift experienced when the camera finally trucks back from a group of characters we've come to know & love, is beyond words.

Twyla Tharp adds her renowned choreography to all songs; director Forman gave her a free rein on all of them.

This disc has both the formatted & widescreen versions; the latter is obviously preferable.

It'll be fascinating to many who've only been familiar with Treat Williams, John Savage & Beverly D'Angelo through their subsequent work, that they're ALL terrific singers & dancers!

Rating:
Summary: As powerful as ever!
Review: This movie holds up very well over time, thanks largely to the music but also fine performances by John Savage and Treat Williams. Milos Foreman captured both the energy and the spirit of the stage classic, unlike other attempts to bring the stage to the screen such as Jesus Christ Superstar.

This movie speeds along at breakneck speed, pulling you into its orbit. So many wonderful cameos such as Nell Carter and Melba Moore. Hair retains so much of its power because it looks like everyone had such a great time making it. Their enthusiasm exudes from the screen.

The ending still left a lump in my throat, as I remembered a hushed theatre the first time I saw this film. No one moved until the screen went blank.

Rating:
Summary: OH WHAT A SHAME!
Review: One of the best musicals ever; a sing of friendship, freedom, an excellent original music an stage work; and an incredible bad film.

I think the worst adaptation ever made.

In stage is 3 hours long, the end is different, the message is different, the songs are different !everything is different!

Please: Miss it and go to the original one.

P.D.- It's my personal favour, I directed the Original Cast in 1979 in Spain. I really know what I'm saying. Thanks for your patiente.

Rating:
Summary: Better Than The Play
Review: When HAIR first opened on Broadway, it had two things working for it: the intricate, catchy lyrics and nudity. Staid and proper, Broadway had thought it had seen it all until Hair came along and introduced love-in's and the counter-culture.

However, the book was always weak and the characters in the play had a tendency to wander about so that it was only the score that saved the show.

The movie takes the best of the play (words and music) and adds a strong, literate book to it so that Milos Foreman made a success of rather a mess.

Beautifully photographed, the movie has likeable characters and the most stunning camera work that had been used at that time. Bright, cheery and colorful, Hair is a visual feast for the eyes and ears. The songs are still wonderful and perfectly capture the spirit of the sixties and Twayla Tharp adds to the lustre with her imaginative and complex choreography.

This is a film where everything works. It's sad that some of the numbers had to be dropped (What A Piece Of Work Is Man) but what remains is stunning.

Hair belongs in the library of every serious musical lover.

Rating:
Summary: Hair
Review: Hair is a sad dramatic musical about hippie life in the 1960s. The movie made me want to live and dress like hippies. Gerome Ragni was so hot! The music was well written and it made me feel what the people who were singing felt. If you want to get a feel for the emotional texture of the 60s, watch this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Groovy Music, Acceptable Plot
Review: Hair is one of those movies that everyone should see. The music is highly addictive. It has a driving beat and unbelievable rhythm. As to the movie, it is clearly outdated, which can be discouraging if one views the movie with 21st century tinted glasses. Rather, the film should be view as a time capsule, depicting the events that dominated part of the past century. True, the plot is a bit cliche, and the ending isn't the best, however, Hair's power lies in the music, not the plot. Indeed, the actors are wonderful, the dance scenes spectacular, and the music astonishing. All in all, it's a good film, and I recommend it to everyone who is curious about the past, who loves music, or who has a fascination with musicals.

*A note about the PG rating: There's no violence and no sex. However, there is some bad language, significant drug use, sexual allusions, as well as female frontal nudity and other questionable 'nearly' nude scenes.

Rating:
Summary: Released Too Late
Review: I have been a fan of the broadway score since the play's debut. The music in the movie version is exceptional. However, they skipped one of the most enlightening songs based on a Sheakspear monologe caled, "What A Piece of Work Is Man". Ronnie Dyson sang it as a duet on Broadway. The piece of music is so capturing of what that original play was trying to infer about American culture, in fact HUMAN cultures everywhere! But it was not included in the movie. Twyalla (sp?) Tharp's choreography is astondingly beautiful. This movie was release before her career hit the height and you can see why she became so popular. The songs; Ain't Got No, Hair and Aquarius are simply cinimatic beauty. All the voices are really good. And the tripping in the park scene was really good. The reality of the shows untimely release comes from a lot of establishment resistence to the play back in the 1960's. It played so effectively in 1966 and shocked the heck out of a lot of folks, but the thirteen year wait to put it on screen is really too bad. They used to shoot hippies back in the 1960's! The one reviewer is right in that the world is not like that anymore. The fact is it NEVER was like that. The movie sort of drew a picture of that time in American culture and made it okay. The turmoil is missing. Only in San Fransico and New York is very VERY small areas where hippies free to express themselves. Remember too that the Jim Crow laws were alive and the civil rights movement was just gaining steem in 1966. The movie presents a tempered view of those years. But I admit, it is still a fun show to watch! Treat does an admirable job of capturing Burger's naivity and Jon Savage does a good job capturing Claude's innocence. All and all it is a good movie. Good spin!

Rating:
Summary: Totally dated
Review: While I was watching this movie, I felt an overwhelming feeling wash over me: Relief that I was born in the eighties! My prior exposure to the stuff in the sixties was mainly Star Trek and one episode of "Sabrina," which hilariously contained the line "peace, love, and no bathing!" This is one of those nostalgia flicks that only people who want to remember that era fondly will want to watch. Anyone else will be squirming with discomfort. Not because it's "shocking" or in any way "true," but because it is "dated" and "stupid."

It's interesting that a modern teen in 2003 is "squarer" than the people in this movie; it glorifies the absurdly naive hippie lifestyle, something that is roundly mocked by modern young people and most media forms like books and television. All the ordinary people are really, really dumb (in fact, the scriptwriter is so ham-handed that he has Claude's dad happily identifying both of them as "ignorant"). All the hippies are obnoxious, thieving, drug-addled, and sleep around indiscriminitely (I'm supposed to be thrilled that Jeannie doesn't know who her baby's dad is? Why is that? Why should I think it's great? I think that kid is going to need massive amounts of therapy). I have no reason to like anyone -- either they're gun-crazed, mucho-macho warmongers, or they're peace-lovin' types who dump their ex-girlfriends (who have their kids), steal cars, steal a skinny-dipping girl's clothes just to be mean, crash a private party, cause riots, always sound like they're stoned... tell me, why should I like these freaks?

They're also so smug and self-righteous, acting like anyone who disagrees is somehow an enemy. Especially soldiers -- soldiers are not indiscriminite killing machines, as the movie tries to paint them. They are pretty much ordinary guys who believe in doing what they must to protect their homes; without them and their "evil killing," then those hippies wouldn't have had the freedom to condemn them.

Plus, it's not really accessible to people today because of the whole hippie attitude in it. I mean, we've seen what happened to people like that -- they either became "square" or they died. Now there's venereal disease, aging brain-burned citizens, and they've had kids who (at the age they were at the time) would kill them if they acted or spoke as they did in this movie.

And far be it from me to wave the banner of political correctness, but as someone who grew up in more-or-less colorblind surroundings, some of the songs (the ones referring to African-Americans) made me rather queasy. The acid trip that Claude has is weird, and I don't mean that in a good way. I mean weird as in totally unrealistic. I'm not offended by the drug glorification, I just think it's insanely stupid. (And disdain is a far more potent force than hate, I can tell you that)

Maybe to enjoy this, you need to be on acid. It might make a little more sense. And contrary to what many nostalgic fans of "Hair" have said, it doesn't apply to modern teens -- just them, when they were young. We're smarter, more realistic, less idealistic, and we know the risks. Too bad the people this movie appeals to didn't. It's dated, dumb, and should be left to collect dust.

Rating:
Summary: "It's got Life! Life! Life!"
Review: I'm afraid I must qualify this by saying I have never seen a stage production of Hair. The DVD is my only source of knowledge about the songs, plot, and characters. I've told you this because I like disclaimers about what I know-it's part of my style. But, that's as may be.

Now, Hair. The late sixties hippy-Vietnam stage musical, translated into a late seventies hippy-Vietnam nostalgic film musical by the director of the brilliant Amadeus. The camera work and visuals are memorable. The best example is at the end, where soldiers enter the plane that will take them to Vietnam. The image of them marching up the ramp, as if it were the mouth of a terrible beast, cannot fail to move anyone who does not see the image. Hare Krishna, on the other hand, is all that I imagine taking drugs would be like, only with a church and fire. In fact, Hair features more impressive images then I can describe here without taking up space for other notes of interest.

However, the most important part of almost any musical is the songs and dances; and they are excellent. Although the songs are the same as those in the play, the rendition of them can't be complained about. As I may have mentioned, I never saw the play. But, on the stage, does Berger dance on the table when he sings "I Got Life"? I thought not.

And speaking of dancing on the tables, the dancing isn't bad either. Not all the songs are choreographed; however, those that are gain from both the choreography and the scene work. The opening, Age of Aquarius, loses no energy while gaining clothing; the title song cuts between a jerky (yet effective) jail fight and the singing characters; and the Melody of Dying Men, the climax, does more with people walking in a straight line then many could do with infinite range of motion. Though, to be fair, that's mainly due to the incredible camera work mentioned above. You couldn't find more great shots if you found that it's groovy to hide in a movie with Dennis... Sorry. The songs are just so good.

Really, the only complaint I can give is the DVD itself. It's a typical "old film" DVD that adds nothing to the VHS besides a (really bad) trailer, subtitles, and the ability to jump scenes. At least it only counts the first two as features; you know you're in trouble if your DVD box considers the menu itself important. It's sort of sad that they couldn't dredge up more stuff for the DVD: it ain't got no foreign language tracks, ain't got no commentary, ain't got no documentary, ain't got no features, ain't got no bonus.

There are a few quibbles I can make about the movie (how is Claude a Nebraskan and from Manchester?) but the director's need to create a new plot while keeping the great music, causes many of them. I forgive him-lots of films have great plots and lousy execution, and the reverse is preferable. And while Claude isn't the most interesting of people, the movie really isn't about him so much as it is about sixties culture and good times, man.

There is really no way for one person's text to convince you of the quality of a movie; your only option is to just go and see it. And let the Sun Shine in.