Movie Review: Les Misérables

In a nutshell Les Misérables was a great experience. There was nothing so bad in it that it was actually bad, there were only things that probably could have been better. And the things that were great were exceptional.

I will not go into any plot or deviations thereof here. I can't imagine that people don't know at least the basic plot by now, and I generally don't care about deviations unless they completely change the tone of the source. Onto the cheers and jeers, in reverse order.

First let me say that even though I'm a general fan of Broadway, I'm not always a fan of "Broadway voices." Often I find, that for my tastes, Broadway singers sound a little too brash or have a little too much vibrato. So my biggest letdown for the movie was my own fault, because somehow I was expecting little or no Broadway voices, fool that I am. And since Hugh Jackman, who did the most singing in the cast as Jean Valjean, had the Broadway-iest voice, I had to adjust quickly. Other than that, Hugh Jackman was excellent with an emotionally bared and raw performance.

I fear that poor Mr. Russel Crowe may be getting the brunt of any general bad feelings towards Les Misérables. I knew going in that his singing wouldn't be bad, per se, but it wouldn't be great. He is the lead singer of his own rock band, but I think that's about how far it goes. Oddly enough Mr. Crowe reminded me a wee bit of David Bowie when he sang, which is a good thing. The only thing I found lacking in Mr. Crowe's performance was during his big solo numbers. Simply put, the emotional side of the performance wasn't at the level it should have been. When he sang bits or with other people, the passions and hardness of Javert were there, it was just the solos that fell short. Unfortunately his self-awareness (and likely self-consciousness) about his singing was apparent instead of a deeper emotional performance. But his solos were not awful in the least. There was this tender, sweet moment with Javert towards the end that, for me, made up for whatever emotion he lacked in his singing performance. I won't spoil it here, because it's definitely something that didn't or couldn't come across in the stage performance. It was also the moment that I knew the my tears would likely not stop until the credits rolled. (I cry a lot in movies, so that's no shocker.)

My lowest expectations going in were of Anne Hathaway. It's no secret that I think she is an over-rated actor and an even more over-rated singer. But her performance was very good indeed with only a few moments of "performy" distraction.

The best singer, and perhaps the best overall performance, was Eddie Redmayne as Marius. His voice was so clear yet it had so much depth for his highest of high tenor (and I'm sure falsetto). And as far as his emotional performance goes, he was Marius. "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" has never been so heartbreaking. Also there is something absolutely perfect about Marius being covered in freckles.

I know that Jean Valjean and Javert are supposed to be the leads, but I have come to the conclusion that Les Misérables is really about Marius. His passion and sense of justice reflect the best part of Javert, and his compassion and capacity for love reflect the best of Jean Valjean. Marius is Javert's fixation on right mixed with Valjean's capacity for good. As that amalgamation, Marius becomes the light and the hope in a thoroughly depressing story; he is the person who can begin to make the changes and live the life that everyone is fighting for or longing for in some way.

My favorite part of the film adaptation was the presentation, and the best bits of the presentation were the tight, unwavering shots of characters during their solos. Each solo was about being in that emotional moment, and director Tom Hooper honored that by staying close enough that nothing could distract or detract from that. It was intimate and truthful, and the intimacy was what made it more superior than an expansive stage production. Yes, I said it. And I mean it.

Movie Review: The Hobbit (And general views on adaptations)

I felt spurred to write something about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey because 1) it's been getting middling reviews overall, and 2) I didn't see any of the major problems that people were complaining about. (I mean, I get what they're saying, but I just didn't seem them as problems.)

The biggest complaint I've heard is that people are upset that director Peter Jackson broke The Hobbit into three movies, and that he apparently did this to "make more money" or "milk us for all we're worth" or to "extend the hype machine." And while those things are happening--whether by design or default--breaking An Unexpected Journey into three movies is not doing The Hobbit as disservice. At least as far as I'm concerned. 

I've heard and read so many reviews that state this break up of the book made the pacing of An Unexpected Journey too slow. So I went into it expecting long drawn out bits that would make me roll my eyes and squirm in my seat. Instead I had almost no problems with the pacing, and when I did think the movie was going too slow, it was because of other factors. For instance, when the adventuring party finds itself in the goblin caves, I couldn't wait for that to be over, but it was mostly because I didn't like the overly comical interpretation of the goblin king, in personality and CGI-ness. 

In the end the pacing felt just like the pacing of the Lord of the Rings movies. There was certainly plenty of action, and there were certainly slower bits (but not too slow or too long) that involved the characters actually talking (oh no, not talking!), which, ya know, moves the plot forward and helps you feel connected to the characters.

The other biggest complaint, which is the biggest complaint whenever a book is made into a movie, is the plot and/or nuance changes in the adaptation. But I have two things going for me that reduce my anger towards plot changes: 1) I don't often remember plots of books I read in minute detail, but rather in general arcs and feelings, and since I don't remember minutiae I'm not upset if it changes; and 2) I decided long ago to do my best to look at adaptations as their own entity. They are different mediums and must be treated and consumed differently. To be clear I do get attached to plot points and details that I hope to see in an adaptation, and I am disappointed if my "pets" don't make it into the film, but I try not to let minutiae ruin my experience. However neither of these were really a factor with this adaptation, because I didn't love the book in the first place (I know, I'm a monster), so I ended up liking the movie much more than the book.

Now that all of that is off my chest, let's move on to the part where I talk about whatever I want with no through line and little focus.

I can't imagine anyone being more perfect as Bilbo than Martin Freeman. Since Mr. Freeman has a solid background in comedy and drama, he was able to play Bilbo's fussiness and inexperience as an adventurer without making Bilbo overly naive or ridiculous. His facial expressions, body language, and perfectly timed stutterings endeared Bilbo to me in a way that I didn't experience in the book. 

The other best bit to me was the introduction in the movie. It not only gives a lot of history that's needs to understand the movie's climate and the character's motives (without being boring), but it connected us back to the LOTR series. In fact, I had a couple of aha moments that brought some things full circle for me. 

Other stuff:

1) It was weird to see Gandalf as Gandalf the Grey, I just got used to Gandalf the White at the end of the LOTR series.

2) It was very hard to not immediately see Saruman as evil because of LOTR. And it didn't help that there were devices that could have been implications or foreshadowings of his turn to the dark side. 

3) I loved the solemn song the dwarves sang and that it became the theme music throughout the movie.

4) I loved that many of the actors playing dwarves weren't directed to change their native accents, so we had dwarves from, at the very least, Scotland, Ireland, England, and New Zealand. 

5) I was also very pleased with Richard Armitage's performance, even though I already knew he is stellar at playing intensely serious and overly proud characters. (See North and South [2004].)

6) And just for fun, this video of Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage.

Movie Review: Beasts of the Southern Wild

Wallis as Hushpuppy and Henry as Wink.

Whist in the Land de Ports I saw Beasts of the Southern Wild. After seeing the trailer and reading a basic exposition, I was excited for what this movie could be, yet I had some apprehensions about how gritty it might become. To my delight, what I found was a movie filled with competing hard and soft themes that pulled back and forth to make an absolutely beautiful film.

Beasts is the story of a six-year-old girl named Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis) and how she sees herself fitting into her real and imagined universe. Hushpuppy and her father, Wink (Dwight Henry), live in the bayou in a squatter's community. Although the community itself is tight knit, it is immediately and starkly clear that Wink expects his small daughter to be nearly completely independent. In fact Wink and Hushpuppy even live in separate "houses" that are several yards apart. But almost as immediately, within a tense fire scene, you also understand that Wink loves Hushpuppy dearly.

At first it's difficult to understand Wink's treatment of his daughter. My worldview shouted at me that Wink wasn't protecting and loving Hushpuppy and he was condemning her to a life of poverty. Without giving anything away, as the movie unfolds, you slowly understand that Wink is doing no such thing, and that his seeming harshness is born out of tenderness towards his daughter.

In another hard and soft juxtaposition, director Benh Zeitlin makes it very clear that Hushpuppy's living conditions are far from what average Americans see as appropriate, but at the same time he does not focus or dwell on the squalor. Instead he shows us remarkable innovation born of necessity, and he helps the audience to find the beauty in the seemingly bleak. The film never becomes so dark or gritty that it detracts from the heart of the story, which is a testament to Zeitlin's craft.

I came out of a Beasts with a feeling of wholeness and peace in a story well-told, which is difficult to come by in film today. Not only was I engaged and entertained, but I learned something about a walk of life that was previously foreign to me without a "point" or propaganda being thrust into my face. If you couldn't tell by now, I highly recommend this movie.

Hushpuppy proving she's strong at the tender age of six.

Movie Review: Brave

My dad took me to see Brave yesterday, just like he took me to see The Little Mermaid in 1989, only this time he didn't fall asleep. I was a  little reluctant to share my true feelings about the movie, but then I remembered that I'm usually not one to go along with the crowd to avoid scrutiny (leg shaving exception), so bombs away!

In a nutshell, I enjoyed Brave well enough, but it wasn't all fantastic. It breaks my heart a little too, because I love Pixar and the level of quality they strive for.

Merida, voiced by Kelly MacDonaldImage via filmofilia.com.

On the surface Brave is about Merida, a highland princess who wants to control her own fate. Basically that means she doesn't want to be a bride who is given to the winner of some highland games, she wants to marry who she chooses and only when she's ready. (It certainly doesn't mean that she wants to travel or learn a trade or become a warrior or be an independent woman.) But really the movie is about a mother and daughter who don't understand each other and communicate poorly. It's pretty much the Freaky Friday plot. Even though they don't switch places, they find themselves in a magical situation that forces them to respect and understand each other's skill sets and viewpoints in order to break the spell.

The actual script held a few problems for me. There were some pacing problems, there were a couple of characters and plot points that felt as though they were added hastily in order to make it all work, and there was at least one major theme that was too loosely connected to truly make the impact that was desired or deserved. Additionally the humor was obvious, meaning it was at a much lower cleverness level than I'm accustomed to in a Pixar film. It was a real missed opportunity.

Merida's mum and dad, voiced by Billy Connelly and Emma Thompson. Image via filmofilia.com.

On the positive side, when all is said and done, I'm ecstatic that Merida and her mother are strong, clever female characters. There are no dewey eyes or fluttering abouts or talk of beauty, it's all about strength of character and solving problems and taking action.

The animation is completely fantastic, especially the hair, as I'm sure you are well aware from the preview, but there were also great things happening with the fabrics. Animated films are gaining more and more textures and depth, much to my delight.

The voice casting was fantastic. I love Billy Connelly's scratchy and somehow irreverent voice. (I just feel like he's going to say something naughty at any given moment.) Of course I was in hog heaven listening to all that Scottish dialect, but that doesn't really recommend the movie to anyone but me.

The final word is go and see it. You'll likely enjoy it enough, especially with checked expectations, and you can't really not see a Pixar film at this point anyway, right?

P.S. La Luna, the short that played before the movie, was adorably delightful.

Why Yes, I Saw Moonrise Kingdom

It certainly has been more difficult than anticipated to get back into my regular home routine, including but not limited to writing every night. I've done almost nothing productive aside from going to work and unpacking since I've come home late Wednesday night. I'm even starting to feel a little bad about my non-productivity. Luckily I've been really honing my "meh" skills, so I don't have too much guilt yet.

One of the most exciting things I did in California (ya know, besides seeing two of my BFFs and two of my sisters, and two of my favorite nieces) was seeing Moonrise Kingdom. I thought for sure that I would have to wait until the end of June to see it like the rest of the unwashed masses, but zip-a-dee-doo-dah, I saw it in Los Angeles in a theater with leather seats and assigned seating. Scrumptious. 

And the film was de-lightful!

Illustration inspired by Moonrise Kingdom, via thisisnthappiness.com.

I came out of the theater wanting to see it again immediately. There's just so much to look at in a Wes Anderson movie. I'm not really sure how to delineate the plot, but here's a stab: Two young teenagers (fourteen?) meet and secretly write to each other for a year. When Sam returns to the island where Suzy lives, they run away together. They say that they are in love, and maybe they are, but they are both also running away from something terrible in their lives. 

Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis

True to Wes Anderson's wont, Moonrise Kingdom takes real, difficult, and messy situations and emotions and puts them in an ever so slightly surreal world that is terribly heartbreaking but in a charming and often humorous way. (And in this case, because the main characters are teenagers, there's also a large amount of realistic awkwardness.) Anderson's viewpoint and execution resonate with me in a way that other films don't quite achieve.

Kara Hayward as Suzy and Jared Gilman as Sam.

I've seen internetters say that the teenagers, especially Jared Gilman as Sam, were excellent in the film, but I thought they were okay. Good enough, but still just slightly above okay. The standout for me was Edward Norton as Scout Leader Ward. I've always thought he was an fantastic actor, but he really did something subtle and special in this role. I can't quite put my finger on it, but if I figure it out I'll let you know. June 22 Update: I saw the film again and I thought much better of Gilman's and Hayward's performances. They are indeed very good.

Edward Norton as Scout Master Ward with a couple "Khaki Scouts."

If you have not seen a Wes Anderson movie, I highly recommend them. His attention to detail and aesthetic are unusual, interesting, and detailed. (Now that I think about it, his movies might be single-handedly fueling the hipster aesthetic.) Here is a list of his movies for easy perusal.

Review: Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

Emily Blunt and Ewan McGregor in a Yemen scene.

I'll admit the title is a turn off; it sounds more like a fishing guide than entertainment. But Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (based on a novel of the same title) was a slow-paced and subtly funny charmer. There's an underdog to root for, a government to hate, people to fear, a loss to cry over, a cause to hope for, and even a wee bit of romance.

Ewan McGregor plays Fred, an straight-laced government worker who specializes in fisheries. He and his boss (who has really bad hair) have a mutual disrespect for each other, so Fred gets assigned to this odd-ball, long-shot project of transporting salmon to a river in Yemen, and ensuring the right environment for the fish to survive.

Enter Emily Blunt who plays Harriet. She's an assistant/project manager for a very wealthy Sheikh (he doesn't blink at spending $55 million on this project), and she's the smart as a whip, light-hearted foil to Fred's stuffy practicality.

Amr Waked and Ewan McGregor in a Scotland scene.

Sheikh Muhammad (Amr Waked) wants to bring Salmon to the Yemen because 1) he loves fly fishing, and 2) he believes the river and commodity of fish will greatly benefit his people. The British government, as represented by hard-nosed and hilarious press secretary Patricia Maxwell (Kristen Scott Thomas), are backing the project because they want a "positive story" from the Middle East. But it's up to Fred and Harriet to get along and attempt to make the project that works in theory to work in reality.

Kristin Scott Thomas, the butler, and Amr Waked in a Scotland scene.

The acting is top-notch, the script is excellent and charming, the character arcs are strong and believable, and it's visually appealing. (There's even a little gun-play if you can't stand seeing a movie without it.) I highly recommend it. Its theater run is all but over, so see it immediately, or have the delicious anticipation of waiting for it on DVD.

Also, who doesn't want to see Ewan McGregor in tweeds? Don't miss that opportunity.

Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol; A Review

I'll admit that I was skeptical about the newest Mission: Impossible installment, mostly because the second installment was bad enough that I didn't see the third. But I've been having a love affair with (mostly) comedic actor Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Star Trek) for many years now, so I felt compelled to override my skepticism enough to see the movie. And the truth is, no matter how...wibbly-wobbly Tom Cruise appears in his real life, I have always enjoyed his acting a great deal. (Apparently his talent lies in translating his personal intensity into his roles.)

Simon Pegg

And guess what? I loved it.

Under the direction of Brad Bird (The Incredibles), Ghost Protocol has one of the best action/humor balances I have ever seen. When humor arises, Tom Cruise generally plays the straight-man to Simon Pegg's impeccable comedic timing and mild bumblings. But it never gets overly silly or condescending, and it never pulls you out of the movie or becomes distracting. It does what it's supposed to do; it gives the audience a moment to relax and it breaks up the very intense action sequences.

The "team" is rounded out by actors Jeremy Renner and Paula Patton, and both do a fine job. I was particularly pleased that Paula Patton seemed like a normal woman as opposed to the overly sexed-up "sidekick" women that one often finds in action films. Sure she is very beautiful, but it was entirely refreshing that her sexy, sexy, sexiness was not her only asset as a team member.

Of course, no movie is perfect and Ghost Protocol is no different. At times it felt like nothing ever went right for the team, and that the whole movie was about playing catch-up to fix mistakes made in previous scenes. But this was not overly egregious and should not stop any action-lover from seeing the film.

"The Muppets" in Review

I grew up on the Muppets. I love the Muppets. In fact, The Great Muppet Caper is one of my top ten favorite movies of all time, both for its hilarity and its nostalgia.

So with glee I traipsed to the movie theater this weekend with a load of family members to see the newly released "The Muppets" starring Jason Segel and Amy Adams. For the first twenty minutes I was perfectly delighted. It was funny and energetic, and the first musical number was a jolly treat. (Despite the obvious choreography editing to keep Jason Segel from "dancing.") After that, the magic petered out a bit (with the exception of a hysterical soul searching song about being a muppet or a man). The energy dropped off significantly, the celebrity cameo's were mostly wasted, Amy Adams was underutilized with her singing and dancing talents, and Kermit was a total downer. A DOWNER! How dare he.

But even after my indignation, I think most Muppet fans will like this movie, and a lot of other movie-goers will enjoy this movie enough to make it worth the price of the ticket. And wouldn't you know, much to my dismay, the movie got a 98% fresh on RottenTomatoes.com.