Here are your reviews of the Alan Parker film Evita, starring Madonna and Jonathan Pryce.
Playbill thanks all those who took the time to write:
From Chris Alexander:
A total disappointment. The direction was terrible; all of the edge of Eva's character was stripped, making her seem like some kind of misunderstood saint. Antonio Banderas' performance was entirely one note; rather than act, he just scowled at the camera a lot. His accent was at times so thick Tim Rice's lyrics were unintelligible, which is a crime since they are probably the cleverest element of the show.
Jimmy Nail was horrendous - with only four roles to cast, couldn't they have done better? His singing was unspectacular, he's nothing to look at and he couldn't act his way out of a paperbag. Which leaves Madonna's performance. She does the death scenes justice but she just didn't seem to have the stomach to play the darker side of Eva.
One more question - where was the choreography? Except for the two tangos, there was virtually none. Everyone simply stared into the camera and sang. Very static and very uninspired. This could have been a great movie. What a shame. (1/15/97)
From Fred Tracey (FETracey@aol.com), Vista, CA:
"Evita" is a feast for all of the senses. Having sat through two screenings, I am convinced that this film adaptation has broken new ground not only in movie musical production, but for the entire film industry. Will we see more movie musicals due to the success of "Evita"? I predict we will. Will they be as good as "Evita"? I don't think anything could be as good as "Evita," but I hope that studios take as much care as the "Evita" company did.
Madonna proved to be an excellent Eva, I only wish she had been given more strength around the edges. Her performance will be compared to future Eva's as her work has set a new definitive high. Jonathan Pryce gave Juan Peron a human quality, as human as one dictator could have. Antonio Banderas was the biggest surprise of all. Yes, he can really sing and director Alan Parker's vision of Banderas' Che was perfect.
I found Parker's overall vision of "Evita" to be the height of creativity in all aspects and his work should serve as inspiration to not follow the norm and produce not what is expected, but to take risks and to stick to your guns. (1/14/97)
From B.P. (BPSprtFan@aol.com):
I just saw "Evita," and I thought it was a great movie. Madonna,Antonio Banderas, and Jonathan Pryce were great in the three main roles of Eva Peron,Che,and Juan Peron. The quality of the sound was great,and the singing was better than what I expected for a screen adapation,particularly Antonio Banderas' singing. Not a single detail as far as costuming or design was overlooked. However,there were a few flaws. I thought it didn't flow very well at some points and was almost like a CD, jumping from song to song,instead of building up coherent transitions. There were some sketchy, vague points,such as the role the character of Che played. Familiar with the concept album and the American recording,I knew he served as a narrator and counterpoint. But when Che kept on popping up in every scene,with nothing firmly laid out to explain his presence,it almost became something to laugh at. (And I did hear a few laughs every time he reappeared.) I do think it was an above average movie musical,though,and I hope this paves the way for eventual Les Mis, Phantom,etc. movies. I actually think a show like Les Mis would work better because more transitions are already built in,and Phantom has the effects that today's moviegoers crave. (1/13/97)
As a Connecticut native, I had to wait until Jan. 10, 1996 to see "Evita."
As soon as "Evita" came out, I was there in the theater to see what turned out to be, my favorite movie of all time. Madonna, regardless of feelings, was purely sensatinal. Her portrayal of Eva Peron was fantastic. Her spectacular voice combined with her spectacular presence made her truly the nations "Evita." As for Antonio Banderras, well, he was awesome too. His newly discovered voice along with his superb acting skills portrayed Che in a new light, a fantastic one. A huge fan of Lord Andrew, seeing this movie was a great experience, and I urge everyone to see it. Believe me, it is worth seeing two, three, four times, and it is worth the 7 or 8 dollars, which you don't even mind spending at the conclusion. (1/13/97)
The movie was better than I expected. I knew it was going to be good, but I never thought it would be THAT good. I bought the soundtrack when it first came out and only liked some of what I heard. But, after seeing the movie and hearing it in its context, I really love it. I love the way "Another Suitcase in Another Hall" was done.
I think it's obvious that Evita is a major success, but that leaves one to wonder whether more movie musicals will be made and if so, how they will fare. Aside from the film being well made, the hype about Madonna playing the role of Eva Peron, one she has always longed to play, helped turn the movie into a major financial success. One wonders that if such hype didn't exsist and such a star weren't in the film, how it would fare? (1/13/97)
From Sara Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org):
"Evita" is a marvelous film! I have seen several stage versions of it, and, to be truthful, did not expect much from the movie. Boy, was I wrong! Even though Madonna does not have the range and belt of Patti LuPone and Elaine Paige, she was a very convincing Eva. Antonio Banderas was good as Che, but why did he and Eva touch in "Waltz for Eva and Che"? Maybe it was because it was all a dream, but I thought that Che is never really supposed to be there. I thought that he was just a symbol. Jonathan Pryce has the best voice in the entire film, and he was a wonderful Peron. It was touching to watch him caring for Eva when she was dying. This is a great film. If you have not yet had the pleasure of seeing it, I greatly recommend it. (1/9/97)
From Abigail Joseph (email@example.com), Wellesley MA:
I have been waiting for this film since I first heard it was being=20 made last year. I bought the recording the first day it came out, and=20 have listened to it religiously ever since. I got advance tickets as=20 soon as I could for Boston=B9s Jan. 1 premiere. I read every article in=20 every magazine I could find about the movie, bought the Vanity Fair=20 with Madonna=B9s diaries, watched Madonna interviewed on =B3Oprah=B2 and=20 =B3Entertainment Tonight,=B2 scoured the internet for =B3Evita=B2 pages.
Needless to say, I had very high expectations for this film.
Did it meet them? I=B9m still not sure. It was undoubtedly an amazing=20 film, and splendid entertainment.. Madonna=B9s performance is a=20 triumph. It is obvious that she gave this film her all, and it pays=20 off. Her performance makes Eva Peron come alive, captures her=20 boldness and at the same time makes her vulnerable and human. We=20 meet her as a 15-year-old girl from a poor family, itching with=20 ambition (ok, the 38-year-old Evita doesn=B9t look anywhere near 15, but=20 it was a nice try) and the desire to go to the =B3Big Apple.=B2 She is=20 taken there by the delightfully sleazy tango singer Augustin Magaldi,=20 played to slimy perfection by Jimmy Nail. As the young Eva Duarte=20 arriving in Buenos Aires, Madonna is filled with youthful exuberance=20 and excitement as she sings and tangos. As a political campaigner,=20 she is shrewd and an inspiring speaker as we see from the adoring,=20 cheering crowds. She sings a moving =B3Don=B9t Cry for Me Argentina,=B2 = and=20 her dying sequence is brilliant. Throughout the whole film, she=20 vibrates with the life of a truly great performance--I think we can=20 safely bet she will get at least an Oscar nomination.
Antonio Banderas=B9 performance is better than anyone ever expected. =20 He not only looks incredibly sexy as he throws seductive glances at=20 the audience, but he sings, acts, and does both extremely well. His=20 Che is overflowing with irony and anger at what he sees happen to=20 Argentina, and during the excellent, =B3Waltz for Eva and Che=B2 sequence= =20 there is a sexual attraction between the two that works very well. =09 Jonathan Pryce also gives a great performance in the rather small role=20 of Juan Peron, and the sequences (especially at the end) between him=20 and Madonna make me believe that Juan and Eva Peron did not just use=20 each other, but really loved each other. =20
The success of the movie is due mostly to the marvelous lead=20 performances, but also to the gorgeous costumes, settings, and=20 filming. The fast-paced, montage effect of many songs is overwhelming=20 in some places, but in songs like =B3A New Argentina,=B2 the riots and screaming crowd sequences work very well, showing the=20 breadth of Eva=B9s influence and the excitement and chaos that was=20 present during the time. However, there are times when the rapid=20 editing seems to get carried-away, for example during Madonna=B9s=20 affecting, =B3Don=B9t Cry for Me, Argentina,=B2 cutting away from her fac= e=20 to show flashbacks seems silly. Flashbacks are overabundant--how many=20 times must we see young Eva at her father=B9s funeral? And the=20 heart-wrencing, almost painfully beautiful song, =B3You Must Love Me,=B2=20 would be more effective if just sung by Madonna instead of voiced over=20 a sequence of scenes of her last months. But despite these qualms and=20 the few times when the film becomes ridiculous (the most outstanding=20 example being the row of Argentine soldiers who sing =B3Peron=B9s Latest=20 Flame=B2 while scrubbing their armpits in the shower), for the most part=20 it all fits together very well. =20
But nonetheless, I walked away from the film feeling strangely=20 unsatisfied. The film seems very undecided about Evita. It=20 undoubtedly portrays her as power-hungry, but at the same time she=20 seems to do many good things for her people, and I left feeling not=20 sure about what to think about Eva Peron. But perhaps this is the=20 point--her whole legacy is arguments about what she really was, and=20 maybe Alan Parker=B9s intent was to leave the audience thinking about=20 it. And it did--I now have an intense desire to find out more about=20 Eva Peron. But I think the film would have worked better with a more=20 decided view. But lets not be picky--it is by far the best movie=20 musical I have ever seen, and one of the year's best films, and for all=20 involved, I think it is a triumph. (1/4/97)
All in all, I'd say this is a must-see at the Uptown. The sound is great and all the voices work real well. They've transposed some stuff downward to suit Antonio Banderas and Madonna but I must say they both do justice to the score.
Actingwise, Madonna is not and will never be a great actress, but she's used real well, and at the end she's genuinely affecting in a way that Harold Prince probably would have hated, but actually works quite well. Probably her weakest moment is Don't Cry For Me, Argentina. It doesn't help that this sequence is over edited.
Antonio Banderas is absolutely great. He's not the Che of the play, since this is based on the original concept album, but he manages to create a real human being practically out of thin air. The best moment of the film is Madonna and Banderas doing the Waltz for Che and Eva. It also is the only time in the film that a musical number is done fully without any gratuitous editing. Jonathan Pryce is genuinely affecting at the end, the only time he's really given a chance to act. The calculating nature of the character in the theater is, however, seriously undercut in this version.
Something that I wouldn't of thought would be a problem but is very distracting is the dubbing. Because there are a lot of intense closeups, it is clear that the sound comes from a different source than the character's mouths. Occasionally, Madonna looks like she's in a bad Japanese movie.
The positive thing about the film is that it is very filmic, doesn't let up for a second, and despite some flaws, does justice to the material and is every bit as involving in its own way as the stage play. (1/2/97)
From Eddie James (firstname.lastname@example.org):
I've seen the stage EVITA many times in touring and local productions and was quite anxious to see the film. I listened to the soundtrack over and over and knew every line.
The film I saw was not what I expected. It was very loud, fast and exhausting. I have to admit that I was quite relieved when it ended. This is not to say that it wasn't good. I thought that it was such a jolt to the senses that it was too much to handle in one sitting. It could have used an intermission.
The film was beautifully shot, although I really hated the way the camera often was off the characters as they sang there songs. It just seemed awkward. But I will say that in certain numbers, like "Don't Cry for Me Argentina," the added shots of Eva's past and newspaper clippings really brought the message home. But I still am not sure why the crowds worshipped her. Why was she the spiritual leader of the nation? This wasn't played up enough.
I liked the way that the film was played as a drama where the people just happen to sing everything. It was an experiment that worked for the most part. I found myself very involved and the added dialogue and visuals made the story much clearer than in the stage version. But often the quick MTV style made me unable to really concentrate on what was happening. It was like being caught in a strobe light. I would have liked a few "real" production numbers to slow the pace down. ("Buenos Aires" and "Rainbow High", especially would have been great productions.) The pace was so rapid - and I think it was supposed to make us feel rushed as Eva tried to cram as much into her show life as possible - that the emotional aspects of the show were lost on the audience.
Which leads to the performances. I thought that Jonathan Pryce was very good and so was Antonio Banderas. None of the principals really had to act much since the star of the show was the rapid editing. All they had to do was pose and sing a few meaures on screen; then the editing took over. But Madonna was fascinating to watch. Her performance was consistant ranging from OK to mind-boggling. I am now convinced that she is not an actress and will never be one (although I had hoped that this film would prove me wrong). She doesn't have it in her. She only connected to the role when posing and in the 30 minutes at the end when she was dying. It's interesting to note that her dying scenes are the parts that she sang live instead of mouthing the words to the beat of the soundtrack. Maybe had she sung the whole thing live, which would have been impossible, she would have done better. But all in all her performance was more than adequate and, I felt that the weakness that were there were mainly a result of the concept of the film and Parker's choice of not showcasing Madonna, but making a DRAMA. Her stengths simply weren't played up. She was asked to ACT and she gave it her all. And did a perfectly respectable job. I can't think of any other actress in Hollywood who would have been able to carry it off the way she did.
I don't think EVITA will become a classic, but it is a faithful adaptation of one of my favorite shows that I will welcome into my home when it is released on video. Then I will be able to take this bombastic work and savor it in much smaller doses. (1/2/97)
J Webber (JBWeister@aol.com), Pasadena, CA:
An expensive, elaborate transcription of the pop musical, the film of EVITA fails to create much response in the viewer as it is primarily a visualization of the libretto, an inadequate approach to such a complex project. Director Parker and company, in their attempt to furnish us with a grand, yet realistic look at Eva Peron's rise to power and early demise, fail to sketch in the specifics of the story's political background, leaving the average viewer baffled and ultimately bored. One hour into the film, the politics are as opaque as the sable-black contact lenses Madonna wears in her portrayal.
Madonna is far better that was expected, her acting is fine if only occasionally exceptional. Antonio sings very well, looks fetching, but his acting is well, secondary. Jonathan Pryce is diligent and reliable, if unexciting. Conductor John Mauceri did an excellent job with the score, (yet the absence of realistic sounds on the track, one's ears begin to feel stuffed with cotton after a while.)
A very few of the film's sequences are well designed and executed. The Waltz for Che and Evita shows a level of cinematic imagination the "realistic" overall conception won't allow for in the rest of the picture. "I'd Be Surprisingly Good For You" is smoothly done and effective as is the "Buenos Aires" number. Most of the film is staggeringly unimaginative and many of the large cast sections seem rushed, stiffly-framed and poorly edited. (The "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" number is an embarrassment. To cut away from the star's face during the first chorus of the song to show footage we'd seen 45 minutes earlier...? Hmmm.)
It is a terrible shame that the picture has good things in it, yet the muddy politics swamp the whole enterprise. Who is Evita? What is she doing to her country? (Should we accept Che's commentary as gospel? He seems more a leftist intellectual rather than a revolutionary...) What are we supposed to think about her? These questions are never satisfactorily answered and the audience is benumbed 90 minutes into the film and never recovers.
It would be one thing if the film were a spectacular, imaginative failure, like 1982's "Pennies From Heaven", which won praise from some critics and audiences. But, except for Madonna's fans and Lloyd Webber purists, EVITA may prove unable to find audiences to appreciate it's attractive, yet unrewarding surfaces and consequently kill off the (almost dead) genre of film musicals as well.
From Bert Fink, VP/Public Relations/The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization, New York:
EVITA. Madonna. The movie. To revive the Broadway run's ad slogan, "ESTUPENDA!"
For the first time in decades we have a major stage-to-movie musical that works. The characters sing their story walking brazenly through Buenos Aires (Budapest, whatever) or flamenco'ing across Palace steps, or on the actual balcony of the actual Casa Rosada...and we buy it!
What movie musical holds a candle to this achievement? ANNIE, A CHORUS LINE, THE WIZ, A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC were hugely disappointing... LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS was a delight, but an aberrant one. HAIR? GREASE? Each in their own way successful, but each in their own way also compromising their base material. And the other big musicals of the past 20 years have either been Disney animation (as Howard Ashman drily noted during a LITTLE MERMAID documentary: "The Broadway musical isn't dead; it's alive and well on the Disney story boards!"), or what I call the "F" musicals (FOOTLOOSE, FAME, FLASHDANCE) where the musical numbers were purely presentational. Even the other category of "F" movies, as in Fosse (CABARET, ALL THAT JAZZ) were presentational.
With EVITA, Alan Parker and Oliver Stone (say, what do screen writers do when every word heard is by Tim Rice?) built and shaped a story that is awesomely close to the original stage score while finding their own ingenious solutions to the stage-screen conversion ("Waltz for Eva and Che" a perfect example, though technically in this version Banderas is no longer Che, is he?) Ditto "Dangerous Jade," "Buenos Aires," and the opening, juxtaposed funeral sequences.
As for performances, Madonna is first-rate -- she is not an Eva for the stage but she carries the film beautifully, and her death scenes were far more touching than any I saw depicted in either London or New York. Pryce of course is a complete master of the art of the im possible -- carrying a musical score fluidly, comfortably. Banderas deserves an A for effort, even if he can't quite sing, and doesn't quite belong in this scenario. Technically, kudos all around for one of the best looking, best sounding, best conveyed movies I've seen in a long time.
Sure I have a vested interest -- I want to see movie musicals succeed, and make a come-back. Does this one make a case for the genre? Absolutely. Should more musicals now find the courage to follow EVITA to the screen -- should DREAMGIRLS and LES MISERABLES and RENT and MISS SAIGON start revving up their screenplays? Stand back Buenos Aires!
What a circus! Not quite the show...... and even less of a film!
Alan Parker who gave us "Fame", just comes up with "Lame". Enough said!
GOOD NEWS: Mandy Patinkin opened his 3 night Los Angeles concert appearance... with "What a Circus" and RECLAIMED his ownership of the part. The was audience was electrified went wild. Alan Parker should have been there so he could learn that musical numbers telling the story, CAN be exciting! Anyone can sing a song, and most can sing the notes, but very few "light up the stage or screen". Mandy, if anything, has improved his interpretation. His "intensity" is perfect for the part of Che. I'm sure there are others who could do the song justice, but obviously none were available for the film. Once again Hollywood poisons another musical. Well....to be honest, Evita was better than... Man of La Mancha (Chuckle...Ah yes Sophia, O'Toole and other great voices of our time), and there's always "Paint Your Wagon" with Lee Marvin's gravel voice. (For two years after that fiasco, I wouldn't even "Paint My House"!
Alan Parker's film version of "Evita" is not (as mentioned a million times before) based on the stage version of the score. His version is an adaption of the original concept album (hence why the song "The Lady's Got Potential" was included in this version), it is not an adaption of Harold Prince's dreadful and historically unfaithful stage version. This is not another example of stage-to-screen. This is a completely ORIGINAL interpretation (and historically researched). Kinda of what Ken Russell did to The Who's "Tommy" back in 1975. When the Broadway production of the score was adapted, they used the original concept album of the score for their version - they didn't adapt Ken Russell's film version. Please emphasize this fact in your following mentions of this "Evita" film. People keep comparing the stage Eva's to this, and it's completely ludicrous to do so. The songs may be the same, but their interpretations are completely different. Thank you.
From David Mahler (LuvDracula @aol.com), Mission Viejo, CA:
Well, it's over. Eighteen years of looking at the newspaper on a daily basis, looking for any single byline that might have something to do with the film version of one of my favorite musicals...
EVITA is finally out her tomb for public inspection. It is my sad duty to inform the worldwide lovers of Andrew Lloyd Webber that Eva Peron, spiritual symbol of the rebirth of the Movie Musical, is dead on arrival.
And what is this Santa "EVITA"- why all the howling, hysterical sorrow? For me, it started with the release of the original concept album- having been enthralled by JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR on record, stage and film, I welcomed the arrival of EVITA like a second coming. With absolutely no prior knowledge of its subject, I tried on several occasions to listen to the album, but the dire "Requiem For Evita" so bored me, I never could make it past that point. With Harold Prince's staging, and the subsequent release of the London Cast Album with Elaine Paige (and the Requiem mercifully abbreviated), I drank in the music and story with a relish.
But as to my fanatical devotion to the show- that started at the very first U.S. public performance- a Wednesday matinee in Los Angeles. "Evita" understudy Teri Klauser was the first person to be on display in the role, and she is my personal favorite (and yes, I've seen 'em all.....Patti Lupone, Florence Lacey, Derin Altay and Loni Ackerman!). When Mandy Patinkin came out and started singing "Oh, What A Circus"....I thought I had seen the true face of God. So enraptured by the two hours of EVITA was I, that I quickly bought a ticket for that evening's actual Opening Night.
I saw the show several times during this out-of-town tryout. I became fascinated by the mythology surrounding its anti-heroine, Eva Peron, and purchased as many books as I could find about her, videotaped documentaries like "Queen Of Hearts" narrated by Diana Rigg (an almost scene-for-scene recreation of the musical show using real life footage), and so forth. I was on tour in Mexico and saw Rocio Banquells sing "No Llores Por Mi, Argentina", and arrived in Spain just in time to catch Paloma San Basilio sing the same words with a Castilian accent. As a musical theater performer, I have played both "Che" and "Peron" (a high point being when the "Peron" of the Los Angeles touring company saw my production and thought I was the best person he'd seen in the role!). I've collected 18 international cast albums of the show....and I can never seem to get my fill on the subject.
Well, on Christmas morning, I made the one hour drive to Hollywood, CA to attend the first showing of EVITA at 10 a.m, forsaking any family and friends on this holiday (needless to say, they ALL understood!). I had already contributed my bit to the hoopla surrounding the film, when a letter I wrote was published in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Entertainment magazine, regarding Madonna's remarks about the "changes" she and Alan Parker had made to the storyline....Tim Rice had read my letter, and sent the newspaper a letter of support the following week.
"Alright, enough already!" you're probably thinking to yourself- sorry, but I just wanted to establish my credentials as one of the foremost fanatics...whoops! I meant "fan" of the show....
Here's EVITA's report card, short and semi-sweet:
Jonathan Pryce is physically miscast as "Peron". Antonio Banderas cuts a fine figure as everyman "Che". Madonna rarely emotes as much as she strikes a pose. Her singing harkens more to Julie Covington than any of the powerhouse stage "Evas". The real stand-out is Jimmy Hand as Magaldi- his blank, dopey look makes his few onscreen moments shine as the manipulated catalyst for this page of Argentina's stormy political history.
Alan Parker knows how to move a film along- the film has a drive to it (even if the driver doesn't exactly tell us where he's taking us, and by what route....). I think the man captured exactly the film he wanted us to see. He realized his vision.
Cinematography, Costumes, Sound: A+
The film is stunning to listen to and to look at. You ARE in Argentina circa 1940. EVITA should sweep the Academy Awards in all of its technical nominations.
This is the major area that drags down the high marks EVITA scores everywhere else. For anyone even remotely familiar with Harold Prince's staging, this film crashes and burns. EVITA on stage focuses on Eva Peron, the woman. SHE is the focus of our attention, as the character is rarely offstage. Everything else- Che, Peron, Magaldi, Peron's Mistress, The Argentineans themselves - serve as momentary diversions to who really holds our fascination and attention.
Parker and co-author Oliver Stone (one of the multitude of de-throned directors of this project) keep every-thing almost chronologically the same (if you're reading this, I'm sure you already know of the alterations made to the score)- but along the way, something strange has happened to the Lady-We-Love-To-Watch....she becomes window-dressing! This fascinating musical about the rags-to-riches story which defies credibility is -gulp- BORING. It's like looking at a Classic Illustrated tableau on the life of Christ- many pretty pictures do not an involving story make.
Alan Parker pleads guilty in his new-on-the-shelf book THE MAKING OF EVITA: "I ignored the stage play complete-ly, as the theatrical decisions that Hal Prince made bore little relevance to a cine matic interpretation. And so I went back to the original concept album from which I had wanted to make a film eighteen years previously." Guilty in the first. The stage show moves us at every opportunity- this movie just moves along. Madonna, while getting a major boost by not requiring her to sing the score from the stage, is fine- she really only comes "alive" when she's dying.....surprisingly, the most effective number is "Waltz For Eva and Che", where she manages to become the Eva we've already known and loved. Most of the time, its just quick flashes of her smiling with those bonded teeth. Nothing can be read into it- Evita's motivations become invisible, hence- no drama. Eva's story becomes secondary to everything else in the film.
Overall Grade: C-.
If the musical story of Eva Peron had come directly from its original recorded childhood, this movie would have moved up quite a bit, for all the talent visually on display in the film. But one man ruined it all: Harold Prince. His ingenious reshaping matured this work, something like Eva's story herself- the gangly, shy little girl becomes a Diamond- mesmerizing, entrancing. EVITA on stage deservedly won international praise, because of the obvious growth the work had gone though to get there. Alan Parker and Company present us the Eva that would have been had she never made that fateful trip to Buenos Aires- simple, unadorned, common. And we all know that's something the adult Eva Peron NEVER was meant to be.
I know the film will be a major success. It will win many awards, and make Madonna the legitimate, respected actress Eva Peron never was. Antonio will become the new Julio Iglesias. Jonathan can stop doing car commercials. The Argentineans will flock in droves to see it, and will hail Madonna as their new patron Saint. PHANTOM, LES MIZ and CHESS will probably now be committed to cellu-loid. And for me, I feel saddened, but at the same time, relived that my wait is finally over. The best thing of all: I won't have to get up when my morning paper is delivered anymore.