olivia_sutton: (British Accents)

les_miserablesPoster

  • Les Misérables
  • Universa Pictures (2012)
  • Starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anna Hathaway, et al.

I just saw the film of Les Miserables and I LOVED it! It’s incredible! I’ve seen it on stage twice, once in Milwaukee WI and once in Grand Rapids MI (both touring shows). I also have the original Broadway Cast Recording. So yes, I love the musical. And when you lovesomething that’s made into a major motion picture (or announced to be one) your, or at least, mybiggest concern was — Would they mess it up?

Theydidn’t mess it up! I had two major concerns: would the cast be able to sing? Especially the leads.  And would the staging work? It’s not uncommon for films of musicals, especially these days, to take the ability to cut and use close-ups and over-do it. I’m happy to report neither of these concerns were realized.  It other words, the film was brilliant and I must buy it on DVD.

HughJackman was BRILLIANT as Jean Valjean. Absolutely brilliant! And can he sing! Oh, my god, can he! His voice was just brilliant and
his role very emotional. By about halfway through the film, I was crying just about any time he began to sing. Jackman was brilliant, and really, really deserves an Oscar. (As a side note, Why is it that you get SO MANY Oscar worthy performances in a single year - and other years there’s nothing to watch at the movie theater, much less something worth an Oscar? This year we were blessed with Les Misérables, The Hobbit: An Expected Journey, Cloud Atlas, and the still brilliant though not typically Oscar winning The Dark Knight Rise and even The Avengers - both action with heart!).

RussellCrowe, whom I really like though I’m often not a fan of the type of action-without-thinking movies he started in was brilliant as Javert.
His delivery of his best songs, “Stars” and [spoiler alert] Javert’s Suicide, were played so brilliantly that I cried. Crowe’s delivery of his (sung) lines was different than the Broadway album I have (which is obviously a different cast, since I have the
original). It took me a few moments into the film to get used to Crowe’s delivery as Javert — but I LOVED it in the end, and yeah, I cried more than once
for Javert!

Anne Hathaway was very, very strong as Fantine. When you watch the musical on stage, or listen to it, often Fantine feels like a very
weak character. Yes, you feel sorry for her, but you’re also waiting for her [spoiler alert] to die to be frank. But Anne Hathaway makes Fantine understandable. Rather than feeling sorry
for her, I found I empathized with her. I mean, what would you do? The montage of Fantine’s fall was handled brilliantly, even though one of the vignettes from the musical was altered. (In the musical, a prostitute offers to buy Fantine’s locket and they haggle over the price. In the film, it’s a man who buys it - and Fantine barely haggles with him.) The scene of another woman taking Fantine’s hair is also brilliantly brutal in the film.

Young Cosette is beautiful and I really liked her. The young rebel boy, Gavroche is also brilliant! His big scene, is brilliant and yes I cried like a baby. (This one I don’t want to spoil, feel free to guess).

I also like Marius’ friend, Enjolras (Aaron Tveit). During the preparation for the rebellion and the scenes on the barricade my eye was constantly drawn to him. He looked familiar to me as well, but when I checked I hadn’t seen him in anything — and most of his credits were Broadway or London Stage. He helps having a theatre-trained actor in this film. Éponine (Samantha Barks) was also theatre-trained and was familiar with the musical, according to IMDB.com.

Marius and teen-aged Cosette were not as annoying as usual. Yes, as far as I’m concerned, and as far as I’ve always been concerned, the best
part of the musical play is the antagonistic relationship between Javert and Jean Valjean; and then the rebellion in Paris. The love story in the second act between Marius and Cosette has always bored me. The second time I saw it on stage, this wasn’t helped by having a perfectly awful Marius. In the film, Cosette gradually comes out of her protected shell, and though she’s obviously well-off thanks to Valjean, she’s not quite the spoiled rich brat she is in the musical. At the very end of the film, she’s got some wonderful stuff and I actually liked her. Marius, unfortunately, does come off as someone who doesn’t care about who he sacrifices to get what he wants. Or, at the very least, he doesn’t plan. I must say, though, his rendition of “Empty Chairs, and Empty Tables” was quite brilliant.  [Spoiler] I missed not having the ghosts of his dead comrades in the background.

Helena Bonham Carter (Madame Thénardier) and Sacha Baron Cohen (Master Thénardier) play their parts with relish, and a true mastery of pocket-picking. ”Dog Eat Dog” is cut, though. Their scenes, often the only humor in the entire musical, are in this version almost scary… and very bizarre. I’ve always pictured “Master of the House” as a “triumphant” scene of the bad guys celebrating their ill-gotten gains. In the film, it’s a lot more sick. (And not in a good way.)

Yes, this is a “sung” musical, meaning that nearly every line or word is actually sung, rather than acted scenes between musical numbers. For a film, this takes a bit of getting used to, but once one gets used to the idea that everyone is singing everything, it’s actually pretty cool. And it certainly adds to the emotional nature of the film and story.

I saw it in “Theater 1” the largest theater at my local movie theater and also in THX. I do wholeheartedly recommend seeing it in THX if at all possible. It is absolutely necessary to be able to hear what everyone is singing, including the company, thus having the crystal clear sound of a THX system really helps. And I will say that even with my troubles hearing high registers of voices I had few problems with Les Misérables. Part of that may have been my familiarity with the source material, but I also think the mixing and mastering of the film really helped - and the playback in THX also helped.

I cried. Well, sobbed. And more than once while watching the film. The woman on my right was crying so hard that the seats shook. And even the guy on my left cried by the end of the film. And I think that’s the best compliment the audience can give the film-makers. The theater was mostly full, though not sold out and people clapped at the end when I saw it.

I highly, highly recommend the film o Les Misérable the musical to all. It’s appropriate for children over 15. Even if you “don’t like musicals” give this one a try, you won’t be disappointed. It was brilliant!

olivia_sutton: (Woman Blog)
Catching up on several posts from my Movie Project blog.  Yes, even though I've passed my "deadline" I'm continuing the project.
The below post was posted on my Movie blog on 28 Dec 2011.
  • Title:  Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
  • Director:  Peter Weir
  • Date:  2003
  • Studio:  20th Century Fox, Miramax, Universal
  • Genre:  Action, Drama, Historical Epic
  • Cast:  Russell Crowe,   Paul Bettany, Billy Boyd
  • Format:  Color, Widescreen
  • DVD Format:  R1, NTSC

"Would you call me an aged man of war, Doctor?  The Surprise is not old.  She has a bluff bow, lovely lines. She's a fine sea bird, weatherly, stiff and fast.  Very fast, if  she's well handled.  No, she's not old.  She's in her prime." -- Captain Jack Aubrey


"This is the second time he's done this to me.  There will not be a third."  -- Captain Aubrey


"England is under threat of  invasion.  And though we be on the far side of  the world, this ship is England."  -- Captain Aubrey

I loved this movie the first time I saw it, and I really do enjoy it every time I re-watch it.  Peter Weir is a very talented director, who manages to balance the large scale, such as full-on battles between tall ships during the Napoleonic Wars, and the more intimate story of the unlikely friendship between the ship's doctor, a man of science; and the ship's captain, a life-long Navy man.

Master and Commander is set in 1805, and the HMS Surprise is a man o'war, captained by Jack Aubrey, a hard but fair man, lucky, but also experienced.  He's been in the service his entire life.  The ship's doctor is Stephen Maturin, - a man of  science, and a naturalist.  He's close enough friends with Aubrey to be able to challenge him, and speak his mind, especially when talking to Aubrey as his friend, rather than as a member of  the crew.  The film is based on a series of  several novels by Patrick o'Brian, specifically the two that form the film's compound title (the first introduces the characters, the second is the plot of  the film, since Weir wanted to do a plot involving a long sea voyage).

The film contains a lot of  beautiful historical details (I love the look of  the ship, especially when Aubrey stands alone on the top of a mast).  However, the film also doesn't shy away from the brutal historical facts of the life of sailors, especially naval sailors in the 19th century.  The crew of  HMS Surprise is shockingly young, and as the British are at war with France, the young die too.  We also see Aubrey order the flogging of a disrespectful sailor, not because he is cruel, but to keep discipline.  Life in his majesty's navy is tough, nasty, and often short -- and the film shows you that.

The plot of  the film is basically that of a cat and mouse game.  A French privateer frigate is harassing British whalers and merchant ships.  Aubrey is ordered to find the ship and - "sink, burn, or take her as a prize" as the film's opening printed narration tells the audience.  But the frigate vastly outguns the Surprise -- 44 guns to 28, with twice the crew, and the frigate has two decks to the man o'war's single deck.   The frigate also seems to be a cross between a ghost, a Flying Dutchman, and Jack's opposite number.  In two engagements, the Surprise is caught nearly unaware, and the frigate has the "weather gauge" or the advantage in the engagement.  In their final battle, Aubrey turns the tables and is able to successfully surprise the frigate, but at a high cost in lost men.

A secondary plot is the ship's doctor, a naturalist.  Because of  the damage done to the ship, in both the battles with the frigate and a journey around Cape Horn in a storm, one place Aubrey takes the ship during repairs is the Galapagos -- someplace Stephen would dearly like to explore, to collect and document new species of  wildlife.  But every time it looks like the ship might head there - the frigate shows up, and Aubrey must fight.

There is also a plot about one of  the Midshipmen being cursed as a "Jonah".  Basically, he's scapegoated for the ship's run of  bad luck.  He's the Midshipman whom another sailor disrespects, and gets lashed as a result.  The scapegoat plot is one of  several examples showing the innate superstition of  the sailors.  The Midshipman commits suicide, and the ship's luck begins to turn.  Though, Dr. Maturin is accidentally shot after the poor lad's death.  (Maturin is shot by one of  the Royal Marines who's taking pot shots at a following albatross.  Obviously, the guy never read "The Rime of  the Ancient Mariner").  Aubrey temporarily gives up his chase of  the frigate, so Maturin can be brought ashore to remove the bullet and cloth in his stomach.  Stephen does the surgery himself, using a mirror, and Aubrey keeps a hand on Maturin's belly to steady him.  It's one of  the more frightening scenes in the film - not that it's overly gross, but can you imagine operating on yourself?  Even if  it's the only way to survive?  Yikes!

The final battle is total chaos, then silence, then more chaos.  Aubrey looks fine, and in his element as he boards the enemy vessel.  Billy Boyd is also quite good in the scene!  For the most part, he's seen alot but doesn't get many lines, but it is nice to see him again.   Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany are perfectly cast, and have a great rapport with each other.  The rest of  the crew of  the HMS Surprise slowly move from faces to having personalities.

One thing both Aubrey and Maturin share is a love of  music.  Aubrey plays violin and Maturin the cello; and there duets in the captain's cabin are some of  the best moments in a film that is full of  excellent moments.

Again, Weir's direction really is very, very good -- and he's now one of  my favorite directors.  There are plenty of  gorgeous shots in this film:  the ship at full sale, the creatures in the Galapagos Islands, etc.  There are also plenty of  terrifying shots:  the storm around Cape Horn, the battle scenes.  But the driving force of  the story is the friendship of Aubrey and Maturin; and the comradeship between the sailors on the ship.

I have the two-disc collector's edition and it really is a beautiful DVD set.   The set looks like old parchment, with line drawings of  Crowe and the ship.  The special features are located on the second disc and there are plenty of  them and they are enjoyable to watch.  I also found that I learned from the special features, especially about the different techniques used in the production of  the film.

Recommendation:  See it!
Rating:  5 of 5 Stars
Next Film:  Monty Python and the Holy Grail

olivia_sutton: (Woman Blog)
  • Title:  L.A. Confidential
  • Director:  Curtis Hanson
  • Date:  1997
  • Studio:  Warner Brothers, Regency Entertainment
  • Genre:  Drama, Mystery, Film Noir
  • Cast:  Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, Kim Basinger, Danny DeVito, David Straithairn, Simon Baker (Credited as Simon Baker Denny)
"Come to Los Angeles... there are jobs a plenty and land is cheap..."  -- Sid Hudgens (Danny DeVito)

"I admire you as a policeman, particularly your adherance to violence as an adjunct to the job." -- Police Captain Dudley Smith to Lt. Bud White

"How's it going to look in your report?" -- Det. Lt. Exley
"It'll look like justice.  That's what the man got, justice." -- Lt. Bud White

LA Confidential is a brilliant modern film noir.  The film weaves deep layered characters into a complex plot of police corruption, graft, drugs, and murder.  All the actors give brilliant performances.  Russell Crowe, in an very early role, is Lt. Bud White, police captain Smith's "enforcer" with a soft spot for abused women.  Watching his journey from tough guy and bruiser to someone who actually starts to figure out what's going on and who stops just following orders and starts to think -- even when solving the case leads right back to the police department -- is a joy in this film.  Guy Pearce is the college-educated "new cop" who isn't afraid to testify against other dirty cops, as long as it allows him to get ahead.  But he too has to make decisions -- does he "do what he's told, and reap his reward" or does he follow a more difficult path and expose the corruption he and Bud have uncovered?  And brilliant as always Kevin Spacey as "Hollywood Jack" Vincennes, who's a technical advisor on the TV cop drama "Badge of Honor" (think "Dragnet") and partners with tabloid reporter Sid Hudgens (Danny Devito) accepting payments to pass along info about upcoming busts so the reporter can photograph them.  Sid, a pioneer in bottom-feeding tabloid journalism, and publisher of the tabloid "Hush-Hush" regularly gives Vincennes gifts and bribes, as well as passing along information.

The film weaves a complicated plot, starting with the beating, in the LA lock-up of several Mexican-Americans, resulting in the expulsion of several bad cops and meeting our characters and seeing how they react.  Vincennes is  transferred between departments and temporarily taken off  "Badge of Honor" as Technical Advisor.  White refuses to roll on his partner, or become a snitch.  Exley not only offers up info as a snitch, but gives advice on how to get to other cops, though this gets him a promotion - it doesn't endear him to the other cops.  After "Bloody Christmas" but before the trial even starts, there's a mass shooting at the Nite Owl coffee shop, one of the victims is White's disgraced partner.  The hunt for the killers leads to three young black men, who are brought in, questioned, escape, and then are caught again and killed.

However,  all three of our main characters soon realize that the three men, though guilty of kidnapping and raping a young Mexican girl, aren't guilty of the Nite Owl killings.  And, again, the investigation, though it also involves a millionaire who's running a high-class call girl outfit of girls "cut to look like movie stars" and heroin, ultimately leads right back to the police department.  I don't want to spoil the ending for those of you reading this who haven't seen this brilliant Noir film.

This film starts with a sarcastic voice-over, by Danny Devito, describing the bright, sunny, perfect California that's being sold as an image -- only to expose a dark, dirty, and very corrupt underbelly.  Irony underlies a lot of the picture (such as showing the ground-breaking ceremony for the Santa Monica freeway "LA to the beach in 20 minutes").  But the characters also present an opening image that changes throughout the film -- Bud White starts as a tough, an enforcer, a brutal cop, albeit with a soft spot for battered women and kids, but he develops, putting together a lot of the clues leading to an explanation of  what really is going on.  Exley seems like the college-educated "new cop" who won't be able to hack it in the field - yet, he also manages to prove his smarts and his investigative chops, as well as his ability to handle violence when needed.  Vincennes, "Hollywood Jack" has somehow lost his way.  Asked, "Why'd you become a cop?" He answers, "I can't remember".  Jack is like the tough, hard-boiled, cynical protagonists of a lot of Classic Noir.  Yet, like those protagonists, his journey in the film is to discover that he can't turn a blind eye to the corruption around him any more, especially when he inadvertently causes a young male actor/hooker to get murdered.  There's more to Jack than the smoothness one first sees.

The film is set in the 1950s, but the historical detail, though there, is not at the forefront of the film.  The score is fantastic from Jerry Goldsmith's original instrument themes, to the use of period music by Johnny Mercer and Dean Martin.  The film also gets physically darker, as the characters discover the true darkness around them.

I highly, highly recommend this film.  It has brilliant acting, brilliant writing, a dense, complex plot, and the feel of a true Noir film, but made in a modern style.  The film is very intelligent -- both the writing and dialogue and the plot.  And, though violent and bloody at times, it's still quite, quite worth seeing.

Recommendation:  See it!
Rating:  5 of 5 Stars
Next Film:  League of Extra-Ordinary Gentlemen

olivia_sutton: (Petosky Stone MI)
Hi all,

Sorry to have been away so long -- my new job has taken over my life.  Anyway, I finally went and saw the new Robin Hood movie with a friend from LJs, actually.  I had a good time and it was fun.
The movie wasn't that bad -- not as bad as Kevin Cosner's Robin Hood:  Prince of Thieves  but that's kinda' like saying a Ford isn't quite as bad a a Yugo.  And actually, Robin Hood wasn't as bad as a Ford, either.

EDIT:  (7/25/2010)
Hi all,  OK, finally at home on my desktop and I can update and fix this.  I started this post ages ago, when Robin Hood came out. This is the Russell Crowe movie directed by Ridley Scott.  I started the post, then lost my connection and thought it was gone forever.  Then I just didn't have time to update.  But last time I DID update, to my surprise this post showed up, so I posted it with the intention of fixing it eventually.  Well, eventually is now.

SPOILERS - "Robin Hood - the Prequel"

The movie is basically, "Robin Hood -- The Prequel" and starts with Robin coming home from the crusades, with King Richard the Lionheart.  All is good so far.  Then Richard is killed, and Robin gets involved in a quest from a dying Knight.  He ends-up returning the Crown to England, and Prince John is named King John -- again, so far so good.  Robin then returns the Knight's sword to his ancient father, and ends-up staying, pretending to be the knight, so the knight's wife, Marion (a very feisty Gweneth Paltrow) can keep her lands.  Robin, an honorable man, soon ends-up protecting the locals who live on Marion's land.
Then the movie descends into blatant IGNORANCE of British history!!!  Seriously, I don't care how cool it looks, Mr. Ridley Scott -- get your facts right!
First -- (Bad) King John SIGNED Magna Carta!  OK.  No, ifs, ands or buts, --he did, the British Barons forced him to sign the document.  To show that he didn't is pure ignorance, and there's no excuse for it!

Please see the following link.

www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html

If you read the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John in1215, you can see the other problem that I frequently see with movies set in the middle ages, or history books about the UK for that matter -- at least in US classrooms.  The Magna Carta isn't so much the British "constitution" as a really good legal description of Feudalism.  (The UK, like Canada, has several Constitutional Documents which together provide rule of law, as well as case precedent).  And believe me
Magna Carta goes into incredible detail about Feudalism and what everyone's rights and obligations were.  Feudalism was not simply a top-down system, but rather a system of levels and for the most part your average Lord had obligations to those above himself as well as to those below himself.  The King had obligations to everyone below himself, down to the serfs (who were not slaves, btw) and merchants.  The serfs had obligations to everyone above themselves, but in practical terms only dealt with their local lord.  The lords between had obligations to their senior lord and/or the King (depending on where they were in the hierarchy) as well as their own serfs, freemen, merchants (guild members), and knights.  You can think of Feudal Europe as being like a giant corporation with the CEO at the top, a bunch of middle-level managers, then the workers at the bottom.  Lords were obligated to provide food and shelter for their people, as well as provide for the common defense.  (The castle, keep, or whatever the lord had was often used for defense -- if someone attacked the town, everyone ran to the castle, which had enough food and wine to provide for everyone during a siege and also provided defense).  The lord also had obligations to the lords above himself, and the king, normally in terms of taxes (more often in kind -- chickens, cows, sheep, linen, grain, beer, wine, wool, etc) and men (knights to defend the realm and fight in the Crusades which were going on at the time).
The barons had problems with King John (and before he was King, Prince John) for a couple of reasons.  It wasn't just the existence of taxes or that they thought taxes were too high -- it was that John forced the barons to pay the taxes in coin, not kind.  Medieval barons didn't have coin.  The Middle Ages didn't have a whole lot of coin, and what did exist was mostly war booty.  Everyone was trading in KIND, from the peasants, serfs, and freemen to the lords and barons.  So John's insistence on coin, frankly, pissed off the barons.
The second thing John did that really angered the barons was he broke his promises and also played the barons off one another.  John would promise a lord additional land and a better title -- then renege on the deal. After a while of this, the barons wised up and banded together.  They forced King John to sign Magna Carta at Runnymede.  And if you read the document, it lists, in detail, everyone's obligations to each other and all the rules of feudal society.  In great deal.  But the point is John signed Magna Carta!!!  It's ridiculous for Ridley Scott to pretend in a movie that John tore up the Magna Carta.  That's kinda' like saying the US Constitution was never signed.
Other problems with Scott's Robin Hood include that shot of the invasion of the UK by French troops -- that looked way too much like Steven Spielburg's Saving Private Ryan.  Troop carriers didn't exist in Medieval Europe!  Maybe Scott was trying to say something about history repeating itself, but it just looks wrong, and like he was copying a great movie (and not an homage' -- copying.  There's a difference.)  Also, the World War I-style helmets looked wrong, tho' someone did tell me they were possible.  And, I think the British lost that battle, rather than winning it as they did in the movie.
So -- the good:  Robin Hood does go over a different portion of the Legend, with a different background for Robin.  I liked seeing Robin coming home from the crusades and falling into a quest that would led him to become the legendary man he became.  I also liked Marion - she was well played , feisty, and it was nice to see her not immediately fall into Robin's arms, but a slowly forming friendship, then a relationship.  And Russell Crowe, as always, was fantastic.
The bad:  Ridley Scott desperately needs to sit down with a book of British history sometime.  He also needs to not copy other famous directors.  Frankly, he's a well-known director too, and he's better than that.
Overall, three out of five stars.
--Olivia

March 2019

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 12th, 2025 02:51 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios