It's rather difficult to assess these Hobbit movies; the common complaint is that Peter Jackson could have made one, spectacular, tight three-hour movie of the book and it would have been done. But instead Jackson and the team at Warner Bros. have been forcing this little book into a huge event to equal the original LOTR saga, and as such these films don't feel as effortlessly epic as the previous ones did.
To be sure, I enjoyed Desolation of Smaug a bit more then An Unexpected Journey, if only because all the set-up is out of the way and we can get to the best parts of the book, which include the terrifying journey through Mirkwood and the confrontation of Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) in the Lonely Mountain. But the second installment commits the same treason as the first, by shoving Legolas (Orlando Bloom) in our face when he was never part of the original proceedings.
The movie opens with a brief, odd prologue in the city of Bree (where if you look fast you'll spot ol' carrot chompin' Peter Jackson himself) where Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Thorin (Richard Armitage) have a meeting that basically results in Gandalf convincing Thorin to set out on this quest. We resume our journey with Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the company of dwarves as they tangle with the skin-changer Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), ferocious arachnids, wood elves, the people of Lake Town, and ultimately the dragon.
Though this films is only 8 minutes shorter then An Unexpected Journey it somehow feels a lot quicker, for the most part. There are a few major complaints I have with the film, but the barrel-river-ride is as exhilarating and as goofy as one could have hoped for and the confrontation with Smaug is one of the best scenes in cinema this year.
Mr. Cumberbatch lends both his voice and body to motion-capturing the dragon Smaug, and the result is a villain so dastardly and evil that, no matter your complaints about everything else, you'll be riveted to the spot watching him slither around the enormous treasure room of Erebor. Its one of those moments people call pure cinema, and just like Bilbo's confrontation with another mocap villain, Gollum (Andy Serkis) in the previous installment, this a scene that alone is worth the price of admission (unless you see it in IMAX 3D, in which case the price may be a bit too much).
There are also some other embellishments that work, for the most part. The part of Bard (Luke Evans) is greatly expanded to better pay off his actions in the third movie, rather then the book's method which is to introduce him right before he does one of the most important things in the story. Though it may be a little ridiculous that this man would meet with the dwarves and shepherd them to their destination, its a quibble I overlook.
Gandalf also comes face-to-face with the Necromancer (also Benedict Cumberbatch) in another of the few additional subplots I do enjoy. Gandalf does go wandering off a lot in the original book, and its nice to get some insight into what he was up to. This is one of those embellishments that enhances the story, rather then feels leaden and extraneous. Perhaps I don't mind this as much because I know its something that happens in the book, albeit off page, and perhaps if I had no familiarity with the novel I would find this stuff too much.
What I do find too much, unfortunately, is the character Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly). She is a character nowhere to be found in the Middle Earth universe, yet Jackson has fabricated her to get a female into the story. I'm fine with this; she kicks some serious ass and is pretty badass, showing up Legolas. But she is also the unfortunate cause of a love triangle between Legolas, herself, and the dwarf Kili (Aidan Turner). I may sound 10-years-old for saying this, but there is no room for a love story in this epic, at least the one Mr. Jackson and his screenwriting team have realized. Tauriel rescues Kili on more then one occasion and he falls for her, and she in turn for him after they have a weird, "cute" conversation while he is her prisoner.
Her subplot culminates in the most ridiculous image of the film, and possibly all of Jackson's Middle Earth films: as Kili lays dying from a wound he sustained (another deviation from the novel), she brings the special weed to heal him, and Kili gazes up and sees her surrounded in a magnificent glow. I wanted to boo at the screen.
The biggest complaint I have though, is that the movie called The Hobbit is not about the hobbit. Bilbo has his moment at the beginning with the spiders and rescuing the dwarves from the elves. But once the barrel ride starts, Bilbo is again regaled to nothing more then popping up every now and then to remind us he's there, until the end when he has his big face-off with Smaug.
Well wait a fucking second...why do we see this film told from Thorin, Legolas, Gandalf, and Bard's perspectives and get barely any Bilbo? HE'S THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTER! I believed Frodo's journey to destroy the ring, I believed Aragorn's struggle with accepting his place as the King of Gondor, but I have barely seen any development of Bilbo's strength and courage. Its there as the book tells it, but Bilbo is so caught up in the spectacle that we never see him develop at all. He's a flat, terribly written character who simply shows up every now and then to service the plot. Martin Freeman does all that he can in the role, but Mr. Jackson has lost sight of what this story is truly about in his epic quest to stroke fanboy boners and deliver the ultimate companion to his epic LOTR films. I said it last year and I'll say it again, THIS IS NOT LOTR! The world is not at stake (although that threat is being established); a dwarf just wants his home back (and even he's a greedy bastard as we'll see in the forthcoming final film) and this is their struggle to do so. But just because you have Bilbo doing these actions that prove he has grown in some way doesn't mean we believe it because we never saw Bilbo grow! This was a huge issue in the first film, which saw Bilbo as the focus for the first hour and then relegated him to a smaller role until Gollum time. I guess he gained his courage at the end of Part 1, but that leaves no growth for him here! I never once doubted Bilbo's abilities until the scene with Smaug, and I should have been held in more suspense before that about what Bilbo would do.
Jackson also ends the film in the stupidest cliffhanger place possible, interrupting a third act because otherwise there wouldn't be enough movie to service the third installment. I'm very tempted to show up next year to the theater, buy my ticket, sit down, and watch Smaug get taken down, which should supposedly happen in the first scenes of the film. Then I'm done.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Man of Steel (2013)
When you look at Man of Steel you can see a lot of Christopher Nolan influence: the design of the poster (listing off the multitude of stars), the dark atmosphere, even the main title is not shown until the very end as an exclamation mark, much like Nolan's other recent entries. But the main difference is, obviously, Nolan only helped create the story and produced the film, which are still key roles in the movie making business. Zack Snyder, director of 300 (2007), Watchmen (2009), and Sucker Punch (2011), takes the helm and adds his own unique touches, including obnoxious camera work and a loud, bombastic, relentless 45-minute final showdown.
Man of Steel tells us once again the story of Superman's (Henry Cavill) rise to fame, where he comes from and what makes him who he is. Superman (1978) was the first major superhero movie, and I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the story of Krypton's destruction, Superman's adoption by earthling foster parents, his times struggling in Smallville, and his eventual move to Metropolis and the Daily Planet. This is all well known, so the major question is what can this reboot bring that we don't already know?
Nothing, really, but what it does well, at least early on, is paint Superman's childhood in a much darker tone then we've seen before. Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) teaches Superman, dubbed Clark Kent, to hide his powers and not use them because he doesn't think the world is ready to know there is alien life out there. Clark has to deal with his developing powers, which include X-Ray vision and super hearing, and figure out how to control and focus his attention so he can master this powers. It's a unique take rather then Clark's usual outcast status that he is assigned.
Moreover, his journey to the fortress of solitude is a little less convenient then in past Supermans; usually he just walks north and happens upon the exact location his father Jor-El hid it (it's a fortress in previous versions, here it's a spaceship). His soul-searching wanderer recalls Bruce Wayne's similar exodus from Gotham in Batman Begins, though with Nolan and David S. Goyer in charge of the story (as they were on Begins) this does not come as much of a surprise.
Lois Lane is also wonderfully utilized, proving for once how she earned her pulitzer. Rather then conveniently being in the right place at the right time, she hunts down her leads and is able to track down Superman on her own tenacity. Usually in this story Lois isn't introduced until Clark Kent arrives at the Daily Planet, making this story development quite the shake-up to the established Superman mythology.
There's a lot to like here, but unfortunately Zack Snyder is in charge, which means its far from great. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Synder adds his own unique voice to the mix and if anything, I'm happy Mr. Nolan did not direct this; it would have been too similar to his Batman trilogy and, more importantly, too self important and full of itself.
But Mr. Snyder doesn't handle subtlety very well (a church scene frames him with a stained glass Jesus), and pitches the action at such a high pace early on that it has nowhere to go. Combined with the recent Star Trek Into Darkness I feel like our action directors have forgotten what pacing is and how to escalate an action scene in intensity. The audience needs a breather, but once the World Engine is in place everything becomes so frantic that we nary have a moment to breath.
To the movie's credit we do finally get to see what a true Superman fight looks like: pitching him against General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his army means we get plenty of super punches and millions of dollars in property damages. Hell, the amount of human casualty that occurs at the end ranks so high that it's no wonder our nation is wary of Superman at the end, and a high ranking General asks him if he can be trusted. These are cynical times he live in, and I suppose its only natural that one of the few remaining pillars of Americana be brought down with it. Many buildings are destroyed in the climax, and Superman contributes more the destruction then he does to stopping it. That still doesn't stop him from saving Lois Lane whenever she falls out of a plane.
Overall, it feels like they played their best cards first, and now there's nothing left for the sequel. How do you top the near destruction of Metropolis? Batman saved Gotham and then faced his greatest foe in the sequel. Lex Luthor is still around, yet to be introduced, but I don't know how great a villain he ultimately is. I guess we still have Kryptonite to deal with. No one fully figured that out this time around.
I guess I just really wanted to love this movie. I wanted something groundbreaking and revelatory to be done, to see Superman in a new way, and while those elements are present, I realized there's something else missing: it's not much fun. Even Nolan's Batman Begins is fun in certain elements. It doesn't bother me that a few buildings come down. It's that more buildings fall down. And more. And more. It feels like it never stops. And eventually it becomes a little depressing, and the spectacle is lost.
Man of Steel tells us once again the story of Superman's (Henry Cavill) rise to fame, where he comes from and what makes him who he is. Superman (1978) was the first major superhero movie, and I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the story of Krypton's destruction, Superman's adoption by earthling foster parents, his times struggling in Smallville, and his eventual move to Metropolis and the Daily Planet. This is all well known, so the major question is what can this reboot bring that we don't already know?
Nothing, really, but what it does well, at least early on, is paint Superman's childhood in a much darker tone then we've seen before. Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) teaches Superman, dubbed Clark Kent, to hide his powers and not use them because he doesn't think the world is ready to know there is alien life out there. Clark has to deal with his developing powers, which include X-Ray vision and super hearing, and figure out how to control and focus his attention so he can master this powers. It's a unique take rather then Clark's usual outcast status that he is assigned.
Moreover, his journey to the fortress of solitude is a little less convenient then in past Supermans; usually he just walks north and happens upon the exact location his father Jor-El hid it (it's a fortress in previous versions, here it's a spaceship). His soul-searching wanderer recalls Bruce Wayne's similar exodus from Gotham in Batman Begins, though with Nolan and David S. Goyer in charge of the story (as they were on Begins) this does not come as much of a surprise.
Lois Lane is also wonderfully utilized, proving for once how she earned her pulitzer. Rather then conveniently being in the right place at the right time, she hunts down her leads and is able to track down Superman on her own tenacity. Usually in this story Lois isn't introduced until Clark Kent arrives at the Daily Planet, making this story development quite the shake-up to the established Superman mythology.
There's a lot to like here, but unfortunately Zack Snyder is in charge, which means its far from great. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Synder adds his own unique voice to the mix and if anything, I'm happy Mr. Nolan did not direct this; it would have been too similar to his Batman trilogy and, more importantly, too self important and full of itself.
But Mr. Snyder doesn't handle subtlety very well (a church scene frames him with a stained glass Jesus), and pitches the action at such a high pace early on that it has nowhere to go. Combined with the recent Star Trek Into Darkness I feel like our action directors have forgotten what pacing is and how to escalate an action scene in intensity. The audience needs a breather, but once the World Engine is in place everything becomes so frantic that we nary have a moment to breath.
To the movie's credit we do finally get to see what a true Superman fight looks like: pitching him against General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his army means we get plenty of super punches and millions of dollars in property damages. Hell, the amount of human casualty that occurs at the end ranks so high that it's no wonder our nation is wary of Superman at the end, and a high ranking General asks him if he can be trusted. These are cynical times he live in, and I suppose its only natural that one of the few remaining pillars of Americana be brought down with it. Many buildings are destroyed in the climax, and Superman contributes more the destruction then he does to stopping it. That still doesn't stop him from saving Lois Lane whenever she falls out of a plane.
Overall, it feels like they played their best cards first, and now there's nothing left for the sequel. How do you top the near destruction of Metropolis? Batman saved Gotham and then faced his greatest foe in the sequel. Lex Luthor is still around, yet to be introduced, but I don't know how great a villain he ultimately is. I guess we still have Kryptonite to deal with. No one fully figured that out this time around.
I guess I just really wanted to love this movie. I wanted something groundbreaking and revelatory to be done, to see Superman in a new way, and while those elements are present, I realized there's something else missing: it's not much fun. Even Nolan's Batman Begins is fun in certain elements. It doesn't bother me that a few buildings come down. It's that more buildings fall down. And more. And more. It feels like it never stops. And eventually it becomes a little depressing, and the spectacle is lost.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Arrested Development: Season 4 (2013)
We're living in an age when gone-too-soon TV shows are starting to get a second go around at life. The most notable examples are Family Guy and Futurama, both shows that have been resuscitated, though the latter is being taken off life support. Arrested Development is a third example, and I guess it's no coincidence that all three shows aired on Fox, the network that also killed the beloved Firefly. I don't think any other network has cancelled so many loved shows.
One thing TV fans are learning, however, is that just because a show is returning, doesn't mean it's going to be as good as it was the first time around. Many, myself included, will agree that pre-cancelled Family Guy is a lot better then post-cancelled Family Guy, though the show just finished its 12th season and, like The Simpsons, is showing no sign of retiring. Futurama, on the other hand, is in its final season having recently been cancelled by its new home, Comedy Central. And the show's post-cancelled seasons are not the same caliber, though there are some gems.
So obviously this does not bode well for Arrested Development, which was given a second life by Netflix, where the first three seasons of the show now live. To be fair, Mitch Hurwitz, creator of the show, decided to do something new with the material, partly because he couldn't get all the actors together at the same time (some are just to busy now), and partly because he experiments with a new way of storytelling.
I won't get into too many plot points, partly because there are far too many to go over, and partly because I kind of already forgot what happened during this season. Each character gets at least one episode, and the majority get two (Lucille, Buster, and Maeby are the only characters to get one episode, and theirs are some of the better ones). There's an overarching web of plots that tie together various events at the made up festival of Cinco de Cuatro, and a couple of other locales. Each episode provides you with a piece of the larger puzzle, and it slowly all fits together to tell one super, 8 1/2 hour long narrative. And while this is a genius idea in theory, in execution it doesn't work.
One thing TV fans are learning, however, is that just because a show is returning, doesn't mean it's going to be as good as it was the first time around. Many, myself included, will agree that pre-cancelled Family Guy is a lot better then post-cancelled Family Guy, though the show just finished its 12th season and, like The Simpsons, is showing no sign of retiring. Futurama, on the other hand, is in its final season having recently been cancelled by its new home, Comedy Central. And the show's post-cancelled seasons are not the same caliber, though there are some gems.
So obviously this does not bode well for Arrested Development, which was given a second life by Netflix, where the first three seasons of the show now live. To be fair, Mitch Hurwitz, creator of the show, decided to do something new with the material, partly because he couldn't get all the actors together at the same time (some are just to busy now), and partly because he experiments with a new way of storytelling.
I won't get into too many plot points, partly because there are far too many to go over, and partly because I kind of already forgot what happened during this season. Each character gets at least one episode, and the majority get two (Lucille, Buster, and Maeby are the only characters to get one episode, and theirs are some of the better ones). There's an overarching web of plots that tie together various events at the made up festival of Cinco de Cuatro, and a couple of other locales. Each episode provides you with a piece of the larger puzzle, and it slowly all fits together to tell one super, 8 1/2 hour long narrative. And while this is a genius idea in theory, in execution it doesn't work.
Each character is so densely plotted that the show over relies on Ron Howard's narration to explain everything that's going on. And even that doesn't help because you tend to miss a sentence or two and spend the rest of the episode perplexed. For instance, matriarch Lucille (Jessica Walter) has her trial held at a bar, which was explained so quickly in the 1st or 2nd episode that my friend turned to me 10 episodes in when, again, we returned to said trial and asked, "Why are they doing this at a restaurant again?"
Now, the original seasons tend toward this habit as well; in the Pilot episode, Michael (Jason Bateman) delivers one line of dialogue to Tobias (David Cross) which prompts him to believe the boat party is pirate themed. The first time you'll probably miss that line or forget it, since you don't know the implication the first time you hear it, but the second time you know whats coming and it makes it funnier! So obviously Mitch Hurwitz is trying this out again.
But here's the problem: much of what happens this season isn't funny. That might be a heresy to some of you, but its sadly true. The original seasons of Arrested Development were funny on their own right, and only got funnier when you re-watched the episodes. I've watched the first three seasons maybe five times now, and it never gets old.
Now take this newest season: save a couple of episodes, most of what happens is either not funny or boring, and a lot of it is miscalculated. Granted this is what happens when you separate out characters, and Lindsay (Portia de Rossi) & Tobias are especially boring when filling out their own 33 minute slot. Some of these characters were never well developed and were perfectly serviceable as punchlines. But watching Lindsay date a guy with Face Blindness, or Tobias try and stage a Fantastic Four musical with recovering drug addicts wears thin when its the only plot going on.
GOB (Will Arnett) and Buster (Tony Hale) get the best episodes, as GOB becomes part of a music entourage (spoofing the HBO show) and entering into another competition with his fiercest rival Tony Wonder (Ben Stiller), as Buster receives an update to his missing hand. Maybe these characters are inherently more interesting, as GOB usually revels in a seedy underworld and Buster suffers from years of arrested development. Lindsay is simply defined by her shallowness, and Tobias by his ignorance, and neither are character traits that befit more then a couple of minutes per episode. Tobias was best showing up randomly to say something outrageous like, "I just blue myself!" Here, his Tobiasisms get overwhelming ("Ninja, please!")
I think this season could have worked with a different approach. Now of course they couldn't get all the actors together, but was it really so hard to tell us part of each character's story and move the pieces along like a Game of Thrones season? Episode by episode would check in with at least three characters and move their stories along, and the season could still serve as a puzzle box. It's nice to have a B and even a C storyline, but the structure only allows for A stories, and not all of them hold up on their own. Lindsay's Face Blindness dude would have been more forgiving in smaller doses, but having to put up with him for fifteen minutes was too much of an endurance.
The biggest sin this puzzle box season commits is the lack of conclusion. After all that buildup and all that commitment, the ending should have delivered and instead ends with a big old question mark. I guess they are hoping to get another season or even a movie, though I don't know if Netflix will act as Daddy Warbucks again. Supposedly this season cost $45 million to produce, and at $8 a month subscriber rates, I don't quite see how Netflix expects to earn its money back.
Which brings me to the final aspect of Arrested Development, Netflix's controversial distribution plan, seen in past shows Lilyhammer, House of Cards, and the werewolf series (I'm too lazy to look it up). A popular habit with Netflix is to binge watch shows; I've never been a huge fan of this practice, though I do tend to watch shows at a faster rate then the week-by-week model of television. It's especially handy for shows like 24 or Lost which can be killed by commercial breaks; the hardest part of catching up with both those shows was having to tolerate their seasons over a full period of time like everyone else.
But there's also a conversation that happens amid social media and around the water cooler over week-by-week serials. Every week I'd call up my best friends to discuss the latest happenings on 24 or Lost because something outrageous tended to occur. Just earlier this week Game of Thrones dropped the most devastating twist on the show to date, which caused Twitter to go in an uproar and YouTube to produce a video showing several horrified reactions to the proceedings. Now what if HBO gave us the whole season at once? The same horrified reactions would occur, but at different times and there wouldn't be one huge conversation happening.
The biggest problem with this distribution method is that if you're going to watch it, you're going to do it as soon as the show is released. Otherwise, you'll miss out on the conversation all your friends are having on it, and if enough time passes, you won't care. I haven't seen House of Cards, though I've heard many great things; its just been so long since the show came out that I don't care anymore. The conversation about Arrested Development is essentially over. The show came out more then a week ago, and everyone who was going to watch it has. Hell, this review might be considered too late to the conversation.
So what should Netflix do? Release one episode a week? On the one hand, fans could wait 15 weeks until all episodes are out and then binge watch them. On the other, I think too many fans couldn't wait that long and Netflix could've gotten more subscriber mileage out of four months of Arrested Development. On the other hand, a lot of fans might've decided they didn't like the current season and unsubscribed. But that's the risk you take with TV, and why so many TV shows don't survive.
I still enjoyed seeing all these characters again; it was like a big reunion with old friends I hadn't seen in nearly a decade. But sometimes its better to preserve the memories rather then ruin them by seeing what your friends have become.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Either I've forgotten how to enjoy movies or movies have forgotten how to entertain me. Maybe it's just a cynical phase brought on by overwatching too many movies. I ventured out into the world nearly two years ago and was almost completely removed from films during that time. The less I saw of them, the more I enjoyed of the ones I did see. Maybe moderation is the key, as with anything. However, I'm not selfless enough to believe its my fault.
The latest Star Trek iteration is entertaining enough, but it fails to deliver on a promised darker premise and instead of being more cerebral it settles for showing us tons of explosions. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and the rest of the Enterprise crew are back to face their greatest threat, a former Starfleet member who's gone rogue and is blowing up buildings. His name is John Harrison, he's played by Benedict Cumberbatch (who has quite the presence), and he may or may not be the eponymous Khan who has stood as Star Trek's greatest villain.
This one definitely zips along and keeps you entertained, but like most summer blockbusters, it leaves you nothing to savor after you've left. I have no complaints about the movie as it is overall, which is loud and provides viewers with plenty of entertainment. The characters are all familiar and established, which is always handy for movies like this. But the character arcs are ill defined and, as Mr. Spock would put it, quite illogical. Kirk has to learn how to take responsibility for his reckless behavior, Mr. Spock has to learn how to express his emotions, and Uhura needs to learn to stop being a nag. Probably the movie's biggest crime is it wastes Uhura with little more then fierce glances at Spock.
Abrams has become a master at making these films, but I've yet to see him put real emotional depth into any of his features. He knows he needs to put the character arcs in there, but I still feel like he doesn't know how to develop them in a natural way. These characters are defined by the action scenes instead of defining the action scenes, which makes Mr. Abrams a wizard action technician and nothing more. I fear for the forthcoming Star Wars more then I dread rewatching any of the prequel films.
It's also becoming a commonplace cliche these days for the villain to be captured and held, only to manipulate an escape. So goes The Dark Knight, The Avengers, and Skyfall, each in turn holding the villain captive in the middle. It's a fairly new cliche that has yet to wear out its welcome, and it admittedly works when the villain is terrifying enough (which is definitely the case here). Cumberbatch, though imposing, is somehow under utilized; his motivation is explained in one monologue and I honestly still couldn't tell you what was going on with those capsules.
The real problem is there is no room to build momentum. The movie starts at a frenetic pace, slows down, and then reignites that pace and never stops. Each action subsequent action scene should be larger then the last, but honestly the movie has a hard time topping Spock in a middle of a volcano while Kirk and Bones and chased down by indigenous peoples, which opens the film. I don't mind endless action, but after seeing the same action scene over and over throughout the film, I just give up caring at the end.
I have no real beef with this movie except for an explosion on my Facebook feed of friends calling this film amazing. I disagree, and while the love for this movie doesn't bother me, it does confuse me. Maybe I am getting too cynical. Maybe I've seen too many movies recently. Maybe I should take a break until The Lone Ranger comes out in a month and a half, see if I enjoy that a lot more.
On second thought, I think I can live with being a cynic.
The latest Star Trek iteration is entertaining enough, but it fails to deliver on a promised darker premise and instead of being more cerebral it settles for showing us tons of explosions. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and the rest of the Enterprise crew are back to face their greatest threat, a former Starfleet member who's gone rogue and is blowing up buildings. His name is John Harrison, he's played by Benedict Cumberbatch (who has quite the presence), and he may or may not be the eponymous Khan who has stood as Star Trek's greatest villain.
This one definitely zips along and keeps you entertained, but like most summer blockbusters, it leaves you nothing to savor after you've left. I have no complaints about the movie as it is overall, which is loud and provides viewers with plenty of entertainment. The characters are all familiar and established, which is always handy for movies like this. But the character arcs are ill defined and, as Mr. Spock would put it, quite illogical. Kirk has to learn how to take responsibility for his reckless behavior, Mr. Spock has to learn how to express his emotions, and Uhura needs to learn to stop being a nag. Probably the movie's biggest crime is it wastes Uhura with little more then fierce glances at Spock.
Abrams has become a master at making these films, but I've yet to see him put real emotional depth into any of his features. He knows he needs to put the character arcs in there, but I still feel like he doesn't know how to develop them in a natural way. These characters are defined by the action scenes instead of defining the action scenes, which makes Mr. Abrams a wizard action technician and nothing more. I fear for the forthcoming Star Wars more then I dread rewatching any of the prequel films.
It's also becoming a commonplace cliche these days for the villain to be captured and held, only to manipulate an escape. So goes The Dark Knight, The Avengers, and Skyfall, each in turn holding the villain captive in the middle. It's a fairly new cliche that has yet to wear out its welcome, and it admittedly works when the villain is terrifying enough (which is definitely the case here). Cumberbatch, though imposing, is somehow under utilized; his motivation is explained in one monologue and I honestly still couldn't tell you what was going on with those capsules.
The real problem is there is no room to build momentum. The movie starts at a frenetic pace, slows down, and then reignites that pace and never stops. Each action subsequent action scene should be larger then the last, but honestly the movie has a hard time topping Spock in a middle of a volcano while Kirk and Bones and chased down by indigenous peoples, which opens the film. I don't mind endless action, but after seeing the same action scene over and over throughout the film, I just give up caring at the end.
I have no real beef with this movie except for an explosion on my Facebook feed of friends calling this film amazing. I disagree, and while the love for this movie doesn't bother me, it does confuse me. Maybe I am getting too cynical. Maybe I've seen too many movies recently. Maybe I should take a break until The Lone Ranger comes out in a month and a half, see if I enjoy that a lot more.
On second thought, I think I can live with being a cynic.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Pain & Gain (2013)
The outrageous story behind Pain & Gain, Michael Bay's latest flic which surprisingly doesn't feature the destruction of a city, is a great morality tale of what junked-up morons will do when they think they deserve it all. This is a great story of the price of the American Dream and what it takes to achieve, and the movie even acknowledges Scarface and The Godfather as inspirations of people taking what they want.
Michael Bay has made half of a great movie. Unfortunately, its directed by Michael Bay, who never had the touch for deft and subtle storytelling.
Mark Wahlberg plays Daniel Lugo, a fitness guru bored with where he is and wanting to make it better. He enlists the help of another trainer (Anthony Mackie) and a reformed, Jesus loving ex-con (Dwayne Johnson) to kidnap a reach sandwich shop owner (Tony Shalhoub) because, well, he's a douche, and also he isn't committed to keeping his body in peak physical form.
It's a preposterous story that also happens to mostly true, and the cast really sells the material. The only weak link is a Romanian stripper played by Bar Paly, but thats because the script does her no credit. For a woman who got herself to America, she sure is dumb. This is also a black comedy, which works most of the time, though there are a few gratuitous gross-out gags (one involving pubic hair, the other a trip to the bathroom gone wrong). Overall though, there is the foundation in place for a great social satire on the American Dream.
But the script by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely is one of the laziest screenplays committed to film. The film jumps perspectives like a Game of Thrones novel, and we got long, extended voice overs from each character describing who they are and what they're thinking. Instead of letting us get to know these people, the film tells us who they are up front, and leaves no room for the relationships to be established.
Worse is Bay's style, with candy-saturated images that seem to come with the territory of setting a film in Miami. The frenetic energy is fine for an hour, but the film feels longer then the two hours it is, and you're left exhausted by the end of it (though not as a exhausted as some of Bay's other films). A more appropriate approach may have been to build the frenetic energy of the pace as the film moves along and the crimes the main characters commit become more heinous. Instead, the film starts at one pitch and maintains it throughout.
None of this should come as a shock to anyone. Mr. Bay has destroyed great material before, and why we thought this would be any better is beyond me. I got what I wanted out of Pain & Gain; its completely off the wall, and features of a story stranger then fiction. Unfortunately, Michael Bay made it, though in reality, it kind of is the perfect film for him to make.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
In Memoriam: Roger Ebert
"I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear." - Roger Ebert
On Tuesday Ebert announced on his blog that he was going to take a leave of presence, but he wasn't done. He had plans to release a revamped version of his website (which I assume will still happen), was going to fundraise for another season of At the Movies, and was ready to settle down and finally review only movies he wanted to review. Now he is gone, but his presence as a film critic will continue to permeate our culture as more and more people discover his reviews and the sharp wit, yet personal touch they each exhibited.
Ebert loved movies, and his gift was the ability to eloquently and intelligently write reviews about each and every film he saw. Whether you agreed with his overall assessment or not, you still had a blast reading what he thought anyways, and more often then not, you would see his point. Ebert's greatest contribution was his long running Great Movie series, where he would write an essay about any given film or series every other week. There are three books so far, and I suspect the final bunch will be cobbled together for a final Great Movies book.
That series, more then any other, has opened my eyes to many different films. Through that series I discovered rare gems such as The Apu Trilogy, The Decalogue, Detour, Woman in the Dunes, and Out of the Past, among countless others. Whenever I watch an old movie, I always check to see if they are among the Great Movies, not because all those movies are great, but because Ebert's essays make great companion pieces to better understand what makes this movie so special.
Of course there is his long, illustrious television career where he was co-host to a reviews show, first with Gene Siskel and then later with Richard Roeper. Before Ebert took ill in 2006 and had to leave the show, I would try and watch every show I could (they aired fairly late on Saturday), and later reveled in the huge library of reviews the At the Movies provided us. Sadly, after the show was cancelled the site shut down, and now you must search You Tube for any Siskel and Ebert reviews.
Ebert taught me the art of communicating my feelings and passions for a movie. I remember engaging in long arguments about various films with a good friend back in High School, and these were all inspired by watching Ebert banter on his show. Siskel and Ebert were a match made in heaven, and sadly none of the hosts brought in to replace them could ever quite measure up.
I knew this day was coming. It's been looming ever since Ebert took ill back in 2006. But that doesn't make it easier to realize and accept that one of the greatest critics who ever lived is gone. Critics are generally a reviled bunch, as they make their living off of measuring other people's work and judging it. And while Ebert had his share of scathing reviews, I know he enjoyed watching movies and discovering great ones more then reviewing bad ones. It's a pleasure to find a great movie and share it with a friend, and that's what Ebert did for all of us these past 46 years.
On Tuesday Ebert announced on his blog that he was going to take a leave of presence, but he wasn't done. He had plans to release a revamped version of his website (which I assume will still happen), was going to fundraise for another season of At the Movies, and was ready to settle down and finally review only movies he wanted to review. Now he is gone, but his presence as a film critic will continue to permeate our culture as more and more people discover his reviews and the sharp wit, yet personal touch they each exhibited.
Ebert loved movies, and his gift was the ability to eloquently and intelligently write reviews about each and every film he saw. Whether you agreed with his overall assessment or not, you still had a blast reading what he thought anyways, and more often then not, you would see his point. Ebert's greatest contribution was his long running Great Movie series, where he would write an essay about any given film or series every other week. There are three books so far, and I suspect the final bunch will be cobbled together for a final Great Movies book.
That series, more then any other, has opened my eyes to many different films. Through that series I discovered rare gems such as The Apu Trilogy, The Decalogue, Detour, Woman in the Dunes, and Out of the Past, among countless others. Whenever I watch an old movie, I always check to see if they are among the Great Movies, not because all those movies are great, but because Ebert's essays make great companion pieces to better understand what makes this movie so special.
Of course there is his long, illustrious television career where he was co-host to a reviews show, first with Gene Siskel and then later with Richard Roeper. Before Ebert took ill in 2006 and had to leave the show, I would try and watch every show I could (they aired fairly late on Saturday), and later reveled in the huge library of reviews the At the Movies provided us. Sadly, after the show was cancelled the site shut down, and now you must search You Tube for any Siskel and Ebert reviews.
Ebert taught me the art of communicating my feelings and passions for a movie. I remember engaging in long arguments about various films with a good friend back in High School, and these were all inspired by watching Ebert banter on his show. Siskel and Ebert were a match made in heaven, and sadly none of the hosts brought in to replace them could ever quite measure up.
I knew this day was coming. It's been looming ever since Ebert took ill back in 2006. But that doesn't make it easier to realize and accept that one of the greatest critics who ever lived is gone. Critics are generally a reviled bunch, as they make their living off of measuring other people's work and judging it. And while Ebert had his share of scathing reviews, I know he enjoyed watching movies and discovering great ones more then reviewing bad ones. It's a pleasure to find a great movie and share it with a friend, and that's what Ebert did for all of us these past 46 years.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Spring Breakers (2013)
The film stars Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine as lifelong friends who want to escape their boring, nothing town for Spring Break in Florida, because as Gomez puts it in a long voice over piece (one of many that populate the film), they have a chance to find themselves. Now, I understand how travel can transform an individual, but that usually happens on a trip where you plan to experience different cultures (even if it is just to Texas to see how the southern half lives). I don't believe going to the beach and spending a week drunk, high, and having sex will enlighten you all that much to life, though I imagine it can be a ton of fun.
Lacking the necessary funds to fuel this sort of vacation, three of the girls stick up a local chicken shack with water pistols and a mallet, and are soon on their way to St. Petersburg, Florida, which turns out to be every bit as seedy as they had hoped. A good chunk of the movie is spent watching the girls party endlessly, doing cocaine, smoking weed, getting drunk, and tempting members of the opposite sex, before their illegal activities are shut down by those killjoys, the 5-0. Lucky for this quartet, a rapper/gangster named Alien (James Franco) bails them out of jail and takes them under his wing.
This is the kind of film where you are either with the style or not having any of it, and I found Korine's montages to be brilliant in small doses, but overwhelming at 92 minutes. There's very little character development here; Gomez is the only girl with a backstory, playing the aptly named Faith, a good christian girl who secretly just wants to cut loose and party. Korine squanders an opportunity to transform Gomez's character from devout Christian to insane partier/gangster, instead letting her exit the film about midway through just before things begin to escalate.
That leaves us with Hudgens, Benson, and Rachel Korine who are all barely defined beyond their obvious psychopathic tendencies. There is one chilling scene where they recount their stick-up for Gomez, and the glee with which they reenact the events (partially encouraged by the liquor they're imbibing) is both chilling and provides the film with some of its best moments. But they barely have any arc, going from penis hungry to indulging their new killer instincts by the end. Hudgens and Benson do have the film's best scene when they are brought back to Franco's pad and turn the tables on him in a most sadistic and surprising way.
The best part about the film, though, is James Franco, who proves he is more capable as a character actor then a straight man. With cornrows and grilles, Franco's character is one you wish had more screen time, as he is one fascinating dude. The film's second half is propelled by a rivalry with an old friend (Gucci Mane), which leads to the films grisly ending. But again, the film offers us a taste of something great and pulls it out of our grasp before too long.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
The Wonderful World of Disney: Part 7
Aladdin (1992)
It's hard to objectively review Aladdin; I was as obsessed with this film as I was The Great Mouse Detective (1986) in my youth, and I've even starred in a musical theater version of it as the Sultan. I have a lot of history with this movie, so reviewing it like I would most other movies is nearly impossible. But here goes.
Set in Agrabah 1,000s of years ago, Aladdin introduces us to Aladdin the Street Rat and his pet monkey Abu, who steal bread and evade capture by the palace guards, until one day he meets Princess Jasmine. He becomes the unwitting pawn in the Royal Vizier Jafar's plan to usurp the Sultan, and acquires a magical lamp with a Genie who will help him win the Princess' heart.
This whole movie is driven by the manic, over-the-top performance given by Robin Williams as the Genie, whose wide and varied impressions are right at home in the animated world (Williams would be called upon to voice several more animated characters in similar fashion). Once again our Prince and Princess have to work out their relationship, as she only wants to be free to explore the world. Of course Aladdin will use his Magic Carpet to grant this wish, and make her fall for him. Jafar is a fantastic villain, though this movie fielded criticism from those who felt that he was the only Arab-like character in the film, with the rest leaning to a more caucasian look. I would say Jafar doesn't look Arab at all and those people are secretly racist.
Howard Ashman and Alan Menken again supply the music, which is still pretty good (Friend Like Me, Prince Ali, and A Whole New World are the highlights), but unfortunately Ashman was HIV positive and died in March of 1991, before Beauty and the Beast could be released. Tim Rice took his place, and though he is a skilled lyricist, overall the songs do not, as a whole, match up with Ashman & Menken's two previous films. The only songs written by Ashman are Arabian Nights, Friend Like Me, and Prince Ali. Howard Ashman is too often forgotten when remembering the great Disney legacy, but he supplied a unique voice to the movies he touched, and was key to crafting some of the greatest songs Disney ever produced.
The Lion King (1994)
Disney's Renaissance run arguably ends here. Though the films that follow are not bad, they do not come close to the quality of the four films that make up Disney's second strongest run since the early 40s. And the Lion King is Disney's most financially successful film to date, raking in $312 million in its initial run. Lion King is so beloved that when it was re-released in 2011 in a 3D conversion, it was no. 1 at the box office two weeks in a row, prompting theaters to extend the initial two-week run much longer. Lion King's lifetime gross (which includes an IMAX re-release in 2002) now stands at $422 million. Not too shabby.
The film is about a lion cub named Simba who is told by his father, Mufasa, that he will someday rule the land. Unfortunately his evil uncle Scar has other plans, and when Mufasa is killed in an "accident" Simba is convinced he is to blame, and flees in shame. In exile, he meets two unlikely allies and learns the meaning of Hakuna Matata, to put the past behind him. That's easier said then done, especially when the past comes back to find you.
I've made the songs a point of interest now, and Lion King's are again some of the strongest Disney has to offer. Elton John and Tim Rice collaborated to produce Circle of Life, Be Prepared, and Hakuna Matata, all great songs in their own right. There's also Can You Feel the Love Tonight, but I don't care for it too much, except when Elton sings it over the end credits. This is the last collection of consistently great songs in the Disney catalog we've seen, and while there's one exception for me personally, the rest of the films to follow are lucky if they have one memorable song.
Lion King itself is a mixed bag. While still a very good film, I feel it has some pacing issues. The first half develops at a nice pace, but when Simba grows up the film suddenly throws the plot into high gear so we can get him back to Pride Rock (his home) to face off against Scar and keep the film under 90 minutes. There are a plethora of great supporting characters including Timon (Nathan Lane), Pumbaa (Ernie Sabella) and Zazu (Rowan Atkinson). Jeremy Irons is also effectively menacing as the villain, his silky smooth deep voice shaping one of Disney's more twisted villains. The boldest stroke comes in Mufasa's death, in which Simba actually finds the fresh corpse and, crying, curls up into it. It's pretty dark for Disney, who usually deal with parental deaths in backstory (if at all), so I have to give the movie major props for addressing this issue head on. Overall, Lion King is still a strong entry into the Disney stable, and one I enjoy viewing over and over again.
Pocahontas (1995)
While Disney's "B" team was working on Lion King, the "A" team was working on Pocahontas because they thought it would be the better movie. Unfortunately taking liberties with history (especially American history) proved to be a bigger knock against Disney then the liberties they take with fairy tales. While I don't mind too much if history isn't accurately represented, I know there are those who do because they believe the rest of us are dumb enough to take it as straight fact.
The movie is about the first settlers to come to America, in search of Gold and land to settle a new English empire. Unfortunately they clash with the local natives, and they come close to the brink of war until the love of Pocahontas and John Smith save the day. So, Romeo and Juliet, accept they live (though one main character does exit the film injured).
What's really unfortunate about this film is that the characters are all pretty bland, save the raccoon, hummingbird, and dog. Those guys are awesome. But John Smith and his crew (including the absurdly villainous Ratcliffe) and Pocahontas and her people are all boring. Pocahontas doesn't want to marry the warrior even though she must because daddy said so (didn't we just see this exact storyline two movies ago?), and wants to be free, liberated and independent. Ok, so I may sound like a hypocrite, but now that Disney has ditched the bland princess angle and tried to add depth to them, they need to add MORE depth instead of just the same inherit desire over and over again. It was interesting at first with Ariel; Belle varied in a quiet and unusual way; and Jasmine had her own spunk. But Pocahontas has no personality, and just wants to be free to run around. Disney wouldn't push the envelope with its female characters until 2009, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
There's only one fantastic song here in Colors of the Wind, which is beautiful to listen to and look at. The other songs are all forgettable, though, but one great song is nothing to scoff at (its better then most movies accomplish). Overall, Pocahontas is fairly forgettable, which is a shame considering the A team was working on this.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Now here is one of Disney's underrated classics, a film that slips under most people's radars or is simply forgotten because, lets face it, this was probably one of the last books you would have expected Disney to adapt. There are very few animated films that appeal to both adults and children, and unfortunately a lot of recent animators think that means throwing jokes in that kids won't understand but adults will. What it means to me is presenting interesting themes that the kids won't pick up on, but the adults sure will. Hunchback achieves this magnificently.
Quasimodo lives in the cathedral of Notre Dame, ringing the bells and staying hidden from the rest of society because he is led to believe they will treat him like a monster. One day he ventures down and meets a gypsy named Esmerelda, who teaches him the world is not such a cruel place. Unfortunately his mentor and master, Frollo, wants to kill all the gypsies, and when Quasimodo provides refuge for Esmeralda, Frollo begins torching Paris, and one wonders where the King of France went during all this.
Frollo is one of Disney's best villains. He is motivated by greed and anger, but underneath he is also driven by a sexual repression forced upon him by his faith that begins to erupt in the presence of Esmeralda. In one of Disney's ballsiest songs Hellfire, Frollo confesses his feelings to a fireplace and wrestles with his lust as he determines he will kill Esmeralda or spare her if she accepts him. As a child I never understood what the song was about, but as an adult I have a new appreciation and understanding of it, and it makes me love the film even more.
This is coupled with another daring move on Disney's part: Quasimodo does not end up with Esmeralda, who instead chooses the handsome Captain of the Guards, Phoebus. Disney sets up the possibility of a romance between Quasimodo and Esmeralda, and there are two musical numbers about Quasi's desire for her, but alas, she chooses another, and its heartbreaking stuff. In fact, if Quasi and Esmeralda had gotten together it might have ruined the movie a little.
While I wouldn't argue that the songs are the best in Disney's catalog, I will admit to loving most of them anyway. The opening number The Bells of Notre Dame is one of my favorites, and Hellfire is one of the greatest villain songs of all time. For me, this ranks as a personal favorite, and one that you might not remember much, but when you revisit it you will have a whole new appreciation for what Disney can do.
Hercules (1997)
Leaving no stone unturned, the duo of John Musker and Roger Clements (who also directed Aladdin) turned their sights to Greek Mythology, and it's safe to say going in the less you know about Greek Mythology, the more you'll enjoy this movie. Many purists may have a hard time accepting the "bastardization" of several greek stories, but I say you know what, you only get one Disney greek mythology movie, might as well cram as many as you can in there.
Hercules opens with the birth of baby Herc to papa Zeus and Hera...yes, yes I know he isn't actually a God and is actually Zeus' son through one of the many women Zeus propagated with. And Hades is the bad guy because he's the lord of the underworld and obviously he must be the devil, though in actuality Greek Mythology had no heaven and everyone went to the underworld. But hey, someone's got to do it. Sorry, I'm getting away from the plot. Anyways, Hades is jealous because he hates ruling the Underworld, and plans to have little Herc assassinated because a prophecy says his rise to power will be thwarted by the little guy. Herc is almost turned into a total mortal but retains some God powers, and the movie follows the Superman storyline as he grows up. Danny DeVito plays a satyr named Phil who trains Herc, Pegasus shows up as Herc's horse, and he meets a spunky young lady named Meg.
Overall Hercules is one of those films thats better then you remember. There's nothing remarkable about it (the music is fairly forgettable), but its still entertaining and Hades is a fairly charismatic villain. The Meg character is also a nice twist on the damsel in distress, as her sass and armor masks her true identity. But this movie follows a Disney tradition of making actors who shouldn't sing, sing, and here we get Danny DeVito "belting" out a showstopper (he plays Phil). Disney also convinced Mel Gibson to sing (in Pocahontas) and Kirk Douglas (in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea). Robin Williams can get away with it, but not everyone else can. Sorry Disney.
We're now entering another rough patch of Disney films, as they begin to decline in quality. I will say some of the upcoming features surprised me in ways I was not expecting, but most of these films are fairly unremarkable and were a bit of a slog. Still, we're almost there. 17 films to go.
Part 8 will cover:
Mulan (1998)
Tarzan (1999)
Fantasia 2000 (1999)
Dinosaur (2000)
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
It's hard to objectively review Aladdin; I was as obsessed with this film as I was The Great Mouse Detective (1986) in my youth, and I've even starred in a musical theater version of it as the Sultan. I have a lot of history with this movie, so reviewing it like I would most other movies is nearly impossible. But here goes.
Set in Agrabah 1,000s of years ago, Aladdin introduces us to Aladdin the Street Rat and his pet monkey Abu, who steal bread and evade capture by the palace guards, until one day he meets Princess Jasmine. He becomes the unwitting pawn in the Royal Vizier Jafar's plan to usurp the Sultan, and acquires a magical lamp with a Genie who will help him win the Princess' heart.
This whole movie is driven by the manic, over-the-top performance given by Robin Williams as the Genie, whose wide and varied impressions are right at home in the animated world (Williams would be called upon to voice several more animated characters in similar fashion). Once again our Prince and Princess have to work out their relationship, as she only wants to be free to explore the world. Of course Aladdin will use his Magic Carpet to grant this wish, and make her fall for him. Jafar is a fantastic villain, though this movie fielded criticism from those who felt that he was the only Arab-like character in the film, with the rest leaning to a more caucasian look. I would say Jafar doesn't look Arab at all and those people are secretly racist.
Howard Ashman and Alan Menken again supply the music, which is still pretty good (Friend Like Me, Prince Ali, and A Whole New World are the highlights), but unfortunately Ashman was HIV positive and died in March of 1991, before Beauty and the Beast could be released. Tim Rice took his place, and though he is a skilled lyricist, overall the songs do not, as a whole, match up with Ashman & Menken's two previous films. The only songs written by Ashman are Arabian Nights, Friend Like Me, and Prince Ali. Howard Ashman is too often forgotten when remembering the great Disney legacy, but he supplied a unique voice to the movies he touched, and was key to crafting some of the greatest songs Disney ever produced.
The Lion King (1994)
Disney's Renaissance run arguably ends here. Though the films that follow are not bad, they do not come close to the quality of the four films that make up Disney's second strongest run since the early 40s. And the Lion King is Disney's most financially successful film to date, raking in $312 million in its initial run. Lion King is so beloved that when it was re-released in 2011 in a 3D conversion, it was no. 1 at the box office two weeks in a row, prompting theaters to extend the initial two-week run much longer. Lion King's lifetime gross (which includes an IMAX re-release in 2002) now stands at $422 million. Not too shabby.
The film is about a lion cub named Simba who is told by his father, Mufasa, that he will someday rule the land. Unfortunately his evil uncle Scar has other plans, and when Mufasa is killed in an "accident" Simba is convinced he is to blame, and flees in shame. In exile, he meets two unlikely allies and learns the meaning of Hakuna Matata, to put the past behind him. That's easier said then done, especially when the past comes back to find you.
I've made the songs a point of interest now, and Lion King's are again some of the strongest Disney has to offer. Elton John and Tim Rice collaborated to produce Circle of Life, Be Prepared, and Hakuna Matata, all great songs in their own right. There's also Can You Feel the Love Tonight, but I don't care for it too much, except when Elton sings it over the end credits. This is the last collection of consistently great songs in the Disney catalog we've seen, and while there's one exception for me personally, the rest of the films to follow are lucky if they have one memorable song.
Lion King itself is a mixed bag. While still a very good film, I feel it has some pacing issues. The first half develops at a nice pace, but when Simba grows up the film suddenly throws the plot into high gear so we can get him back to Pride Rock (his home) to face off against Scar and keep the film under 90 minutes. There are a plethora of great supporting characters including Timon (Nathan Lane), Pumbaa (Ernie Sabella) and Zazu (Rowan Atkinson). Jeremy Irons is also effectively menacing as the villain, his silky smooth deep voice shaping one of Disney's more twisted villains. The boldest stroke comes in Mufasa's death, in which Simba actually finds the fresh corpse and, crying, curls up into it. It's pretty dark for Disney, who usually deal with parental deaths in backstory (if at all), so I have to give the movie major props for addressing this issue head on. Overall, Lion King is still a strong entry into the Disney stable, and one I enjoy viewing over and over again.
Pocahontas (1995)
While Disney's "B" team was working on Lion King, the "A" team was working on Pocahontas because they thought it would be the better movie. Unfortunately taking liberties with history (especially American history) proved to be a bigger knock against Disney then the liberties they take with fairy tales. While I don't mind too much if history isn't accurately represented, I know there are those who do because they believe the rest of us are dumb enough to take it as straight fact.
The movie is about the first settlers to come to America, in search of Gold and land to settle a new English empire. Unfortunately they clash with the local natives, and they come close to the brink of war until the love of Pocahontas and John Smith save the day. So, Romeo and Juliet, accept they live (though one main character does exit the film injured).
What's really unfortunate about this film is that the characters are all pretty bland, save the raccoon, hummingbird, and dog. Those guys are awesome. But John Smith and his crew (including the absurdly villainous Ratcliffe) and Pocahontas and her people are all boring. Pocahontas doesn't want to marry the warrior even though she must because daddy said so (didn't we just see this exact storyline two movies ago?), and wants to be free, liberated and independent. Ok, so I may sound like a hypocrite, but now that Disney has ditched the bland princess angle and tried to add depth to them, they need to add MORE depth instead of just the same inherit desire over and over again. It was interesting at first with Ariel; Belle varied in a quiet and unusual way; and Jasmine had her own spunk. But Pocahontas has no personality, and just wants to be free to run around. Disney wouldn't push the envelope with its female characters until 2009, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
There's only one fantastic song here in Colors of the Wind, which is beautiful to listen to and look at. The other songs are all forgettable, though, but one great song is nothing to scoff at (its better then most movies accomplish). Overall, Pocahontas is fairly forgettable, which is a shame considering the A team was working on this.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Now here is one of Disney's underrated classics, a film that slips under most people's radars or is simply forgotten because, lets face it, this was probably one of the last books you would have expected Disney to adapt. There are very few animated films that appeal to both adults and children, and unfortunately a lot of recent animators think that means throwing jokes in that kids won't understand but adults will. What it means to me is presenting interesting themes that the kids won't pick up on, but the adults sure will. Hunchback achieves this magnificently.
Quasimodo lives in the cathedral of Notre Dame, ringing the bells and staying hidden from the rest of society because he is led to believe they will treat him like a monster. One day he ventures down and meets a gypsy named Esmerelda, who teaches him the world is not such a cruel place. Unfortunately his mentor and master, Frollo, wants to kill all the gypsies, and when Quasimodo provides refuge for Esmeralda, Frollo begins torching Paris, and one wonders where the King of France went during all this.
Frollo is one of Disney's best villains. He is motivated by greed and anger, but underneath he is also driven by a sexual repression forced upon him by his faith that begins to erupt in the presence of Esmeralda. In one of Disney's ballsiest songs Hellfire, Frollo confesses his feelings to a fireplace and wrestles with his lust as he determines he will kill Esmeralda or spare her if she accepts him. As a child I never understood what the song was about, but as an adult I have a new appreciation and understanding of it, and it makes me love the film even more.
This is coupled with another daring move on Disney's part: Quasimodo does not end up with Esmeralda, who instead chooses the handsome Captain of the Guards, Phoebus. Disney sets up the possibility of a romance between Quasimodo and Esmeralda, and there are two musical numbers about Quasi's desire for her, but alas, she chooses another, and its heartbreaking stuff. In fact, if Quasi and Esmeralda had gotten together it might have ruined the movie a little.
While I wouldn't argue that the songs are the best in Disney's catalog, I will admit to loving most of them anyway. The opening number The Bells of Notre Dame is one of my favorites, and Hellfire is one of the greatest villain songs of all time. For me, this ranks as a personal favorite, and one that you might not remember much, but when you revisit it you will have a whole new appreciation for what Disney can do.
Hercules (1997)
Leaving no stone unturned, the duo of John Musker and Roger Clements (who also directed Aladdin) turned their sights to Greek Mythology, and it's safe to say going in the less you know about Greek Mythology, the more you'll enjoy this movie. Many purists may have a hard time accepting the "bastardization" of several greek stories, but I say you know what, you only get one Disney greek mythology movie, might as well cram as many as you can in there.
Hercules opens with the birth of baby Herc to papa Zeus and Hera...yes, yes I know he isn't actually a God and is actually Zeus' son through one of the many women Zeus propagated with. And Hades is the bad guy because he's the lord of the underworld and obviously he must be the devil, though in actuality Greek Mythology had no heaven and everyone went to the underworld. But hey, someone's got to do it. Sorry, I'm getting away from the plot. Anyways, Hades is jealous because he hates ruling the Underworld, and plans to have little Herc assassinated because a prophecy says his rise to power will be thwarted by the little guy. Herc is almost turned into a total mortal but retains some God powers, and the movie follows the Superman storyline as he grows up. Danny DeVito plays a satyr named Phil who trains Herc, Pegasus shows up as Herc's horse, and he meets a spunky young lady named Meg.
Overall Hercules is one of those films thats better then you remember. There's nothing remarkable about it (the music is fairly forgettable), but its still entertaining and Hades is a fairly charismatic villain. The Meg character is also a nice twist on the damsel in distress, as her sass and armor masks her true identity. But this movie follows a Disney tradition of making actors who shouldn't sing, sing, and here we get Danny DeVito "belting" out a showstopper (he plays Phil). Disney also convinced Mel Gibson to sing (in Pocahontas) and Kirk Douglas (in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea). Robin Williams can get away with it, but not everyone else can. Sorry Disney.
We're now entering another rough patch of Disney films, as they begin to decline in quality. I will say some of the upcoming features surprised me in ways I was not expecting, but most of these films are fairly unremarkable and were a bit of a slog. Still, we're almost there. 17 films to go.
Part 8 will cover:
Mulan (1998)
Tarzan (1999)
Fantasia 2000 (1999)
Dinosaur (2000)
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Wonderful World of Disney: Part 6
The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
After the artistic, critical, and box office failure that was The Black Cauldron, Disney released what would become the slow return to their peak form, The Great Mouse Detective. As a child, this was my favorite film, and revisiting it again it is not hard to see why. The characters are all charming, the villain is great fun, the story is inventive, and it all builds to a killer climax. Production on this film took only one year thanks to bolstered help from computers, which expedited the animating process considerably.
The premise is a simple one: Sherlock Holmes, but as a mouse. Our hero is Basil of Baker Street (who happens to share a flat with Holmes), who is hot on the trail of the criminal mastermind Ratigan (Vincent Price). He teams up with Dr. Dawson and a little girl named Olivia whose father, an inventor, was recently kidnapped by Ratigan. Together, they set out to stop his nefarious plan of usurping the Queen's throne.
Most notable about this film is it is the first major use of CGI (though computer graphics had been employed in Black Cauldron) for the gears inside the clock tower. Seeing it now, you can recognize that they are in fact not completely painted, but its a wonder to behold and serves as one of the film's best scenes. The climax between Ratigan and Basil takes place on top of Big Ben, inside and on the face. As far as Disney goes, this stuff gets pretty intense and dark, as Ratigan beats Basil to within an inch of his life (though of course our hero is victorious).
The film was directed by a team that includes Ron Clements and Jon Muskar, and I'll be repeating their names quite a few times in the coming reviews as they are responsible for some of Disney's successes and failings. But with this feature they, along with Burny Mattinson and David Michener, have created one of my favorite Disney films, though it is not one that immediately stands out when recalling the classics.
Oliver & Company (1988)
With Disney, no stone is left unturned, so naturally we get Charles Dickens' classic Oliver Twist, but....updated to modern day New York, with most of the cast now dogs and cats? Quoi? Well, Disney usually makes the absurd possible!
Unfortunately they don't with this one. While its not altogether that bad, with some fun characters voiced by Billy Joel and Cheech Marin, its just kind of a head scratcher why this movie exists. The animals offer no new insights into the source material and, in fact, the story feels more convoluted in places. Fagin is not a cunning, master thief, making him one of fiction's great anti-heroes, but instead is a bumbling hobo (voiced by Dom DeLuise) who has a huge debt with the formidable Sykes. This character serves no purpose except to give the film an exciting climax, though he does have the most shocking villain death in Disney...ever. Instead of merely falling to his death, he is plowed head on by a train. Pretty brutal.
The rest of the movie has its moments, though. The opening is a sad little story of a kitten that gets left in the adoption box, Billy Joel's Dodger gets a fun musical number, and the relationship between Jenny and Oliver is sweet. But overall, this film is more for kids then adults, and even then it goes to some dark places in the end that may only be appropriate for kids no longer interested in seeing it.
The Little Mermaid (1989)
Disney Animation had struggled ever since Walt Disney's death in 1967. The department came close to shutting down and their films became bigger and bigger failures as time went on. Yet sometimes all the elements come together at the right place and the right time, and lightning strikes like you never thought it could.
I think the biggest reason Little Mermaid is such a huge success is because of the songs by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken. The movie itself is still a fairly decent retelling of the Hans Christian Andersen fairytale, albeit without the Little Mermaid dying at the end. There's a spectacular villain in the form of Ursula (Pat Carroll) and this marks the first time in Disney Animation that the Prince and Princess do not immediately fall in love with each other. Well, Ariel is immediately taken with the Prince, but she has to work to get him to like her (without her beautiful singing voice). And there are great supporting characters in the form of Sebastian, Flounder, and Scuttle. Unfortunately, the Prince (who does have a name, Eric) is still pretty bland, but you can't have everything.
But my God, the songs! Part of Your World, Under the Sea, Poor Unfortunate Souls, and Kiss the Girl. You know at least two of those songs, and you would easily recognize the others if you heard them. Not since The Jungle Book in 1967 has there been a collection of songs this good. The showstopper, of course, is Under the Sea, which will have you smiling and will brighten your day. Howard Ashman supplied the fun, creative lyrics, and if you don't know his name, there's a good reason for that which we'll touch on later. Still, before this he wrote the lyrics for the musical version of Little Shop of Horrors (1986), which also features a slew of great songs.
All these elements combined to make this film a rousing success for Disney. It took in $84 million and was ranked number 13 at the box office in 1989. It revived Disney Animation and ushered in the Renaissance period, where some of the company's best work was put out. Lastly, it was directed by Ron Clements and Jon Musker, who got their directorial kick-off with The Great Mouse Detective and brought the studio huge returns 3 years later. It's a delightful film, and the fact that it even got made is nothing short of a miracle.
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Many forget that this film counts as one of the official Disney canon films. It's the only sequel from the Disney Animation department, and it comes from one of the worst Disney films. But surprisingly it becomes one Disney's better efforts, a mildly entertaining continuation of the adventures of Bernard (Bob Newhart) and Miss Bianca (Eva Gabor).
A young boy in Australia (who is not Australian, I might add. Must have moved from LA) is kidnapped by the menacing poacher McLeach (George C. Scott) because the boy, Cody, knows the whereabouts of a very rare bird, the Golden Eagle, and her egg nest. So its Miss Bianca and Bernard to the rescue as they commandeer another Albatross (this time voiced by John Candy) down under. Along the way they meet a helpful Aussie mouse named Jack, a pack of sadistic nurse mice (in one of Disney's strangest scenes) and of course, the golden eagle Marahute.
It's a fairly short film, but its a lot better then the first outing, with more energy and better characters. The villains morals are fairly scrambled, as he is prepared to feed Cody to the Crocodiles multiple times before something interrupts him. That's said, its still a fun little adventure, and I imagine the opening scene plays very well on the big screen. Its one of those fantastical moments infused with a bit of Disney magic, before it gets mired down in convention.
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Arguably, this is the best Disney film since the studio's founder passed on. I'm not counting Pixar, I'm talking strictly about films that have come out of the Disney Animation department. None have done it better then this.
The main character, Belle, doesn't only dream of marrying a prince, she's more interested in reading her books (which does involve a princess meeting her Prince Charming). The villain Gaston is not evil to his core, he's just a vain, stuck up individual who gets insanely jealous at the end. The Beast is also a vain creature, but his horrifying transformation has humbled him, and the idea of romance between our two characters is out of the question. And, once again, the songs are all fantastic.
Be Our Guest. Beauty and the Beast. Gaston. Something There. Belle. The Mob Song. All of these are fantastic numbers, and I can't think of too many musicals that can boast such an impressive line-up of songs. Once again this comes from the minds of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken hard at work, and it takes a good fim and it makes it great. Anyone who knows me well knows I love singing along to Be Our Guest. It's Disney's best song, in my opinion.
And the fact that Belle and the Beast have to work their relationship is, while obvious considering he's a monster, a refreshing take on Disney's tired Princess formula. True he turns into a human at the end, but she truly cares for him and at this point its a little added bonus. Most Disney films going forward would let the relationships between their characters build, instead of automatically assigning them the role of couple straight away. Rounding out the film is a cast of fantastic supporting characters, including the candlestick Lumiere, Cogsworth the Clock, Mrs. Potts, LeFou, and many others. This is Disney at its best, like it hadn't been seen since 1940, and like we may not see until 2042.
Part 7 will cover:
Aladdin (1992)
The Lion King (1994)
Pocahontas (1995)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Hercules (1997)
After the artistic, critical, and box office failure that was The Black Cauldron, Disney released what would become the slow return to their peak form, The Great Mouse Detective. As a child, this was my favorite film, and revisiting it again it is not hard to see why. The characters are all charming, the villain is great fun, the story is inventive, and it all builds to a killer climax. Production on this film took only one year thanks to bolstered help from computers, which expedited the animating process considerably.
The premise is a simple one: Sherlock Holmes, but as a mouse. Our hero is Basil of Baker Street (who happens to share a flat with Holmes), who is hot on the trail of the criminal mastermind Ratigan (Vincent Price). He teams up with Dr. Dawson and a little girl named Olivia whose father, an inventor, was recently kidnapped by Ratigan. Together, they set out to stop his nefarious plan of usurping the Queen's throne.
Most notable about this film is it is the first major use of CGI (though computer graphics had been employed in Black Cauldron) for the gears inside the clock tower. Seeing it now, you can recognize that they are in fact not completely painted, but its a wonder to behold and serves as one of the film's best scenes. The climax between Ratigan and Basil takes place on top of Big Ben, inside and on the face. As far as Disney goes, this stuff gets pretty intense and dark, as Ratigan beats Basil to within an inch of his life (though of course our hero is victorious).
The film was directed by a team that includes Ron Clements and Jon Muskar, and I'll be repeating their names quite a few times in the coming reviews as they are responsible for some of Disney's successes and failings. But with this feature they, along with Burny Mattinson and David Michener, have created one of my favorite Disney films, though it is not one that immediately stands out when recalling the classics.
Oliver & Company (1988)
With Disney, no stone is left unturned, so naturally we get Charles Dickens' classic Oliver Twist, but....updated to modern day New York, with most of the cast now dogs and cats? Quoi? Well, Disney usually makes the absurd possible!
Unfortunately they don't with this one. While its not altogether that bad, with some fun characters voiced by Billy Joel and Cheech Marin, its just kind of a head scratcher why this movie exists. The animals offer no new insights into the source material and, in fact, the story feels more convoluted in places. Fagin is not a cunning, master thief, making him one of fiction's great anti-heroes, but instead is a bumbling hobo (voiced by Dom DeLuise) who has a huge debt with the formidable Sykes. This character serves no purpose except to give the film an exciting climax, though he does have the most shocking villain death in Disney...ever. Instead of merely falling to his death, he is plowed head on by a train. Pretty brutal.
The rest of the movie has its moments, though. The opening is a sad little story of a kitten that gets left in the adoption box, Billy Joel's Dodger gets a fun musical number, and the relationship between Jenny and Oliver is sweet. But overall, this film is more for kids then adults, and even then it goes to some dark places in the end that may only be appropriate for kids no longer interested in seeing it.
The Little Mermaid (1989)
Disney Animation had struggled ever since Walt Disney's death in 1967. The department came close to shutting down and their films became bigger and bigger failures as time went on. Yet sometimes all the elements come together at the right place and the right time, and lightning strikes like you never thought it could.
I think the biggest reason Little Mermaid is such a huge success is because of the songs by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken. The movie itself is still a fairly decent retelling of the Hans Christian Andersen fairytale, albeit without the Little Mermaid dying at the end. There's a spectacular villain in the form of Ursula (Pat Carroll) and this marks the first time in Disney Animation that the Prince and Princess do not immediately fall in love with each other. Well, Ariel is immediately taken with the Prince, but she has to work to get him to like her (without her beautiful singing voice). And there are great supporting characters in the form of Sebastian, Flounder, and Scuttle. Unfortunately, the Prince (who does have a name, Eric) is still pretty bland, but you can't have everything.
But my God, the songs! Part of Your World, Under the Sea, Poor Unfortunate Souls, and Kiss the Girl. You know at least two of those songs, and you would easily recognize the others if you heard them. Not since The Jungle Book in 1967 has there been a collection of songs this good. The showstopper, of course, is Under the Sea, which will have you smiling and will brighten your day. Howard Ashman supplied the fun, creative lyrics, and if you don't know his name, there's a good reason for that which we'll touch on later. Still, before this he wrote the lyrics for the musical version of Little Shop of Horrors (1986), which also features a slew of great songs.
All these elements combined to make this film a rousing success for Disney. It took in $84 million and was ranked number 13 at the box office in 1989. It revived Disney Animation and ushered in the Renaissance period, where some of the company's best work was put out. Lastly, it was directed by Ron Clements and Jon Musker, who got their directorial kick-off with The Great Mouse Detective and brought the studio huge returns 3 years later. It's a delightful film, and the fact that it even got made is nothing short of a miracle.
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Many forget that this film counts as one of the official Disney canon films. It's the only sequel from the Disney Animation department, and it comes from one of the worst Disney films. But surprisingly it becomes one Disney's better efforts, a mildly entertaining continuation of the adventures of Bernard (Bob Newhart) and Miss Bianca (Eva Gabor).
A young boy in Australia (who is not Australian, I might add. Must have moved from LA) is kidnapped by the menacing poacher McLeach (George C. Scott) because the boy, Cody, knows the whereabouts of a very rare bird, the Golden Eagle, and her egg nest. So its Miss Bianca and Bernard to the rescue as they commandeer another Albatross (this time voiced by John Candy) down under. Along the way they meet a helpful Aussie mouse named Jack, a pack of sadistic nurse mice (in one of Disney's strangest scenes) and of course, the golden eagle Marahute.
It's a fairly short film, but its a lot better then the first outing, with more energy and better characters. The villains morals are fairly scrambled, as he is prepared to feed Cody to the Crocodiles multiple times before something interrupts him. That's said, its still a fun little adventure, and I imagine the opening scene plays very well on the big screen. Its one of those fantastical moments infused with a bit of Disney magic, before it gets mired down in convention.
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Arguably, this is the best Disney film since the studio's founder passed on. I'm not counting Pixar, I'm talking strictly about films that have come out of the Disney Animation department. None have done it better then this.
The main character, Belle, doesn't only dream of marrying a prince, she's more interested in reading her books (which does involve a princess meeting her Prince Charming). The villain Gaston is not evil to his core, he's just a vain, stuck up individual who gets insanely jealous at the end. The Beast is also a vain creature, but his horrifying transformation has humbled him, and the idea of romance between our two characters is out of the question. And, once again, the songs are all fantastic.
Be Our Guest. Beauty and the Beast. Gaston. Something There. Belle. The Mob Song. All of these are fantastic numbers, and I can't think of too many musicals that can boast such an impressive line-up of songs. Once again this comes from the minds of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken hard at work, and it takes a good fim and it makes it great. Anyone who knows me well knows I love singing along to Be Our Guest. It's Disney's best song, in my opinion.
And the fact that Belle and the Beast have to work their relationship is, while obvious considering he's a monster, a refreshing take on Disney's tired Princess formula. True he turns into a human at the end, but she truly cares for him and at this point its a little added bonus. Most Disney films going forward would let the relationships between their characters build, instead of automatically assigning them the role of couple straight away. Rounding out the film is a cast of fantastic supporting characters, including the candlestick Lumiere, Cogsworth the Clock, Mrs. Potts, LeFou, and many others. This is Disney at its best, like it hadn't been seen since 1940, and like we may not see until 2042.
Part 7 will cover:
Aladdin (1992)
The Lion King (1994)
Pocahontas (1995)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Hercules (1997)
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
In Defense of the Academy Awards
This year there was an interesting addition to the short film packages in theaters: winners from last year's Oscars spoke at length about their process, what it was like winning an Oscar, and what it meant. The winner for Best Live Action Short last year made an interesting observation: when he was nominated, he was elated, and thought this was the best moment of his life. But a month later, at the ceremony, all he could think was he better win the damn thing.
In the 24 hours since the ceremony has ended, I've been reading a lot of various ops about Seth MacFarlane's hosting job (which seems to be getting a lot of hate) and how racist the Academy has become awarding the two white people from Django (Tarantino and Waltz) and not even recognizing the African-American cast, or sexist for not nominating Bigelow for a direction (even though she WON three years ago). Then there are those complaining about the apparent snubs of Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty, which were both frontrunners at one time or another. To everyone complaining, I would just like to say: get over yourself.
The Oscars are of course highly flawed and mostly predictable (hell, I got 18 right, and some of my friends did better). If the Oscars were the only awards show in town, I wonder what would have really won. If we didn't have Golden Globes and Guild awards to fill the time in January and February leading up to the big show. The Oscars are informed by the Guilds, but this year the Oscar nominations were announced two weeks earlier then usual, before most of the guilds had announced their nominations, and the Academy had to think for itself.
What happened? Well, they only shared two directing nominations with the DGA (which is usually a helpful indicator, but this year was useless), and nominated Beasts of the Southern Wild for a whole slew of stuff which wasn't really seen anywhere else. That was surprising and unexpected. And then Affleck was snubbed and the pity party began. I wonder if Argo would have won if the guilds hadn't handed Argo all their awards first.
Yes, the Oscars are flawed. But so what. Nothing's perfect. What I really want to touch on is MacFarlane. I thought he did a fine job as host: the Shatner opening went on way too long, but MacFarlane delivered his jokes, no matter how offensive they seemed, and smiled whether they landed or not. But no one is ever satisfied. MacFarlane was too offensive and rude, singing about boobs and making jokes about Daniel Day-Lewis being so into his role that he would try and free Don Cheadle. Boo-fucking-hoo. Last year, Billy Crystal was host, and I liked him too. But gosh, apparently he was too boring and safe, not taking any risks and just rolling with the program.
Hosting is difficult, and I don't like every host. Martin & Baldwin and Hathaway & Franco marked two of the worst years for the ceremony ever because they had no shared chemistry. The pairing can work, but only if the hosts are someone like Amy Poehler and Tina Fey. And while I'm not saying we shouldn't judge our Oscar hosts, I'm thinking maybe we are more critical of them then just about anything else.
Though of course then there's the question of the winners. A lot of people complain because the Oscars don't choose what me and my friends liked. Apparently they're out of touch and don't like rewarding the big money makers anymore. I'd say that problem is more of a Hollywood issue then an Oscar issue; if Hollywood would put out more great, popular material like they once did, then maybe the box office and Oscar divide would be less vast. The top 5 grossing movies of 2012 were, in order, The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, Skyfall, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. In 2011 they were Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Transformers, Dark of the Moon, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part I, The Hangover Part II, and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. We all have our opinions (I love Skyfall), but each set of 5 are probably not all the best 5 of the year. Especially 2011, holy crap was that a bad year.
What really matters is your opinion. Hell, its great when your favorite is nominated and even better if it wins, but how often does Best Picture line up with your best of the year? Last time I did was in 2007. But I still enjoy the show and I enjoy the filmmakers getting the chance to stand in the spotlight and say a few words. The Oscars are the only American broadcast show that honor many technical achievements, such as Editing, Cinematography, and Sound Design. They also honor Short Films, shining a light on works that we would otherwise might not ever hear of. I care who wins because I make predictions and enter into a contest with my friends, and when my picks aren't right, I'm disappointed. But only fleetingly. Once the show is over and I have my tally, I'm content. I make it a game.
People, stop taking the Oscar picks so personally. You know what you like. You know what the best film of the year was for you. Are you really so insecure that you're going to get upset if a bunch of old racist, sexist white guys don't pick yours to win (or even nominate it)? I love movies, and I'm grateful that there is one show a year that takes the time to honor the masters of their craft, that pays tribute to cinema's rich history. The Oscars can take themselves too seriously and thats why I appreciated MacFarlane. He was relaxed and called attention to the spectacle. The alternative is the MTV Movie Awards, which named Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 as movie of the year.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
The 85th Annual Academy Awards
Another year has come and gone, and I had my best ever year in Oscar predictions! Hooray, especially when I feared this year would be my worst in a while.
The show itself ran over 35 minutes thanks to tons of musical performances. This year was a tribute to the musicals, and boy did we get our share. Performers from Chicago (2002), Dreamgirls (2006), and Les Miserables (2012) belted out the showstopping tunes, though there are better movie musicals they could have used. Where was Singin' in the Rain (1952), arguably the best movie musical of all time? I know that movie was shunned, but the Oscars usually have no shame parading classics, even if they didn't reward them at the time.
MacFarlane was a capable host, and a fantastic singer. Always sporting a smile, it was hard not to like him, even if it felt like he was reaching at times. His opening bit with Shatner was a bit odd, but the Boobs song was bold and inspired, and he kept the energy going throughout the night, even singing a closing song over the end credits after Best Picture. Helped bring some closure to the show, which usually just randomly ends.
There was also a tribute to Bond, which I loved of course, and a member of my alma mater represented on the Oscar stage handing out statues. Jennifer Lawrence did a face plant, and Russell Crowe sang live (though he wasn't that bad). The show ran long, so my only advice would be to try and bring it back to 3 hours like last year. For instance, Shirley Bassey could have sung Goldfinger under the Bond montage and Babs could've sung The Way We Were under the In Memoriam instead of singing it after the fact. Little things like that would have saved about 5 minutes.
But I digress. Here now are my predictions matched with what won.
Original Screenplay
Prediction: Amour
Winner: Django Unchained
Adapted Screenplay
Prediction/Winner: Argo
Visual Effects
Prediction/Winner: Life of Pi
Sound Mixing
Prediction/Winner: Les Miserables
Sound Editing
Prediction: Life of Pi
Winners: Zero Dark Thirty and Skyfall
Live Action Short Film
Prediction/Winner: Curfew
Animated Short Film
Prediction/Winner: Paperman
Production Design
Prediction: Anna Karenina
Winner: Lincoln
Original Song
Prediction/Winner: "Skyfall" from Skyfall
Original Score
Prediction/Winner: Life of Pi
Makeup and Hairstyling
Prediction/Winner: Les Miserables
Foreign Language Film
Prediction/Winner: Amour
Film Editing
Prediction/Winner: Argo
Documentary Short
Prediction: Open Heart
Winner: Inocente
Documentary Feature
Prediction/Winner: Searching for Sugar Man
Directing
Prediction/Winner: Life of Pi
Costume Design
Prediction/Winner: Anna Karenina
Cinematography
Prediction/Winner: Life of Pi
Animated Feature
Prediction: Wreck-It Ralph
Winner: Brave
Supporting Actress
Prediction/Winner: Anne Hathaway in "Les Miserables"
Leading Actress
Prediction/Winner: Jennifer Lawrence in "Silver Linings Playbook"
Supporting Actor
Prediction: Robert DeNiro in "Silver Linings Playbook"
Winner: Christoph Waltz in "Django Unchained"
Leading Actor
Prediction/Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis in "Lincoln"
Best Picture
Prediction/Winner: Argo
That's all! Next year I'll try and do even better!
The show itself ran over 35 minutes thanks to tons of musical performances. This year was a tribute to the musicals, and boy did we get our share. Performers from Chicago (2002), Dreamgirls (2006), and Les Miserables (2012) belted out the showstopping tunes, though there are better movie musicals they could have used. Where was Singin' in the Rain (1952), arguably the best movie musical of all time? I know that movie was shunned, but the Oscars usually have no shame parading classics, even if they didn't reward them at the time.
MacFarlane was a capable host, and a fantastic singer. Always sporting a smile, it was hard not to like him, even if it felt like he was reaching at times. His opening bit with Shatner was a bit odd, but the Boobs song was bold and inspired, and he kept the energy going throughout the night, even singing a closing song over the end credits after Best Picture. Helped bring some closure to the show, which usually just randomly ends.
There was also a tribute to Bond, which I loved of course, and a member of my alma mater represented on the Oscar stage handing out statues. Jennifer Lawrence did a face plant, and Russell Crowe sang live (though he wasn't that bad). The show ran long, so my only advice would be to try and bring it back to 3 hours like last year. For instance, Shirley Bassey could have sung Goldfinger under the Bond montage and Babs could've sung The Way We Were under the In Memoriam instead of singing it after the fact. Little things like that would have saved about 5 minutes.
But I digress. Here now are my predictions matched with what won.
Original Screenplay
Prediction: Amour
Winner: Django Unchained
Adapted Screenplay
Prediction/Winner: Argo
Visual Effects
Prediction/Winner: Life of Pi
Sound Mixing
Prediction/Winner: Les Miserables
Sound Editing
Prediction: Life of Pi
Winners: Zero Dark Thirty and Skyfall
Live Action Short Film
Prediction/Winner: Curfew
Animated Short Film
Prediction/Winner: Paperman
Production Design
Prediction: Anna Karenina
Winner: Lincoln
Original Song
Prediction/Winner: "Skyfall" from Skyfall
Original Score
Prediction/Winner: Life of Pi
Makeup and Hairstyling
Prediction/Winner: Les Miserables
Foreign Language Film
Prediction/Winner: Amour
Film Editing
Prediction/Winner: Argo
Documentary Short
Prediction: Open Heart
Winner: Inocente
Documentary Feature
Prediction/Winner: Searching for Sugar Man
Directing
Prediction/Winner: Life of Pi
Costume Design
Prediction/Winner: Anna Karenina
Cinematography
Prediction/Winner: Life of Pi
Animated Feature
Prediction: Wreck-It Ralph
Winner: Brave
Supporting Actress
Prediction/Winner: Anne Hathaway in "Les Miserables"
Leading Actress
Prediction/Winner: Jennifer Lawrence in "Silver Linings Playbook"
Supporting Actor
Prediction: Robert DeNiro in "Silver Linings Playbook"
Winner: Christoph Waltz in "Django Unchained"
Leading Actor
Prediction/Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis in "Lincoln"
Best Picture
Prediction/Winner: Argo
That's all! Next year I'll try and do even better!
Friday, February 1, 2013
Top 10 of 2012
Last year I didn't make a top 10. This was due to a few reasons: first, my final semester of college and two-month tour of Europe deprived me of any free time with which to actually see films. Second, my funds were low due to my Eurotrip and moving to Los Angeles. Finally, 2011 wasn't a very inspired year for film, and the top 10 I had fashioned at that point was somewhat disappointing to me. Most of 2011's films are best left ignored.
2012, on the other hand, was a fantastic reawakening of the art of film for me. Hollywood put out some of its best content in years, and the indie films were just as strong. A lot of films built up hype and delivered, and there were very few let downs this year with quite a few surprises. I define a 2012 release as any film that receives a domestic US release between Jan. 1 - Dec. 31st, 2012. But lets not mince any more words. Here, now, are my top 10 films of the year 2012.
#10. Life of Pi, 127 min. PG
I've recently given up researching upcoming movies because a lot of the time you spoil the surprise and whats going to happen. So when I heard about Cabin in the Woods, and that by revealing the story you spoil the fun, I decided to not listen to anything regarding this film. But if you haven't seen it yet, too bad. Much like Scream (1996) the movie is a dissection of the horror genre, and poses the question Why do we enjoy watching young people die? We slowly watch as five college students visit the eponymous cabin, only to end up in their own zombie slasher film. Turns out they're participating in an age old ritual to please a horrifying demon that resides beneath. Where the film really delivers is in the climax; just when you think they've gone as far as they will go, they go the extra step you were hoping for. It's a violent film, but also glorious, and in the end, do we really want to go on living just to appease angry demon gods?
#8. Silver Linings Playbook, 122 min. R
This offbeat family dramedy from David O. Russell was another pleasant surprise, coming out of Toronto with the audience award. Bradley Cooper stars as a recently released mental patient who believes he can repair his damaged marriage. He meets-cute with another social misfit played by Jennifer Lawrence, and together they heal each other. The summary doesn't sound like much, but with a cast that includes Robert DeNiro, Jacki Weaver, and a restrained Chris Tucker, Russell delivers a tour-de-force of acting that elevates the material to a level it shouldn't be at. True, the ending is somewhat clichéd, but the real revelation here as that these characters are happy being mediocre. At their dance competition they only need to score a 5/10, and are happy with that result much to the confusion of their competitors. Maybe we've become accustomed to being mediocre, but regardless, Silver Linings Playbook is an entertaining and fascinating look into the lives of these unbalanced individuals.
#7. Zero Dark Thirty, 157 min. R
Zero Dark Thirty is the unfortunate victim of too much hype; in the months leading up to its release, early reviews and pundits were singing the praises and predicting this would take home the big gold come Oscar night. I'll be surprised if it wins anything at this point, but that speaks more the politics surrounding this film then the actual film itself. While I do not consider it an amazing achievement, its still a damn fine thriller and procedural. Director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal were already developing this film when Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, and they quickly rewrote the ending to incorporate the event. Jessica Chastain gives a fantastic lead performance as Maya, the CIA operative which the film credits as producing the information that to Bin Laden's whereabouts. The film's depiction of torture has been a hot issue surrounding the film since its release, but the film has no political agenda other then to show these events. People need to stop complaining about the film not taking a stance, because guess what, you should think for yourselves. And whether you like it or not, torture happened. Zero Dark Thirty can't change that fact. Whether it worked or not is another issue.
#6. Amour, 127 min. PG-13
As far as Michael Haneke films go, this one is pretty straightforward, though it still ends in Haneke's signature fashion of open-endedness. Jean-Louis Trintignant plays Georges, whose wife Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) slowly loses control of her mental facilities and begins to slip away. It's the subject of many a Hallmark movie, but Haneke uses a tender hand as we witness Georges' never ending dedication to his wife, even as she becomes less recognizable as herself. True love stands up to one final test, one couples vow to each other all over the world, and that is to care for each other in health and in sickness. It's a tough and heartbreaking film to watch because its the future for all of us, if we are so unlucky to live that long.
#5. Looper, 119 min. R
Time travel thrillers are always open to plot holes, and if you start looking into Looper, you'll notice them. But that doesn't stop this film from being one of the most exciting sci-fi adventures in years, with a story that spends the first hour setting up a dystopic future, and then the second hour on a farm. Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, who earns his income assassinating targets from the future. One day his target is Bruce Willis, who he recognizes as his older self, and botches the job. To say anymore would give away all the fun, but I've seen it twice and the film still holds your attention every time. Writer/director Rian Johnson has constructed a fascinating universe, and I eagerly anticipate his next release.
#4. Holy Motors, 115 min. NR
I don't even know where to begin with this one. It's such an inspired piece of cinema mania that constantly reinvents itself, and I know I'll be buying it as soon as its released on DVD. Denis Lavant gives the best performance of the year as M. Oscar, a man who rides around in a limo, adopts different disguises, and then goes out and acts wild. He starts as a beggar woman, then becomes a motion capture artist, a troll, a teenager girl's father, and several other bizarre roles. Eva Mendes is also in this in her strangest role to date (pictured above), but I wouldn't dare spoil anything for you. It's film that has to be experienced, and I look forward to sharing it with all my friends.
#3. Argo, 120 min. R
Ben Affleck has become one of Hollywood's finest directors. What he crafts is not necessarily high art, but its damn fine popcorn entertainment and thats just as hard to do. Argo is the retelling of the Iran hostage crisis, as six fugitive American diplomats hole up in the Canadian Prime Minister's house during the overthrow of the Shah. Ben Affleck miscasts himself as Tony Mendez (the real guy was hispanic), the CIA operative who comes up with the absurd plan of making a fake movie to get the hostages out. True the film isn't an accurate depiction of what happened, and there's a failed subplot involving Affleck's son, but the film balances comedy with drama, and ratchets up the tension in a finale so fierce that the audience lets out a collective sigh of relief when its all over. Affleck may take creative liberties, but hey, its Hollywood, that's what they do, so quit whining.
#2. Moonrise Kingdom, 94 min. PG-13
Wes Anderson's latest is a charming tale of two young lovers who escape their homes to find their own bit of paradise, which ensues in an island-wide hunt for the youngsters led by Bruce Willis and Edward Norton. With a cast that also includes Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, and Tilda Swinton, this is classic Anderson, with his odd pans and stylized staging. The two young actors, Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward, are fantastic, and the movie playfully yet beautifully illustrates young love. It all builds to an absurd climax, but by that time you're totally willing to go wherever the film will take you. Wes Anderson's quirky nature can get on the nerves of a few, but for me, it works to the film's advantage in a sweet adage to when love was simple.
#1. Skyfall, 143 min. PG-13
Skyfall is something of a miracle. Coming off the very disappointing Quantum of Solace (2008), and surviving the bankruptcy of MGM, director Sam Mendes had to pull out all the stops. And what he manages here is a Bond film that shakes up the formula while staying true to it. The villain, Silva (Javier Bardem) isn't out for world domination but rather has a personal vendetta to fill. There is no classic Bond girl, though Bérénice Marlohe fills the role of the doomed woman who falls for Bond. It's a film that recognizes Bond as a relic, yet still an important force in our ever-changing, scarier world. It's the best looking Bond, with Roger Deakins as director of photography, has the best Bond song in years sung by Adele, and features fantastic performances from Bardem and Judi Dench (as M). Not to mention chase scenes that deliver and final battle that takes place in a most unexpected location. For Bond nerds, this film is a godsend, and everyone else is lucky to be along for the ride.
Other odds and ends:
Best Director: Sam Mendes for Skyfall
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence fo Silver Linings Playbook
Best Actor: Denis Lavant for Holy Motors
Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables
Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem for Skyfall
Most Overrated Film: Lincoln
Worst Film of 2012: Prometheus
2012, on the other hand, was a fantastic reawakening of the art of film for me. Hollywood put out some of its best content in years, and the indie films were just as strong. A lot of films built up hype and delivered, and there were very few let downs this year with quite a few surprises. I define a 2012 release as any film that receives a domestic US release between Jan. 1 - Dec. 31st, 2012. But lets not mince any more words. Here, now, are my top 10 films of the year 2012.
#10. Life of Pi, 127 min. PG
I was fairly skeptical about Ang Lee's newest film, Life of Pi, mainly because his recent slew of features (Lust, Caution; Taking Woodstock) sufficiently underwhelmed me. So I was pleasantly surprised when his latest film turned out to be one of his best. The story of a young boy nicknamed Pi who becomes stranded on a life boat with a man-eating tiger is both harrowing and inspirational as he survives for months in the open ocean. The movie's true achievement is in the tiger, named Richard Parker, who is mostly a CGI creation but develops a personality of his own. The movie doesn't kid around; this tiger is dangerous, and elevates the film from a guy in a lifeboat by himself to a haunting survival tale. The ending inspires a lot of debate as it somewhat undermines everything you've seen, but still, Life of Pi is a sumptuous, visual feast.
#9. The Cabin in the Woods, 95 min. R
#8. Silver Linings Playbook, 122 min. R
#7. Zero Dark Thirty, 157 min. R
#6. Amour, 127 min. PG-13
#5. Looper, 119 min. R
#4. Holy Motors, 115 min. NR
#3. Argo, 120 min. R
#2. Moonrise Kingdom, 94 min. PG-13
#1. Skyfall, 143 min. PG-13
Other odds and ends:
Best Director: Sam Mendes for Skyfall
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence fo Silver Linings Playbook
Best Actor: Denis Lavant for Holy Motors
Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables
Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem for Skyfall
Most Overrated Film: Lincoln
Worst Film of 2012: Prometheus
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Top 50 Movies of All Time (2013 Edition)
It's been a little over four years since I last made a top 50 list. I've seen a lot of films since then, so I figured it was time to revise the list. Of course it's ever-changing and would be different if I made it again tomorrow. These lists are more to capture what I thought in the moment. I could easily list 100 movies, but 50 is a challenge and I don't prescribe to an easily made list. I've decided to do away with ranking the movies, which I know is not fun, but I have a hard time picking a number one, and numbers 11 through 50 are arbitrarily ranked anyway. Each title contains a link to a trailer or movie clip.
12 Angry Men (1957)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The 36th Chamber of Shaolin (1978)
Amadeus (1984)
Another Year (2010)
The Battle of Algiers (1966)
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Blade Runner (1982)
The Blues Brothers (1980)
Brazil (1985)
Casablanca (1942)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Ed Wood (1994)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
The Exterminating Angel (1962)
Fantasia (1940)
Forbidden Games (1952)
The Godfather (1972)
The Gold Rush (1925)
Grand Illusion (1937)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Jaws (1975)
L.A. Confidential (1997)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
Last Year at Marienbad (1961)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Minority Report (2002)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Out of the Past (1947)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
Pinocchio (1940)
The Producers (1968)
Psycho (1960)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Ran (1985)
A Separation (2011)
Seven Samurai (1954)
The Seventh Seal (1957)
The Social Network (2010)
Spirited Away (2001)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
The Wages of Fear (1953)
The World of Apu (1959)
Vertigo (1958)
Wings of Desire (1987)
Woman in the Dunes (1964)
12 Angry Men (1957)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The 36th Chamber of Shaolin (1978)
Amadeus (1984)
Another Year (2010)
The Battle of Algiers (1966)
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Blade Runner (1982)
The Blues Brothers (1980)
Brazil (1985)
Casablanca (1942)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Ed Wood (1994)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
The Exterminating Angel (1962)
Fantasia (1940)
Forbidden Games (1952)
The Godfather (1972)
The Gold Rush (1925)
Grand Illusion (1937)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Jaws (1975)
L.A. Confidential (1997)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
Last Year at Marienbad (1961)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Minority Report (2002)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Out of the Past (1947)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
Pinocchio (1940)
The Producers (1968)
Psycho (1960)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Ran (1985)
A Separation (2011)
Seven Samurai (1954)
The Seventh Seal (1957)
The Social Network (2010)
Spirited Away (2001)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
The Wages of Fear (1953)
The World of Apu (1959)
Vertigo (1958)
Wings of Desire (1987)
Woman in the Dunes (1964)
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Les Misérables (2012)
Tom Hooper was probably the wrong person to direct the big screen adaptation of the hit musical Les Miserables. Its not that he's a bad director; his King's Speech (2010) won him an Oscar, though I think most remember that film for Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush then they do for Hooper's direction. He's better at framing small, personal relationships and playing with more subtlety. I admire King's Speech a great deal, but I don't think it showed Hooper having the know-it to direct Les Miserables. This is almost like when David Yates took over the Harry Potter franchise, a move I still say was a poor one on the producers' part.
Les Miserables is not subtle. Characters sing everything they feel, and sometimes what they sing is heartfelt and wrought, and sometimes its simply pining for a loved one who will not love them back. There is nothing wrong with being big and grand, but Hooper doesn't seem to know when to focus intimately on his characters and when to let the camera and editing take over.
Les Miserables is a sprawling story, but the core focus is on criminal Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a man serving a 19 year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread. He is paroled, but Javert (Russell Crowe) is sure to let him know that he'll always be watching since he believes criminals never reform. Through various circumstances, Valjean decides to seek redemption by taking in an orphaned child and raising her as his own, before he's caught in a student uprising that forms a feeble attempt at a Second French Revolution.
There are many solos throughout this movie; its an operetta, and people tend to sing through most of these. While I'm fine with this art form, I find Hooper's staging of many numbers to be insufferable. I should note that I have no familiarity with the stage musical beyond listening to the cast album, so this is my first time really seeing the material. Just throwing that out there.
Where it does work is when characters have hit rock bottom. Early on, Valjean contemplates the charity of a preacher, and vows to reform his life. Jackman, sporting a great, big, bushy beard, infuses this song with great gusto and establishes what we can expect from the coming performances. Next is Anne Hathway as Fantine, the mother who just wants to earn enough money for her child, and is forced into prostitution to do so. After her first customer, she lays, shamed, and sings I Dreamed a Dream. Hooper holds on Hathaway's face for the entire duration of the song and never once cuts away. Its a stunning performance, and will bring even the most skeptical close to tears. I don't like making predictions in reviews, but Hathaway is a shoe-in for Best Supporting Actress.
But once Hathaway departs you realize she has cast a shadow over the rest of her co-stars. Hooper repeats the use of close-ups during emotional solos, but none of the actors come close to matching Hathaway, except perhaps for Eddie Redmayne's performance of Empty Chairs at Empty Tables. But Eponine (Samantha Bark) pines for a love that will never be hers, Valjean decides to save a certain character, and Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) & Marius (Redmayne) fall in love. Hooper focuses on their faces, and while the actors are all admirable, they can't hold my attention for three minutes the way Hathaway did earlier.
Perhaps I would have found it more bearable if Hooper found more compelling ways to stage some of his songs. A Heart Full of Love, which is a powerful ballad, is fairly boring when we simply cut back and forth between Seyfried and Redmayne singing to each other through a fence gate. It's boring, boring, boring! However, you can sense where Hooper knew to maybe add a little more to the editing, and that is with Javert. Russell Crowe can't sing very well, and he looks like he's suffering through this role just trying to get by, which is a shame since Javert is easily the most interesting character. His two big solo numbers, however, are covered and shot to hide the stiff performance, and it works. I was more entertained by Javert's songs, though the singing was off, then I was by many other solos where the singing and acting were better. Film is not the stage, and if you don't realize that, you're lost.
Hooper's framing also irritates me. Many times characters are placed in odd parts of the screen, or facing the edge of the screen with a big blank wall behind him. This is not artful, its artless, and a cheap way to seem cooler and edgier. And his mad focus on close ups makes the Master of the House song almost incomprehensible, as we watch Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter maliciously pickpocket their guests, but only at the edge of the frame. It's still a good song, but the camera direction is as muddled and confusing as the fights in Batman Begins (2005).
For all the bickering, though, I did enjoy large portions of the film. Javert and Valjean's story is a great moral lesson on black-and-white versus redemption, and Fantine's descent to the bottom is heart wrenching. The revolutionaries hopeless battle is also hard to watch, and little Cosette's desire to just be loved is very touching. There's a lot of stuff that works here, and I want it known that the good does outweigh the bad. However, I get very frustrated when someone was so close to making a great movie, and let time cut them short. It was little more then a year ago that it was announced this movie was going to be made, and I feel Hooper had to be more economic in planning out his shots when dealing with the huge subject matter.
The live singing has been touted about this film for awhile now, and it works. The actors are allowed to live in the moment, and it lends a natural aesthetic to the whole picture. But perhaps it was this live singing that also lead to more unbroken takes, since many takes were most likely disimilar to the last.
Whatever the case, Les Miserables is a bit of an endurance. Fans of the musical should love parts of it, and newcomers may find an appreciation for this story. Of the three most recent operettas released, which includes The Phantom of the Opera (2004) and Rent (2005) this one is the best. But that's faint praise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)