the worst amanda seyfried movie i've seen since red riding hood
I feel used.
Mamma Mia spoilers if anyone cares.
First, in my defense, I was watching the Simpsons and Mamma Mia was on after so I left it on while making, and then eating dinner. And then kept it on when playing with Lego (wow, this defense is shaping up just awesome).
Anyway, the end is a total cop out. The only reason I kept watching was because of the mild mystery that drives what little there is of the plot: who is Amanda Seyfried's father? Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, or Stellan Skarsgård. I don't really remember any of the characters' names. So what happens? At the end the three dudes decide they don't care and all want to be one third of her dad.
WTF?
So the movie is basically admitting it had no point? (I know it's a vehicle for Abba music but still a little something in the narrative would be great since the songs didn't really move the plot.) Why be invested in it?
But Brosnan and Meryl Streep get married instead. Yay! Except for that whole thing's a bit creepsville: he hasn't seen her in 20+ years but has always loved her, been married to someone else during that time, yet never attempted to talk to her or write her or see her or do anything except carry a torch. And isn't interested in actually getting to know her again or anything in the two days since he's been back and decides, once Seyfried's wedding is called off, to propose to Streep (why waste a wedding?). She, being a movie character and not an actual human being, of course says yes. Also, she's kind of hard up and Brosnan seems to have monies.
For the record I was hoping Firth was the dad, cause he'd always wanted a kid but never had one. Brosnan already had kids from the failed marriage. And Stellan Skarsgård was even less developed than the other two. We do get to see him via flashback during the time when he and Streep hooked up: it was his hippie flower-power period.
Given that the movie was released in 2008 and Seyfried's character was 20 or 21 and there's no indications that the movie was set in an earlier time this means Skarsgård's hippie flower-power period was in the mid-1980s.
Makes sense.
We do find out that Pierce Brosnan is a terrible singer. That's something.
Also, Julie Walters and Christine Baranski were criminally underused (such as it was).
Mamma Mia spoilers if anyone cares.
First, in my defense, I was watching the Simpsons and Mamma Mia was on after so I left it on while making, and then eating dinner. And then kept it on when playing with Lego (wow, this defense is shaping up just awesome).
Anyway, the end is a total cop out. The only reason I kept watching was because of the mild mystery that drives what little there is of the plot: who is Amanda Seyfried's father? Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, or Stellan Skarsgård. I don't really remember any of the characters' names. So what happens? At the end the three dudes decide they don't care and all want to be one third of her dad.
WTF?
So the movie is basically admitting it had no point? (I know it's a vehicle for Abba music but still a little something in the narrative would be great since the songs didn't really move the plot.) Why be invested in it?
But Brosnan and Meryl Streep get married instead. Yay! Except for that whole thing's a bit creepsville: he hasn't seen her in 20+ years but has always loved her, been married to someone else during that time, yet never attempted to talk to her or write her or see her or do anything except carry a torch. And isn't interested in actually getting to know her again or anything in the two days since he's been back and decides, once Seyfried's wedding is called off, to propose to Streep (why waste a wedding?). She, being a movie character and not an actual human being, of course says yes. Also, she's kind of hard up and Brosnan seems to have monies.
For the record I was hoping Firth was the dad, cause he'd always wanted a kid but never had one. Brosnan already had kids from the failed marriage. And Stellan Skarsgård was even less developed than the other two. We do get to see him via flashback during the time when he and Streep hooked up: it was his hippie flower-power period.
Given that the movie was released in 2008 and Seyfried's character was 20 or 21 and there's no indications that the movie was set in an earlier time this means Skarsgård's hippie flower-power period was in the mid-1980s.
Makes sense.
We do find out that Pierce Brosnan is a terrible singer. That's something.
Also, Julie Walters and Christine Baranski were criminally underused (such as it was).