’80s Rock Hairspray

It’s only a trailer, but I’m getting a very glossy, gay Vegas vibe from this thing (Warner Bros./New Line, 6.15). Obviously lampooning and worshipping the excessive ’80s rock scene, reducing everyone — stars, fans, roadies, musicans, hangers-on, up-and-comers, managers, rock journalists — to cliche. Director Adam Shankman has never been a purveyor of depth. An intensely shallow Almost Famous, or so it would seem.

Deadline‘s Mike Fleming has seen it and said Tom Cruise kicks it…fine. But the essence of what this film will be is obvious.

Here’s the wrong-aspect-ratio trailer that Deadline posted this morning:

20 thoughts on “’80s Rock Hairspray

  1. Mr. F. on said:

    “It’s only a trailer, but I’m getting a very glossy, gay Vegas vibe from this thing…”

    You are aware of Shankman’s career, yes? That’s pretty consistent with his style.

  2. Well, um, yes. You were expecting a documentary? The stage show was totally tongue-in-cheek, it’s about how cheezy all those hair bands were. Shenkman did a fine job with “Hairspray” so I expect this to be goofily entertaining.

    Sometines you can be awfully dense, Jeff.

    Wells to Schaefer: I’m not dense. I just can’t stand shallow, smirking, easy-pickings satire from a glossy-glitzy gay man’s perspective. I would love to see something that reaches into this easy bag of tricks but at the same time delivers a little heart, some genuine feeling, a sense of actually being there and dipping into that world for real…y’know? Sometimes you can be awfully accepting and comme ci comme ca about obviously mediocre material, Mike.

  3. Yeah they’re probably not going to sing This Corrosion by Sisters of Mercy at the end and mourn their glossy Vegasness.

    Also I’m a huge Cruise fan, but a man his age in 1987 would have been born in 1937. So a contemporary of Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis. Something tells me he’s miscast.

  4. Hard to be sure, but I suspect this screen adaptation of a cheapjack theatrical piece that’s essentially live karaoke for tourists might actually by shallow and commercial. Call it a hunch. Yeah.

  5. I actually liked the first trailer more.

    Looking forward to seeing what this new Diego guy can do, seeing the support work of Zeta-Jones and Giamatti, really looking forward to Cruise.

    Not so thrilled about that wig on Alec Baldwin’s head.

  6. People people people….

    They were THE 80s!!!

    You can’t fuck them up!

    Reagan was president and the culture was marching lockstep to his “SHUT UP AND PARTY” credo.

    The Republicans were determined to turn us all AWAY from dissent, economic justice, change, reflection, analysis, repair, etc into A Nation of Material Girls and showbiz, music and film, danced to the tune and we all bought it in buckets.

    It was MORNING IN AMERICA, remember, ie a big effing corp/culture monolithic lie about EVERYTHING.

    Even Springsteen was afraid to criticise Reagan.

    REMEMBER?????

    How can you do wrong by something that is not right?????

  7. I’ll never see this, but it’s sort of amusing that a bunch of misogynistic hair metal music is going to serve as the soundtrack for a song and dance number.

  8. LEXG SAYS…

    Wow, a real treasure trove of bitter fucks up in this thread. Maybe some of you should just give up movies, while Tarantino, Scorsese, and I will be in the front row loving GODS Cruise and Baldwin UNIRONICALLY.

    Edit, 2 hours later: Yeah, eeee, kind of forgot it’s Shankman. Can’t defend that.

  9. Hair metal was pretty campy anyway, and therefore the approach here is more valid than in HAIRSPRAY, which took soul music and turned it into show tunes. That said, this doesn’t look good, and I don’t know who Catherine Zeta-Jones thinks she’s channeling, Tipper Gore or Mary Woronov’s principal character from ROCK-N-ROLL HIGH SCHOOL, but she’s not coming off well here.

  10. It’s very campy and fun the same way hair metal was in the late 80s. Runs a little long in the middle….The male lead is a drip. Everybody else is having fun.

  11. Someone–can’t remember who–pointed out that Cruise and Clooney are both around 50, but George is playing his age (IDES OF MARCH, DESCENDANTS) while Tom is still pretending he’s in his early 30s (GHOST PROTOCOL, this).

    The difference between an actor and a movie star.

  12. This is going to be gayer than the gayest gay boy on the gayest gay island on the gayest gay archipelago.

  13. “Someone–can’t remember who–pointed out that Cruise and Clooney are both around 50, but George is playing his age (IDES OF MARCH, DESCENDANTS) while Tom is still pretending he’s in his early 30s (GHOST PROTOCOL, this). The difference between an actor and a movie star.”

    That’s not really accurate at all. Clooney has very deliberately cultivated his movie star persona. He’s not exactly Christian Bale, shifting appearance and mannerisms wildly between films. Clooney’s star persona is the suave older gent in boomer-approved dramas, while Cruise is more the all-round blockbuster star.

  14. That’s not inaccurate, but it doesn’t address my main point, which is that Cruise needs to start “acting his age.” Hell, even John Wayne started playing old men occasionally while in his early 40s. I’m not saying Cruise shouldn’t do more MIs, but he’s starting to look silly; he needs his own DESCENDANTS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>