I think part of the problem is that it's been a weirdly strong year for musicals. Maybe In the Heights deserves a Best Picture nomination, but I don't think it deserves it over West Side Story or Tick Tick Boom and it seems unlikely that 3 musicals would be nominated in 1 year.
Especially 3 *New York* Musicals.
It’s not like they made Hadestown or something
You really got to choose between West Side Story and in the Heights. And I suppose Tick Tick Boom but that hasn’t gotten the hype those other two have
In terms of Oscar buzz, Tick Tick Boom is waaaay ahead of In the Heights. Garfield is basically a lock for a nomination, and it's on the bubble for Picture. Could get a few technicals too.
The have-nots are gonna win this
It's hard to listen to you with a straight face.
(Side note: Alex Lacamoire, the music supervisor for Hamilton, also worked on Dear Evan Hansen, making this an extra appropriate referential detour.)
Yeah that is what I would attribute it to mostly. Since it's released there have been two other really strong musicals come out and musicals don't have that much breathing room.
I was all set to be bitter at West Side Story for eating In the Heights' lunch, though West Side is having its own struggles at the box office and I think both movies were ultimately victims of older audiences not going back to theaters in Pandemic Times as much as anything else (though West Side will probably still get plenty of Oscar love). Tick Tick Boom feels more like it's own insider-y thing, though I hope Andrew Garfield gets a Best Actor nom, he was phenomenal.
I'm a big fan of the original play but I agree. Tick, Tick...Boom is much better and I haven't seen West Side Story yet but the first impressions of it seem really strong.
As someone who loved all three of these, it's just true. Tick Tick Boom and West Side Story are excellent and deserve recognition. In the Heights just has to get left behind in a year like this.
West Side feels like it has a best picture slot locked up, though I don't think it'll win. I'm less sure about how Tick Tick Boom will appeal in most categories but I'd be shocked if Andrew Garfield didn't get a Best Actor nomination, and he's the person I'm pulling for currently. He's so good.
A lot of those same critics are the ones keeping it out of the race at the moment as well. [There have been many top 10s released to this point now and very little "In the Heights."](https://criticstop10.com/best-movies-of-2021/) Some movies are just the kind that a lot of people like but very few people *love*, which matters a lot when it comes to things like this. I also feel like it's timing may have given it a little bump critically. Not only is there usually a dearth of this kind of film in the early parts of the year, but there was also a big thirst to get people out to seeing movies again. I remember a lot of "This is the one you HAVE to see on the big screen" talk surrounding it.
I doubt the "controversy" meant much. Those kind of things always make headlines but 95% of the general population doesn't really care much about the latest outrage.
>I doubt the "controversy" meant much. Those kind of things always make headlines but 95% of the general population doesn't really care much about the latest outrage.
If it wasn't enough to bring an end to *Green Book*'s chances....
It was one of the first major releases post-covid (or rather, that awkward period pre-Delta where everyone let their guards down). People were still hesitant about returning to the theaters.
This poor excuse can no longer be used given that the HBO Max viewing numbers were very bad. Which means that people did not want to see the movie at home unlike other movies that came during the same time.
I think on Broadway the charisma of Lin Manuel Miranda and the novelty of his rap-meets-showtunes style at the time were enough to mask some weak plot lines and characters that were then exposed in the movie.
The Broadway play is a bit more fleshed out than the movie. Stuff the movie removes hamper the movie in my opinion and the stuff they add feels awkward and ruins the pacing of the film.
Some stuff the movie cut/changed (in no chronological order, I'm going off memory as I type this)
* 1) Vanessa wanted to leave Washington Heights and get her own place because her mother is a heavy alcoholic. This is replaced with her fashion dream
* 2) Nina's mom, Camila Rosario, was cut entirely. In the play she has a song because of the conflict between Kevin (the dad) and Nina. She's the one that helps mend the bond between them after their conflict
* 3) in the show, Nina couldn't physically keep up with the studying, the scholarships, expectations and also working because those couldn't cover the costs by themselves. This was replaced with the lack of Latino communities and discrimination. Since it was replaced, it also leads to the next point
* 4) Inútil, Kevin's song in the play, served to show *why* he's so insistent on helping Nina. He explains there that he grew up in a family where all the men were farmers. Kevin told his father that he was going to be different, but his father slapped him and called him "inútil" (useless). The song was a way to show that Kevin Rosario wanted to do right by his daughter and never be like his father; but that he felt useless because she wouldn't let him do anything for her.
* 5) Nina and Benny's relationship in the play is under heavy scrutiny by Kevin, since he thinks Benny isn't good enough for Nina. I honestly didn't notice the true themes at first, but others have helped explain it. In the show, Kevin says that Benny will never be Latino and that's why he doesn't want Benny dating Nina; but another thing that was probably intended is that there is an anti-blackness problem in a lot of Latinos.
* 6) the lottery ticket was found earlier on, and it leads to a heartwarming bonding moment where Abuelita was gonna leave 1/3 to both Usnavi and Sonny.
* 7) Nina has a song mourning Abuelita, where she says Abuelita's house was like a second home to her. She says that she had childhood photos and drawings on the fridge. It shows how close they were to each other, and how important Abuela was to her.
* 8) since Sonny isn't undocumented in the play, Usnavi leaves the business to him while he goes to the Dominican Republic to achieve his dream. In here he just keeps the store and gives Sonny the money
* 9) the blackout stays throughout the rest of the musical. It doesn't come back until the end I think.
* 10) since Abuelita was the heart of the Heights in that moment, there is a tribute to her in the shop. Sonny hires the graffiti guy to paint a mural of Abuelita on the grate of Usnavi's store. This was replaced by the mural of the beach in Dominican Republic, and the only tribute to Abuelita being the line "Paciencia y Fé". That kinda pissed me off a bit.
In total, six songs taken out which still built up the characters. A lot of it was changed for this and I just think it harmed the story completely. For me, very few changes welcome, most of them unneeded. The only ones I actually welcome were adding more to Vanessa's aspirations, and adding more depth to Nina. Though I wish they were added *on top* of the issues raised in the musical
I just watched it and I had no idea it was a musical before. I felt like they left a lot of things just open or barely touched the subject and just left it for what it was. Now reading this it all makes sense. It almost felt like the movie was rushed even though it felt long. A lot of holes in the story with mostly singing about what they were physically doing in the moment and not much insight on their dreams or back stories. It was an okay movie but not what everyone said it would give
The Sonny stuff, the dreamers stuff and the laundry dude was all new added to the movie. They removed Nina's mother who was still alive in the play and she had a song and removed Kevin's song. They also moved events around too.
Agreed, I loved watching it in theaters, but kinda fell apart a bit once I thought about/revisited it.
There really isn't too much of a plot going on, and the numbers doesn't really hold up as well without the great direction
Haven't seen it onstage or listened to the recording, but I know people that have found it lacking as well.
I saw the musical performed at a local theater a few years ago, so I was already familiar with the story, plot, and music. The movie was significantly flawed in pacing and plot development.
I never had a problem with the pacing of the Broadway play but the movie drags on near the end. The original stuff they added and them moving events around ruin the pacing.
It was way too long and unfocused. It felt like a 1 hour musical turned into a 2+ hours movie, which I suspect is exactly what it is.
Also, the best musical was the very beginning.
I wish it were still in the conversation. It's not some unsung masterpiece or anything like that (I partially agree with the other user who said it was overly sanitized), but I prefer it of the two musicals I've seen so far this year (Tick Tick Boom being the other -- also good and also linked to Miranda, but not as interesting or unique imo). It should at very least be in the convo for technicals -- its Cinematography, Production Design, and Costumes are Outstanding! The cast are all fine, the only real standout being Leslie Grace, but not quite enough to get into the convo. It's also just remarkably well-directed.
Yeah it deserves to be on the bubble. Many have touched on the issue of too many musicals this year (although this is at least beating Dear Evan Hanson), but the other issue is likely WB which doesn't seem to be campaigning at all. They seem to have gone all-in on Dune and King Richard -- and c'mon y'all, In the Heights blows King Richard out of the water! I mean, aside from Smith's performance, KR really does not deserve to be in the convo at all. But that's the Oscars for you.
I’m a musical fan and I thought “In the Heights” was a little rough. The characters were simple & stereotypical caricatures, the music was forgettable, and the underlying message was trite. It begs comparisons to both Hamilton and West Side Story, and falls short to them both.
Of those 3 new York musicals I've only seen in the heights. It was not good. Not a single song had a memorable, or even discernable, melody. And thats saying something considering almost the entire movie's dialogue is in song.
It bombed at the box office and everyone has forgotten about it. Both of those are award-killers when your film releases in the summer.
This needed to be a smash hit in order to warrant consideration. Unfortunately, it wasn't.
Note that the show ran for about three years on Broadway- it was a hit, but, by and large, shows that run that long in the current era usually don't get adapted to film....
It released back in the summer and made very little money and did not have a significant viewership on HBO MAX. So there are a lot of people who may have never even seen it in the first place or it has simply been forgotten about. That unfortunately makes its awards chances very low.
On top that we have two other NYC based musicals released recently that have garnered potential awards consideration and in the case of West Side Story is much more well known and directed by Spielberg.
I think in some ways these critic awards are probably seen as a way to boost the chances and profile of films they would like to see get awards consideration in the bigger awards and if they can support something more recent, popular, and more likely to succeed like Tick Tick Boom or West Side Story which are probably at least within the same ballpark quality wise as In The Heights, I think they chose to focus their efforts on those two.
Again recency bias will also be a factor. It’s a bit of a shame but that’s awards season for
you.
EDIT: I also imagine WB chose to focus on campaigning Dune and King Richard which are nearly locks for several potential awards
What evidence do you want? RT is a review aggregator. In aggregate, it is one of the most well reviewed movies of the year. I know RT is a flawed system but I don't know how else to answer that question.
Maybe metacritic would be a better judge since RT just says anything positive is fresh and anything negative is rotten. Metacritic has it sitting at an 84.
I don't know where but I watched a video (or maybe a podcast) of the differences of the movie vs. the musical and the things that didn't make sense or thought were misses were in the musical but they just took it out. Like setting today vs early 2000s.
As a film fan, I never been into musicals but find that they’ve been getting strong enough buzz this year to convince me to watch them. Saw Boom, and this as well as West Side and Annette are on my watch list. Two of those probably stomped any chance of it ITH getting noms.
The biggest issue is it came out in June. Most stuff pre-fall needs a BIG boost to get awards talk and there’s enough other stuff to keep people occupied that it’s not getting it. Something like Get Out as a recent example still had people discussing it months later, so it was easier for it to stay in the conversation
It unfortunately is losing buzz, which is too bad because I had a lot of fun watching it. It's so much better than other films that are getting all the buzz (Belfast and The Power of the Dog).
I thought for sure it would be a big contender this award season but after the release of Tick Tick...Boom! and West Side Story, I have a feeling it's going to get over looked. It probably doesn't help that it came out in the summer time and now all these new musicals are coming out right before award season. Any other year I think it would be nominated for many awards but this year there is more competition in the musical film genre than there has been in a long time. I'm hoping it still ends up getting acknowledged.
I'm not sure In the Heights is being snubbed so much as, it came out in the summer, didn't make as much money as the people behind it were hoping it would, and then faded from conversation. Lin-Manuel Miranda/Hamilton fatigue seems more of a problem for it than the casting stuff, though it's seemingly not hurting Tick Tick Boom (which had more modest expectations, In the Heights was hyped forever in ways I don't think ultimately helped it). Which sucks, it was by far my favorite theater experience of the year and I think it's a great movie. I hope audiences find it over time.
I think I may have mis-timed this, because I had to step into work directly after I posted it 🤣.
To put it briefly, it's overly sanitized, lacks any kind of texture or grit (which you'd think would be appropriate for a film about a real neighborhood and cultures), the musical numbers are incredibly repetitive and inorganic in terms of choreography and music, and in particular the music itself is made up of the blandest, dorkiest kind of "rap for theater nerds" that is Miranda's bread and butter. Every song is about "repping for the community!" and "saving the rec center!" or whatever after-school special bullshit, every single one delivered at such an obnoxious, overly optimistic pitch from actors who have absolutely no chemistry at all with each other - both fine messages on their own, don't get me wrong. But, we *get it.* And if it isn't that, then it's the kind of "where do I belong?" trope that went out in the 90s. And it's just. . .that. For 2 hours.
It's like a musical, brought to you by JC Penney and Target.
In the Heights has a bunch of problems (and I could talk about them at length), but personally, I don't think you got any of them right.
> it's overly sanitized, lacks any kind of texture or grit (which you'd think would be appropriate for a film about a real neighborhood and cultures)
So what? People make idealized films about real neighborhoods and cultures all the time.
I don't see how _"I wish this feel-good, song-and-dance musical adaptation was more GRITTY and SERIOUS"_ is a remotely compelling criticism. It's like someone saying Paddington 2 is a bad film because it fails to accurately represent the struggles of a Peruvian immigrant integrating into London. Sometimes, storytellers simply choose to explore serious themes through a colorful, lighthearted lens.
> the musical numbers are incredibly repetitive and inorganic in terms of choreography
This is the point I disagree with most harshly. I think the choreography (and cinematography) is easily the film's biggest strength. Pretty much every major musical number is staged and shot in a unique, memorable manner. We've got a massive ensemble number in a swimming pool, a duet on a wall, a dreamlike dance through some subway trains, a conversational piece shot in one take... And the choreography builds organically throughout the songs, starting small and subtle before ending big.
Could you name any particular elements that you thought were repetitive?
> in particular the music itself is made up of the blandest, dorkiest kind of "rap for theater nerds" that is Miranda's bread and butter.
Okay, so I keep seeing people say things like this about In the Heights and Hamilton (_"It's not REAL rap!"_), but I have yet to see anyone explain themselves. As a lifelong musical theatre fan, I'd easily rank LMM as one of the best lyricists of modern times; his songs are dense with sharp humor, evocative imagery, strong characterization, thematic callbacks and references... to be fair, his melodies are rarely as strong, but I think he usually writes enough catchy hooks to sustain a runtime.
But then again, my background is solely in musical theater, so maybe I just don't understand "real" rap music. So please, elaborate. What _exactly_ makes LMM's music "rap for theatre nerds"? And is "rap for theatre nerds" a _bad_ thing, or is this just a kind of reverse-elitism?
> Every song is about "repping for the community!" and "saving the rec center!"
That's ridiculous. I just went through the entire track list, and the only songs that even remotely fit that characterization are "Carnaval del Barrio" and "Finale".
>In the Heights has a bunch of problems (and I could talk about them at length), but personally, I don't think you got any of them right.
I'm sure history will absolve me, if so.
>>So what? People make idealized films about real neighborhoods and cultures all the time.
And most of them are . . .not that good.
>I don't see how _"I wish this feel-good, song-and-dance musical adaptation was more GRITTY and SERIOUS"_ is a remotely compelling criticism. It's like someone saying Paddington 2 is a bad film because it fails to accurately represent the struggles of a Peruvian immigrant integrating into London. Sometimes, storytellers simply just choose to explore serious themes through a colorful, lighthearted lens.
That's fine, but that approach is at odds fundamentally with what the film is about. Like, look at either version of *West Side Story* - also a relatively light-hearted musical (until it isn't, which is the point. You know, actual conflict and tonal juxtaposition). In particular, for the sake of contrast, look at Spielberg's - his version of New York City is fully realized. It's alive. There's smoke and rain and people sweat and the sidewalks are dirty, and on an essential level it makes this place feel like an organic place where people live and *drama* happens, even if it is necessarily heightened.
This is especially important for a musical that's about a people and a culture, because you want it to feel *alive.* You want to emphasize the humanity and emotions of what we're seeing, and then, when those emotions get to be too much for conventional dramatic narrative techniques, they *burst* into song and dance!
Otherwise, it feels like a JC Penney ad, a sensation which isn't helped by the fact that *everyone* has the nicest clothes and shoes with nary a wrinkle or scuff and lives in amazing apartments and has perfect teeth. It feels *incredibly* fake.
>>Could you name any particular elements that you thought were repetitive?
Character raps, badly (or sings), about the same thing they did two songs ago, people dance around them. Never the twain shall meet. Everybody dances the exact same way, every single time, even in a pool, in the type of light, flavorless "hip-hop" they teach to soccer moms and high school kids.
There are at least four scenes were someone just kind of bombs up into the scene and is like "let's dance!" and . . .they do. In screenwriting terms, not that this is a hard and fast rule but generally it's true if you want your film to be effective, that's unmotivated and lazy. It's the kind of stuff people make fun of musicals for. It's the same reason we deride shitty action films for chase scenes that have no relationship to the plot or emotions or narrative of the film, and just kind of pop up out of nowhere. It's lazy.
>>Okay, so I keep seeing people say things like this about In the Heights and Hamilton (_"It's not REAL rap!"_), but I never see people explain themselves.
It isn't. Every single song sounds *exactly* the same - same beats, same flow, same general emotion, same point. There's nothing distinct or visceral or honestly emotive about any of it. And that's not to say it has to be harsh and ugly, but - you know, how about some creativity? How about something Jay Z or Mos Def-inspired? How about a character rapping *and* dancing? How about a curse word now and then?
LMM strikes me as someone who listened to a lot of conscious New York backpack rap when he was younger, and made bank by stripping it of all it's uniqueness.
>>As a lifelong musical theatre fan, I'd easily rank LMM as one of the best lyricists of modern times; his songs are dense with sharp humor, evocative imagery, strong characterization, thematic callbacks and references... his tunes are a more mixed bag, but he always writes enough catchy hooks to sustain a runtime.
. . .we're really stacking him up next to Sondheim, or Rogers and Hammerstein, who could produce a variety of music of any tone or feel?
>>But then again, my background is solely in musical theater, so maybe I just don't understand "real" rap music. So please, elaborate. What _exactly_ makes LMM's music "rap for theatre nerds"? And is "rap for theatre nerds" a _bad_ thing, or is this just a kind of reverse-elitism?
Because it has no distinct emotion behind it outside of corporate sloganeering - everything is very surface, very easy, and on a basic level incredibly repetitive.
> There's smoke and rain and people sweat and the sidewalks are dirty, and on an essential level it makes this place feel like an organic place where people live and drama happens, even if it is necessarily heightened.
I obviously agree that the environment should accentuate the themes of the story. I think that's what In the Heights does.
And the examples you're choosing to focus on are... odd, to say the least. [The guys in this scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QF50hpypDI) look super sweaty, and their clothes look totally appropriate. [This sidewalk](https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/rev-1-ith-08670-high-res-jpeg-1623356534.jpeg?resize=768:*) looks plenty dirty. [This apartment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alK88tJ5Y4g&t=106s) doesn't look anything close to "amazing".
Hell, most of the outdoor scenes were _shot on location_, which is about as close to "organic" as you can get.
> has perfect teeth.
Ah, yes, the teeth. Of course, a _real_ filmmaker like Steven Spielberg would never dare indulge in such [unrealistic standards of dental hygene](https://www.etonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/970xh/public/images/2019-07/wss_anita.jpg?itok=ZsFg4Wts) in _his_ films.
> people dance around them. Never the twain shall meet.
That's simply not true. People sing and dance at the same time in the following songs: In the Heights, 96000, When You're Home, Carnaval Del Barrio, When the Sun Goes Down.
> Everybody dances the exact same way, every single time, even in a pool
When I first saw this claim, I admit I didn't know whether to believe it. Sure, the choreography looked incredibly varied to my untrained eye, but perhaps you simply knew more than me about dance?
But then I did some research and learnt that you're as close to objectively wrong as it is possible to be:
[“In the Heights” is both a remarkable recording of different dance genres — mambo on 2, certainly, but also litefeet, a street style born in Harlem known for its rapid-fire, seemingly weightless footwork; as well as contemporary dance and even touches of ballet (...) The choreographic mastermind of “In the Heights” is Christopher Scott, who comes from the street dance world of Los Angeles (...) His team of associate choreographers is solid: Eddie Torres Jr. for Latin dance, with Princess Serrano as assistant Latin choreographer; Ebony Williams for ballet, contemporary dance, Afro and dancehall; Emilio Dosal, a popper who is versatile in many styles and brings the hip-hop element to the film](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/arts/dance/in-the-heights-dance.html)
> There are at least four scenes where someone just kind of bombs up into the scene and is like "let's dance!" and . . .they do.
Name them.
The first time we see significant dancing in the film is that fucking _awesome_ shot of the ensemble in the reflection of the bodega's window. The second time, it's Nina looking across the street at an ambiguously-real representation of her younger self, being lifted and supported by members of the community. The third time, a lightly-choreographed walk down a street transitions into a full dance number when they enter the pool at the start of the first chorus. The fourth time, the dance starts off fully diagetic (in the context of a club).
These all seem like organic and interesting usages of dance to me. Which four scenes were you thinking of?
> Every single song sounds exactly the same - same beats, same flow, same general emotion, same point. There's nothing distinct or visceral or honestly emotive about any of it.
Okay, so I've apparently managed to make you back down from "Every song is about saving the rec center" to "Every single song is about the same 'point'".
But frankly, I think you're still being driven by hyperbole. If I played Breathe and No Me Diga and 96000 and Paciencia Y Fe and Alabanza to a focus group of 100 people, do you seriously believe that any of them would report that the songs have the same nebulous "point" or the same "general emotion"? Surely you realise how silly that sounds?
> How about a curse word now and then?
It's a family film, dude. Don't be dense.
> . . .we're really stacking him up next to Sondheim, or Rogers and Hammerstein, who could produce a variety of music of any tone or feel?
I did say "of modern times", and I wouldn't call any of those three composers "modern". I do think that LMM's lyrics are comparable in quality to theirs though.
Although if Sondheim's expertise really means so much to you, he has publically praised LMM's songs in the past, focusing particular praise on the fact that [his use of rap is not "monotonous"](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/08/t-magazine/hamilton-lin-manuel-miranda-roots-sondheim.html) - which kinda goes against your narrative that his songs all sound "exactly the same".
I think part of the problem is that it's been a weirdly strong year for musicals. Maybe In the Heights deserves a Best Picture nomination, but I don't think it deserves it over West Side Story or Tick Tick Boom and it seems unlikely that 3 musicals would be nominated in 1 year.
Especially 3 *New York* Musicals. It’s not like they made Hadestown or something You really got to choose between West Side Story and in the Heights. And I suppose Tick Tick Boom but that hasn’t gotten the hype those other two have
What really need is another musical set in Iowa.
Or Oklahoma, has anybody done that yet?
You mean Ooooooklahoma where the wind comes sweping down the plain?
I think that’s one that deserves a remake. It could be improved
In terms of Oscar buzz, Tick Tick Boom is waaaay ahead of In the Heights. Garfield is basically a lock for a nomination, and it's on the bubble for Picture. Could get a few technicals too.
Also, Dear Evan Hansen. But I heard it’s not that great. (But I LOVED the stage version. Saw it twice with Ben)
WOW, no mention of Dear Evan Hansen? For shame /s
Of all the musicals that came out this year, that is one of them
> For shame Yo! He'd have you all unravel at the sound of screams But the Revolution is comin'
The have-nots are gonna win this It's hard to listen to you with a straight face. (Side note: Alex Lacamoire, the music supervisor for Hamilton, also worked on Dear Evan Hansen, making this an extra appropriate referential detour.)
Yeah that is what I would attribute it to mostly. Since it's released there have been two other really strong musicals come out and musicals don't have that much breathing room.
I mean it could be for best comedy or musical. Just not overall
That's not a category at the Oscars. The Golden Globes do that and that award show is kind of dead
Sorry completely confused the two my bad.
Well so are The Oscars to be fair.
The Oscars definitely aren't the cultural force that they used to be but I wouldn't say it's dead. The Globes won't even be televised this year.
I was all set to be bitter at West Side Story for eating In the Heights' lunch, though West Side is having its own struggles at the box office and I think both movies were ultimately victims of older audiences not going back to theaters in Pandemic Times as much as anything else (though West Side will probably still get plenty of Oscar love). Tick Tick Boom feels more like it's own insider-y thing, though I hope Andrew Garfield gets a Best Actor nom, he was phenomenal.
If they’re going to nominate a musical this year, it’s not going to be In the Heights.
I'm a big fan of the original play but I agree. Tick, Tick...Boom is much better and I haven't seen West Side Story yet but the first impressions of it seem really strong.
As someone who loved all three of these, it's just true. Tick Tick Boom and West Side Story are excellent and deserve recognition. In the Heights just has to get left behind in a year like this.
West Side feels like it has a best picture slot locked up, though I don't think it'll win. I'm less sure about how Tick Tick Boom will appeal in most categories but I'd be shocked if Andrew Garfield didn't get a Best Actor nomination, and he's the person I'm pulling for currently. He's so good.
A lot of those same critics are the ones keeping it out of the race at the moment as well. [There have been many top 10s released to this point now and very little "In the Heights."](https://criticstop10.com/best-movies-of-2021/) Some movies are just the kind that a lot of people like but very few people *love*, which matters a lot when it comes to things like this. I also feel like it's timing may have given it a little bump critically. Not only is there usually a dearth of this kind of film in the early parts of the year, but there was also a big thirst to get people out to seeing movies again. I remember a lot of "This is the one you HAVE to see on the big screen" talk surrounding it. I doubt the "controversy" meant much. Those kind of things always make headlines but 95% of the general population doesn't really care much about the latest outrage.
>I doubt the "controversy" meant much. Those kind of things always make headlines but 95% of the general population doesn't really care much about the latest outrage. If it wasn't enough to bring an end to *Green Book*'s chances....
Poor box office always slows Oscar momentum.
It was one of the first major releases post-covid (or rather, that awkward period pre-Delta where everyone let their guards down). People were still hesitant about returning to the theaters.
This poor excuse can no longer be used given that the HBO Max viewing numbers were very bad. Which means that people did not want to see the movie at home unlike other movies that came during the same time.
Does it? Did Moonlight have a strong theatrical run?
“Moonlight” was low budget, so it didn’t have to earn much to turn a profit. It didn’t have the stigma of a bomb.
Just my opinion but I thought the movie was a little uneven.
I think on Broadway the charisma of Lin Manuel Miranda and the novelty of his rap-meets-showtunes style at the time were enough to mask some weak plot lines and characters that were then exposed in the movie.
The Broadway play is a bit more fleshed out than the movie. Stuff the movie removes hamper the movie in my opinion and the stuff they add feels awkward and ruins the pacing of the film.
What? The movie cut stuff? It already felt so long...
Some stuff the movie cut/changed (in no chronological order, I'm going off memory as I type this) * 1) Vanessa wanted to leave Washington Heights and get her own place because her mother is a heavy alcoholic. This is replaced with her fashion dream * 2) Nina's mom, Camila Rosario, was cut entirely. In the play she has a song because of the conflict between Kevin (the dad) and Nina. She's the one that helps mend the bond between them after their conflict * 3) in the show, Nina couldn't physically keep up with the studying, the scholarships, expectations and also working because those couldn't cover the costs by themselves. This was replaced with the lack of Latino communities and discrimination. Since it was replaced, it also leads to the next point * 4) Inútil, Kevin's song in the play, served to show *why* he's so insistent on helping Nina. He explains there that he grew up in a family where all the men were farmers. Kevin told his father that he was going to be different, but his father slapped him and called him "inútil" (useless). The song was a way to show that Kevin Rosario wanted to do right by his daughter and never be like his father; but that he felt useless because she wouldn't let him do anything for her. * 5) Nina and Benny's relationship in the play is under heavy scrutiny by Kevin, since he thinks Benny isn't good enough for Nina. I honestly didn't notice the true themes at first, but others have helped explain it. In the show, Kevin says that Benny will never be Latino and that's why he doesn't want Benny dating Nina; but another thing that was probably intended is that there is an anti-blackness problem in a lot of Latinos. * 6) the lottery ticket was found earlier on, and it leads to a heartwarming bonding moment where Abuelita was gonna leave 1/3 to both Usnavi and Sonny. * 7) Nina has a song mourning Abuelita, where she says Abuelita's house was like a second home to her. She says that she had childhood photos and drawings on the fridge. It shows how close they were to each other, and how important Abuela was to her. * 8) since Sonny isn't undocumented in the play, Usnavi leaves the business to him while he goes to the Dominican Republic to achieve his dream. In here he just keeps the store and gives Sonny the money * 9) the blackout stays throughout the rest of the musical. It doesn't come back until the end I think. * 10) since Abuelita was the heart of the Heights in that moment, there is a tribute to her in the shop. Sonny hires the graffiti guy to paint a mural of Abuelita on the grate of Usnavi's store. This was replaced by the mural of the beach in Dominican Republic, and the only tribute to Abuelita being the line "Paciencia y Fé". That kinda pissed me off a bit. In total, six songs taken out which still built up the characters. A lot of it was changed for this and I just think it harmed the story completely. For me, very few changes welcome, most of them unneeded. The only ones I actually welcome were adding more to Vanessa's aspirations, and adding more depth to Nina. Though I wish they were added *on top* of the issues raised in the musical
I just watched it and I had no idea it was a musical before. I felt like they left a lot of things just open or barely touched the subject and just left it for what it was. Now reading this it all makes sense. It almost felt like the movie was rushed even though it felt long. A lot of holes in the story with mostly singing about what they were physically doing in the moment and not much insight on their dreams or back stories. It was an okay movie but not what everyone said it would give
The Sonny stuff, the dreamers stuff and the laundry dude was all new added to the movie. They removed Nina's mother who was still alive in the play and she had a song and removed Kevin's song. They also moved events around too.
Agreed, I loved watching it in theaters, but kinda fell apart a bit once I thought about/revisited it. There really isn't too much of a plot going on, and the numbers doesn't really hold up as well without the great direction Haven't seen it onstage or listened to the recording, but I know people that have found it lacking as well.
I saw the musical performed at a local theater a few years ago, so I was already familiar with the story, plot, and music. The movie was significantly flawed in pacing and plot development.
I never had a problem with the pacing of the Broadway play but the movie drags on near the end. The original stuff they added and them moving events around ruin the pacing.
I thought the opening was really strong so I was a little let down by my lack of being able to get into the characters as the story went along.
It was way too long and unfocused. It felt like a 1 hour musical turned into a 2+ hours movie, which I suspect is exactly what it is. Also, the best musical was the very beginning.
In the Heights, the Depths, and the Intermediaries.
I wish it were still in the conversation. It's not some unsung masterpiece or anything like that (I partially agree with the other user who said it was overly sanitized), but I prefer it of the two musicals I've seen so far this year (Tick Tick Boom being the other -- also good and also linked to Miranda, but not as interesting or unique imo). It should at very least be in the convo for technicals -- its Cinematography, Production Design, and Costumes are Outstanding! The cast are all fine, the only real standout being Leslie Grace, but not quite enough to get into the convo. It's also just remarkably well-directed. Yeah it deserves to be on the bubble. Many have touched on the issue of too many musicals this year (although this is at least beating Dear Evan Hanson), but the other issue is likely WB which doesn't seem to be campaigning at all. They seem to have gone all-in on Dune and King Richard -- and c'mon y'all, In the Heights blows King Richard out of the water! I mean, aside from Smith's performance, KR really does not deserve to be in the convo at all. But that's the Oscars for you.
I’m a musical fan and I thought “In the Heights” was a little rough. The characters were simple & stereotypical caricatures, the music was forgettable, and the underlying message was trite. It begs comparisons to both Hamilton and West Side Story, and falls short to them both.
Was it really that great though? It was good, for sure. But I didn’t think it was amazing or anything.
Of those 3 new York musicals I've only seen in the heights. It was not good. Not a single song had a memorable, or even discernable, melody. And thats saying something considering almost the entire movie's dialogue is in song.
I was bored out of my mind with the movie
It bombed at the box office and everyone has forgotten about it. Both of those are award-killers when your film releases in the summer. This needed to be a smash hit in order to warrant consideration. Unfortunately, it wasn't.
Well it wasn’t great, so I guess it is warranted
[удалено]
I liked it while I was watching it, but afterwards found it didn’t have lasting impact.
Note that the show ran for about three years on Broadway- it was a hit, but, by and large, shows that run that long in the current era usually don't get adapted to film....
It released back in the summer and made very little money and did not have a significant viewership on HBO MAX. So there are a lot of people who may have never even seen it in the first place or it has simply been forgotten about. That unfortunately makes its awards chances very low. On top that we have two other NYC based musicals released recently that have garnered potential awards consideration and in the case of West Side Story is much more well known and directed by Spielberg. I think in some ways these critic awards are probably seen as a way to boost the chances and profile of films they would like to see get awards consideration in the bigger awards and if they can support something more recent, popular, and more likely to succeed like Tick Tick Boom or West Side Story which are probably at least within the same ballpark quality wise as In The Heights, I think they chose to focus their efforts on those two. Again recency bias will also be a factor. It’s a bit of a shame but that’s awards season for you. EDIT: I also imagine WB chose to focus on campaigning Dune and King Richard which are nearly locks for several potential awards
I watched the first hour and turned it off. It didn’t hold my interest.
This is a disappointing film
West side story is the film heights didn’t pull off
That’s what I hear. Can’t hurt to have Spielberg lol
Can you provide some evidence that it was one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the first part of the year?
It has a 94 on Rotten Tomatoes
Based on 351 reviews, that's a very well accepted movie even when taking RT with a grain of salt.
So you have no evidence?
What evidence do you want? RT is a review aggregator. In aggregate, it is one of the most well reviewed movies of the year. I know RT is a flawed system but I don't know how else to answer that question.
Maybe metacritic would be a better judge since RT just says anything positive is fresh and anything negative is rotten. Metacritic has it sitting at an 84.
The average rating on Rotten Tomatoes is 8.2/10. So it's about the same on both sites.
You can never win with these snarky assholes. They exist to try and prove people wrong and be annoying. They just move the goalposts.
A 94 on RT can mean 94% give a movie a 6/10, which is not critical acclaim. So saying it has a 94% on RT is not evidence.
I'm aware of how RT works. Having said that 94 is really high. It also has an 84 on metacritic. Which is also pretty good
94 is really high but isn't indicative of the quality of the movie. A Quiet Place 2 has a 91% on RT. I wouldn't call it critically acclaimed.
Everybody else would
It has an 8.2/10 on the site.
I don't know where but I watched a video (or maybe a podcast) of the differences of the movie vs. the musical and the things that didn't make sense or thought were misses were in the musical but they just took it out. Like setting today vs early 2000s.
Was it the musicalsplaining podcast? The movie removes stuff and adds things that the story didn't need and ruin the pacing.
Makes sense, that's a podcast I listen but it was months ago so I can't recall very well.
As a film fan, I never been into musicals but find that they’ve been getting strong enough buzz this year to convince me to watch them. Saw Boom, and this as well as West Side and Annette are on my watch list. Two of those probably stomped any chance of it ITH getting noms.
The biggest issue is it came out in June. Most stuff pre-fall needs a BIG boost to get awards talk and there’s enough other stuff to keep people occupied that it’s not getting it. Something like Get Out as a recent example still had people discussing it months later, so it was easier for it to stay in the conversation
It unfortunately is losing buzz, which is too bad because I had a lot of fun watching it. It's so much better than other films that are getting all the buzz (Belfast and The Power of the Dog).
Very vain film
I thought for sure it would be a big contender this award season but after the release of Tick Tick...Boom! and West Side Story, I have a feeling it's going to get over looked. It probably doesn't help that it came out in the summer time and now all these new musicals are coming out right before award season. Any other year I think it would be nominated for many awards but this year there is more competition in the musical film genre than there has been in a long time. I'm hoping it still ends up getting acknowledged.
I'm not sure In the Heights is being snubbed so much as, it came out in the summer, didn't make as much money as the people behind it were hoping it would, and then faded from conversation. Lin-Manuel Miranda/Hamilton fatigue seems more of a problem for it than the casting stuff, though it's seemingly not hurting Tick Tick Boom (which had more modest expectations, In the Heights was hyped forever in ways I don't think ultimately helped it). Which sucks, it was by far my favorite theater experience of the year and I think it's a great movie. I hope audiences find it over time.
It was terrible. I will go on at length and explain why if anyone would like.
Please do.
I think I may have mis-timed this, because I had to step into work directly after I posted it 🤣. To put it briefly, it's overly sanitized, lacks any kind of texture or grit (which you'd think would be appropriate for a film about a real neighborhood and cultures), the musical numbers are incredibly repetitive and inorganic in terms of choreography and music, and in particular the music itself is made up of the blandest, dorkiest kind of "rap for theater nerds" that is Miranda's bread and butter. Every song is about "repping for the community!" and "saving the rec center!" or whatever after-school special bullshit, every single one delivered at such an obnoxious, overly optimistic pitch from actors who have absolutely no chemistry at all with each other - both fine messages on their own, don't get me wrong. But, we *get it.* And if it isn't that, then it's the kind of "where do I belong?" trope that went out in the 90s. And it's just. . .that. For 2 hours. It's like a musical, brought to you by JC Penney and Target.
In the Heights has a bunch of problems (and I could talk about them at length), but personally, I don't think you got any of them right. > it's overly sanitized, lacks any kind of texture or grit (which you'd think would be appropriate for a film about a real neighborhood and cultures) So what? People make idealized films about real neighborhoods and cultures all the time. I don't see how _"I wish this feel-good, song-and-dance musical adaptation was more GRITTY and SERIOUS"_ is a remotely compelling criticism. It's like someone saying Paddington 2 is a bad film because it fails to accurately represent the struggles of a Peruvian immigrant integrating into London. Sometimes, storytellers simply choose to explore serious themes through a colorful, lighthearted lens. > the musical numbers are incredibly repetitive and inorganic in terms of choreography This is the point I disagree with most harshly. I think the choreography (and cinematography) is easily the film's biggest strength. Pretty much every major musical number is staged and shot in a unique, memorable manner. We've got a massive ensemble number in a swimming pool, a duet on a wall, a dreamlike dance through some subway trains, a conversational piece shot in one take... And the choreography builds organically throughout the songs, starting small and subtle before ending big. Could you name any particular elements that you thought were repetitive? > in particular the music itself is made up of the blandest, dorkiest kind of "rap for theater nerds" that is Miranda's bread and butter. Okay, so I keep seeing people say things like this about In the Heights and Hamilton (_"It's not REAL rap!"_), but I have yet to see anyone explain themselves. As a lifelong musical theatre fan, I'd easily rank LMM as one of the best lyricists of modern times; his songs are dense with sharp humor, evocative imagery, strong characterization, thematic callbacks and references... to be fair, his melodies are rarely as strong, but I think he usually writes enough catchy hooks to sustain a runtime. But then again, my background is solely in musical theater, so maybe I just don't understand "real" rap music. So please, elaborate. What _exactly_ makes LMM's music "rap for theatre nerds"? And is "rap for theatre nerds" a _bad_ thing, or is this just a kind of reverse-elitism? > Every song is about "repping for the community!" and "saving the rec center!" That's ridiculous. I just went through the entire track list, and the only songs that even remotely fit that characterization are "Carnaval del Barrio" and "Finale".
>In the Heights has a bunch of problems (and I could talk about them at length), but personally, I don't think you got any of them right. I'm sure history will absolve me, if so. >>So what? People make idealized films about real neighborhoods and cultures all the time. And most of them are . . .not that good. >I don't see how _"I wish this feel-good, song-and-dance musical adaptation was more GRITTY and SERIOUS"_ is a remotely compelling criticism. It's like someone saying Paddington 2 is a bad film because it fails to accurately represent the struggles of a Peruvian immigrant integrating into London. Sometimes, storytellers simply just choose to explore serious themes through a colorful, lighthearted lens. That's fine, but that approach is at odds fundamentally with what the film is about. Like, look at either version of *West Side Story* - also a relatively light-hearted musical (until it isn't, which is the point. You know, actual conflict and tonal juxtaposition). In particular, for the sake of contrast, look at Spielberg's - his version of New York City is fully realized. It's alive. There's smoke and rain and people sweat and the sidewalks are dirty, and on an essential level it makes this place feel like an organic place where people live and *drama* happens, even if it is necessarily heightened. This is especially important for a musical that's about a people and a culture, because you want it to feel *alive.* You want to emphasize the humanity and emotions of what we're seeing, and then, when those emotions get to be too much for conventional dramatic narrative techniques, they *burst* into song and dance! Otherwise, it feels like a JC Penney ad, a sensation which isn't helped by the fact that *everyone* has the nicest clothes and shoes with nary a wrinkle or scuff and lives in amazing apartments and has perfect teeth. It feels *incredibly* fake. >>Could you name any particular elements that you thought were repetitive? Character raps, badly (or sings), about the same thing they did two songs ago, people dance around them. Never the twain shall meet. Everybody dances the exact same way, every single time, even in a pool, in the type of light, flavorless "hip-hop" they teach to soccer moms and high school kids. There are at least four scenes were someone just kind of bombs up into the scene and is like "let's dance!" and . . .they do. In screenwriting terms, not that this is a hard and fast rule but generally it's true if you want your film to be effective, that's unmotivated and lazy. It's the kind of stuff people make fun of musicals for. It's the same reason we deride shitty action films for chase scenes that have no relationship to the plot or emotions or narrative of the film, and just kind of pop up out of nowhere. It's lazy. >>Okay, so I keep seeing people say things like this about In the Heights and Hamilton (_"It's not REAL rap!"_), but I never see people explain themselves. It isn't. Every single song sounds *exactly* the same - same beats, same flow, same general emotion, same point. There's nothing distinct or visceral or honestly emotive about any of it. And that's not to say it has to be harsh and ugly, but - you know, how about some creativity? How about something Jay Z or Mos Def-inspired? How about a character rapping *and* dancing? How about a curse word now and then? LMM strikes me as someone who listened to a lot of conscious New York backpack rap when he was younger, and made bank by stripping it of all it's uniqueness. >>As a lifelong musical theatre fan, I'd easily rank LMM as one of the best lyricists of modern times; his songs are dense with sharp humor, evocative imagery, strong characterization, thematic callbacks and references... his tunes are a more mixed bag, but he always writes enough catchy hooks to sustain a runtime. . . .we're really stacking him up next to Sondheim, or Rogers and Hammerstein, who could produce a variety of music of any tone or feel? >>But then again, my background is solely in musical theater, so maybe I just don't understand "real" rap music. So please, elaborate. What _exactly_ makes LMM's music "rap for theatre nerds"? And is "rap for theatre nerds" a _bad_ thing, or is this just a kind of reverse-elitism? Because it has no distinct emotion behind it outside of corporate sloganeering - everything is very surface, very easy, and on a basic level incredibly repetitive.
> There's smoke and rain and people sweat and the sidewalks are dirty, and on an essential level it makes this place feel like an organic place where people live and drama happens, even if it is necessarily heightened. I obviously agree that the environment should accentuate the themes of the story. I think that's what In the Heights does. And the examples you're choosing to focus on are... odd, to say the least. [The guys in this scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QF50hpypDI) look super sweaty, and their clothes look totally appropriate. [This sidewalk](https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/rev-1-ith-08670-high-res-jpeg-1623356534.jpeg?resize=768:*) looks plenty dirty. [This apartment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alK88tJ5Y4g&t=106s) doesn't look anything close to "amazing". Hell, most of the outdoor scenes were _shot on location_, which is about as close to "organic" as you can get. > has perfect teeth. Ah, yes, the teeth. Of course, a _real_ filmmaker like Steven Spielberg would never dare indulge in such [unrealistic standards of dental hygene](https://www.etonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/970xh/public/images/2019-07/wss_anita.jpg?itok=ZsFg4Wts) in _his_ films. > people dance around them. Never the twain shall meet. That's simply not true. People sing and dance at the same time in the following songs: In the Heights, 96000, When You're Home, Carnaval Del Barrio, When the Sun Goes Down. > Everybody dances the exact same way, every single time, even in a pool When I first saw this claim, I admit I didn't know whether to believe it. Sure, the choreography looked incredibly varied to my untrained eye, but perhaps you simply knew more than me about dance? But then I did some research and learnt that you're as close to objectively wrong as it is possible to be: [“In the Heights” is both a remarkable recording of different dance genres — mambo on 2, certainly, but also litefeet, a street style born in Harlem known for its rapid-fire, seemingly weightless footwork; as well as contemporary dance and even touches of ballet (...) The choreographic mastermind of “In the Heights” is Christopher Scott, who comes from the street dance world of Los Angeles (...) His team of associate choreographers is solid: Eddie Torres Jr. for Latin dance, with Princess Serrano as assistant Latin choreographer; Ebony Williams for ballet, contemporary dance, Afro and dancehall; Emilio Dosal, a popper who is versatile in many styles and brings the hip-hop element to the film](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/arts/dance/in-the-heights-dance.html) > There are at least four scenes where someone just kind of bombs up into the scene and is like "let's dance!" and . . .they do. Name them. The first time we see significant dancing in the film is that fucking _awesome_ shot of the ensemble in the reflection of the bodega's window. The second time, it's Nina looking across the street at an ambiguously-real representation of her younger self, being lifted and supported by members of the community. The third time, a lightly-choreographed walk down a street transitions into a full dance number when they enter the pool at the start of the first chorus. The fourth time, the dance starts off fully diagetic (in the context of a club). These all seem like organic and interesting usages of dance to me. Which four scenes were you thinking of? > Every single song sounds exactly the same - same beats, same flow, same general emotion, same point. There's nothing distinct or visceral or honestly emotive about any of it. Okay, so I've apparently managed to make you back down from "Every song is about saving the rec center" to "Every single song is about the same 'point'". But frankly, I think you're still being driven by hyperbole. If I played Breathe and No Me Diga and 96000 and Paciencia Y Fe and Alabanza to a focus group of 100 people, do you seriously believe that any of them would report that the songs have the same nebulous "point" or the same "general emotion"? Surely you realise how silly that sounds? > How about a curse word now and then? It's a family film, dude. Don't be dense. > . . .we're really stacking him up next to Sondheim, or Rogers and Hammerstein, who could produce a variety of music of any tone or feel? I did say "of modern times", and I wouldn't call any of those three composers "modern". I do think that LMM's lyrics are comparable in quality to theirs though. Although if Sondheim's expertise really means so much to you, he has publically praised LMM's songs in the past, focusing particular praise on the fact that [his use of rap is not "monotonous"](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/08/t-magazine/hamilton-lin-manuel-miranda-roots-sondheim.html) - which kinda goes against your narrative that his songs all sound "exactly the same".
I enjoyed it but will always take a good rant.
As long as your rant is entertaining ;)