More! I watch movies! Sometimes! Recently it's been a lot of times!
I've been a fan of Kathryn Bigelow for a long time. The southern-fried vampire romp Near Dark is still one of my all time favorite movies, and I also enjoyed the surprisingly solid Point Break, and the underrated Strange Days. And while I didn't necessarily feel that The Hurt Locker was BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR great, it was still really good, for sure.
Zero Dark Thirty is, as you know, the story of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. But moreso it's about the seemingly inconceivable way in which such an important task could be waylaid by bureaucratic red tape, and one woman's driving passion to make sure that the thread isn't lost.
That one woman (played by Jessica Chastain), is Maya, a CIA officer assigned to work at the US Embassy in Pakistan. Chastain has received a great deal of praise for her performance, and it is well deserved. What I found most refreshing about the movie was that, in the part of Maya, we are given that rare female character who is not defined by her gender. She is neither an ass-kicking Ripley, nor a sexpot dependent on getting by on her looks.
There's no sex in this movie at all, in fact. And though I love sex, and sexy sex, and nudity, and sexy sex nudity, it was a refreshing change of pace. Maya doesn't have any shower scenes, nor does she strap on an assault rifle and storm bin Laden's complex herself. She is, in fact, a normal person, although a normal person who is very intelligent and hellbent on seeing justice served. Her tenacity drives the film.
ZD30 is incredibly intense at its best moments, and is never less than interesting. Again, I'm not sure about the "film that defines a generation" hubbub, but it's a very solidly made and oftentimes intense film. Good stuff.
12 Monkeys + Akira = Looper.
That may seem like a dismissal, but I mean it as very high praise. Those are two of my favorite movies, after all.
I received a lot of recommendations on this movie, particularly from my friend Danny who was insistent that I give it a try. I don't think he's ever recommended anything that I didn't really enjoy, so his record is good with me. And Looper maintains that standard.
When it was released, I somehow missed the fact that it was directed by Rian Johnson, who also directed Brick, which I still think is one of the most interesting movies I've seen in a long, long time. Also starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brick was a neo-noir set in high school, where everyone speaks in an anachronistic wise guy patois. It was a conceit that could have been grating in lesser hands, but instead it put a fresh spin on the story. The movie was also visually interesting and well-acted, and stood out to me as a film made by someone to watch out for.
I apparently took my eye off of the ball when Looper came out, but I won't make the same mistake again. This is superior popcorn cinema,
Time travel movies can be a headache, but Looper doesn't bother too much with the intricacies. If you're willing to buy the premise, chances are you'll be willing to forgive some of the chronistic hiccups. Set in a relatively near-future world, when the mob wants to dispose of bodies, they send them back in time to be assassinated by hitman who are waiting for their arrival. JGL plays one such hitman, Joe. Joe waits in a designated spot with a gun. Suddenly the victim appears, sent back in time by devices that are never explained (not that we need to understand them) to the determined spot, where they are summarily executed. He then disposes of the body in his present day world, where the remains can't be found by future authorities.
However, there is a catch: in order to keep things tidy, eventually the hitmen have their contracts terminated, and their older, future selves are sent back in time...to be killed by the younger versions of themselves. As Joe tells us, this is called "closing the loop". When the hitman kills their future selves and closes their loop, they receive a huge payment in the form of gold bars, and they can then retire from killing, and enjoy the next 30 years in any way they choose. It is a literal interpretation of the old "Live fast, die young" axiom.
Of course, some people want to enjoy the big money and fast living of being a looper, but when the time comes for them to have their loop closed, they don't die so easily. When "Old Joe", played by Bruce Willis, is sent back in time, he manages to get loose, and tries to change his past so that he can be reunited with the wife he had in the future. Young Joe realizes that he will be killed NOW by his bosses if he doesn't catch his future self, and so the game of cat and mouse begins. And that is your movie.
EXCEPT, what the trailers don't tell you (in their apparent effort to streamline the movie and make it look as bland and action-oriented as possible) is that there is an additional over-arching plot point, concerning a crime kingpin in the far flung future named The Rainmaker, who is closing ALL of the loops. Old Joe's quest includes trying to find The Rainmaker when he is a child, seeing to it that the grim future never comes to pass.
While the film plays fast and loose with some of the time travel "rules", this is still a very smart film. The world created is complete and tangible, and makes sense within its own context. However, this shouldn't alienate action fans. Believe me, there's a ton of gunplay, if that's what you're looking for.
The pleasure of the film is in the details, the small things that make the world seem legitimate. The wacky "blunderbuss" guns that the Loopers carry, the silver (and sometime gold) bars strapped to the victims' backs, the casual appearance of telekinesis, the floating motorcycles...it's a sci-fi movie for sure, but it is a realistic sci-fi movie that feels grounded in some sort of reality that we can relate to in the present day...well, minus the time travel, of course.
However, despite the attention to detail, all would be lost if you couldn't buy into the fact that Joe and Old Joe are the same person. This is partially achieved through prothetic makeup (giving JGL the nose, eyes and mouth of the older Bruce Willis). However, most of the credit has to be given to JGL, who masterfully summons up the small things that make Bruce Willis "Bruce Willis". The mannerisms, the soft voice, the tics. It's all there, and it's pretty great.
Looper is smart, fast, and fun. It should lead to some interesting conversations once the credits role. In a movie climate dominated by sequels, prequels, and a nonstop onslaught of superheroes and board game adaptations, it's refreshing to see something new, even if that "new" thing is beholden to many genre films that came before it. I can't wait to see what Johnson does next.
Les Miserables
Let's get this out of the way: I am something of a Les Miz nerd. I discovered it in middle school when I checked the Original London Cast Soundtrack Recording from the Okolona Public Library. I absorbed that show, which spoke directly to my melodramatic, depressed, teenage self. Call it misery-porn, but the show was perfectly emblematic of the big musicals of the 80's. It remains one of the most successful shows of all time, around the world.
I have obsessed over the various cast albums, from London to Broadway to the 10th (and 25th!) Anniversary shows. It is the show that made me fall in love with Frances Ruffelle (who originated the role of Eponine in the West End and then came to Broadway and won the Tony for the same) and made me a lifelong fan of Terrence Mann (and not just because he was in all four Critters movies).
The show is sappy, sure, but the music is still powerful and moving, and I can still listen to those recordings and be transported instantly to an important time in my life. I know these songs, they are a huge part of me.
So I entered the 2012 film Les Miserables hopeful, if cautious. There were some things to be concerned about, but I believed the power of the songs would be enough to overcome any obstacles presented by translating the stage show to the screen.
I am very sad to say that I was disappointed in the movie. I have no way of being objective about it. I can't experience the movie with fresh eyes, or tell you how someone new to the show (or even Victor Hugo's massive doorstop of a novel) might react to it. I can only react as someone who treasures the show itself.
First, the good; while it was difficult to mentally separate the role of Jean Valjean from stage star Colm Wilkinson (who appears here in the role of the Bishop who sets Valjean on the righteous path, his presence a very pleasant nod to Wilkinson's many years performing the Valjean role onstage), Hugh Jackman acquits himself nicely. His eyes tell a lot of the story, of weary fugitive Jean Valjean, a poor man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving child, who then breaks parole and becomes the mayor of a small town. Jackman is hunted by the relentless Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), who is intent on seeing Valjean brought to justice, no matter how long it takes, or how much Valjean has changed. Yes, there were moments when Jackman's voice didn't work for me, but the haunted, hunted nature of the character is still ably communicated. I like him in the part.
Better still is Anne Hathaway, who earns the praise heaped upon her as the disgraced Fantine, a single mother who is exiled from her job as a seamstress (working in a shop run by Valjean) who must sell her hair, her teeth, and finally her body, in order to send money to support her daughter Cosette. Hathaway is broken, tragic, and unquestionably the best singer in the cast. Though her portrayal of the character is much more manic than that of, say, Patti LuPone or Ruthie Henshall, (which means that her signature song "I Dreamed a Dream" is not able to truly soar to the heights popularized by Susan Boyle), it rings true for film. In this cinematic adaptation of the show, this signature song isn't supposed to be pretty, or beautiful, or belted out the way it would be from the proscenium. The filmed version is quieter, more intimate, shaky, overwrought, in order to truly capture Fantine's despair. For this film, this seems like the right choice.
So, I liked Jackman and Hathaway ok. I obviously love the material. So...now onto the long list of what I DIDN'T like about the movie:
1. Russell Crowe can't sing, and apparently he can't act anymore either. His Javert is completely flat, bringing none of the passion or menace that the role requires. His singing "style" is completely monotone, his face a blank slate. It is a truly terrible performance or a truly terrific role. I have no idea what anyone was thinking in this casting.
2. Sascha Baron Cohen has been cast as the innkeeper Thernadier. While he brings some needed levity to the show (as the character does in the stage version as well), his presence here seems like stunt casting, and is distracting at best.
3. The direction: Tom Hooper won a Best Director Oscar for his work on the syrupy The King's Speech, but his work here seems amateurish. His insistence on using close-up after close-up, partnered with jarring, confusing cutting, makes the movie a real mess, visually. Occasionally the frame will open up to illuminate a larger landscape (such as at the climax of Valjean's "Who Am I" number at the beginning, and the final shot of the film) but for the most part it is needlessly claustrophobic and ugly.
Then there's his decision to use live vocal performances instead of using lip-synch. While the thought may be admirable, in practice it leads to decidedly mixed results. To be blunt, for a musical, there is a lot of bad singing here. I appreciate it as an experiment, but for a big, explosive, beautiful musical, you really need to have, you know, good vocal takes. Some of the performers acquit themselves better than others. Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you again.
And...now I'm tired. Les Miz is long, and my disappointment coupled with the running time exhausted me. At the end of the day, I can say that most of what I liked about the movie felt more like a reaction to hearing songs I really love, rather than being a positive reaction to the film itself. I would be curious to hear what folks who aren't familiar with the show thought about the movie. Whatever you think about the songs or the story, I just can't imagine that the shooting, cutting, and bad vocal performances (RUSSELL!) would be easy to overcome.
I wanted to love this movie. Instead it made me put on the old stage sountrack and think about what could have been. That being said, the tears still flowed freely for the last 15 minutes or so. Whether or not that was the movie, or the music, or a combo of both, working on me, I can't say. Your mileage may vary.
I've been a fan of Kathryn Bigelow for a long time. The southern-fried vampire romp Near Dark is still one of my all time favorite movies, and I also enjoyed the surprisingly solid Point Break, and the underrated Strange Days. And while I didn't necessarily feel that The Hurt Locker was BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR great, it was still really good, for sure.
Zero Dark Thirty is, as you know, the story of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. But moreso it's about the seemingly inconceivable way in which such an important task could be waylaid by bureaucratic red tape, and one woman's driving passion to make sure that the thread isn't lost.
That one woman (played by Jessica Chastain), is Maya, a CIA officer assigned to work at the US Embassy in Pakistan. Chastain has received a great deal of praise for her performance, and it is well deserved. What I found most refreshing about the movie was that, in the part of Maya, we are given that rare female character who is not defined by her gender. She is neither an ass-kicking Ripley, nor a sexpot dependent on getting by on her looks.
There's no sex in this movie at all, in fact. And though I love sex, and sexy sex, and nudity, and sexy sex nudity, it was a refreshing change of pace. Maya doesn't have any shower scenes, nor does she strap on an assault rifle and storm bin Laden's complex herself. She is, in fact, a normal person, although a normal person who is very intelligent and hellbent on seeing justice served. Her tenacity drives the film.
ZD30 is incredibly intense at its best moments, and is never less than interesting. Again, I'm not sure about the "film that defines a generation" hubbub, but it's a very solidly made and oftentimes intense film. Good stuff.
12 Monkeys + Akira = Looper.
That may seem like a dismissal, but I mean it as very high praise. Those are two of my favorite movies, after all.
I received a lot of recommendations on this movie, particularly from my friend Danny who was insistent that I give it a try. I don't think he's ever recommended anything that I didn't really enjoy, so his record is good with me. And Looper maintains that standard.
When it was released, I somehow missed the fact that it was directed by Rian Johnson, who also directed Brick, which I still think is one of the most interesting movies I've seen in a long, long time. Also starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brick was a neo-noir set in high school, where everyone speaks in an anachronistic wise guy patois. It was a conceit that could have been grating in lesser hands, but instead it put a fresh spin on the story. The movie was also visually interesting and well-acted, and stood out to me as a film made by someone to watch out for.
I apparently took my eye off of the ball when Looper came out, but I won't make the same mistake again. This is superior popcorn cinema,
Time travel movies can be a headache, but Looper doesn't bother too much with the intricacies. If you're willing to buy the premise, chances are you'll be willing to forgive some of the chronistic hiccups. Set in a relatively near-future world, when the mob wants to dispose of bodies, they send them back in time to be assassinated by hitman who are waiting for their arrival. JGL plays one such hitman, Joe. Joe waits in a designated spot with a gun. Suddenly the victim appears, sent back in time by devices that are never explained (not that we need to understand them) to the determined spot, where they are summarily executed. He then disposes of the body in his present day world, where the remains can't be found by future authorities.
However, there is a catch: in order to keep things tidy, eventually the hitmen have their contracts terminated, and their older, future selves are sent back in time...to be killed by the younger versions of themselves. As Joe tells us, this is called "closing the loop". When the hitman kills their future selves and closes their loop, they receive a huge payment in the form of gold bars, and they can then retire from killing, and enjoy the next 30 years in any way they choose. It is a literal interpretation of the old "Live fast, die young" axiom.
Of course, some people want to enjoy the big money and fast living of being a looper, but when the time comes for them to have their loop closed, they don't die so easily. When "Old Joe", played by Bruce Willis, is sent back in time, he manages to get loose, and tries to change his past so that he can be reunited with the wife he had in the future. Young Joe realizes that he will be killed NOW by his bosses if he doesn't catch his future self, and so the game of cat and mouse begins. And that is your movie.
EXCEPT, what the trailers don't tell you (in their apparent effort to streamline the movie and make it look as bland and action-oriented as possible) is that there is an additional over-arching plot point, concerning a crime kingpin in the far flung future named The Rainmaker, who is closing ALL of the loops. Old Joe's quest includes trying to find The Rainmaker when he is a child, seeing to it that the grim future never comes to pass.
While the film plays fast and loose with some of the time travel "rules", this is still a very smart film. The world created is complete and tangible, and makes sense within its own context. However, this shouldn't alienate action fans. Believe me, there's a ton of gunplay, if that's what you're looking for.
The pleasure of the film is in the details, the small things that make the world seem legitimate. The wacky "blunderbuss" guns that the Loopers carry, the silver (and sometime gold) bars strapped to the victims' backs, the casual appearance of telekinesis, the floating motorcycles...it's a sci-fi movie for sure, but it is a realistic sci-fi movie that feels grounded in some sort of reality that we can relate to in the present day...well, minus the time travel, of course.
However, despite the attention to detail, all would be lost if you couldn't buy into the fact that Joe and Old Joe are the same person. This is partially achieved through prothetic makeup (giving JGL the nose, eyes and mouth of the older Bruce Willis). However, most of the credit has to be given to JGL, who masterfully summons up the small things that make Bruce Willis "Bruce Willis". The mannerisms, the soft voice, the tics. It's all there, and it's pretty great.
Looper is smart, fast, and fun. It should lead to some interesting conversations once the credits role. In a movie climate dominated by sequels, prequels, and a nonstop onslaught of superheroes and board game adaptations, it's refreshing to see something new, even if that "new" thing is beholden to many genre films that came before it. I can't wait to see what Johnson does next.
Les Miserables
Let's get this out of the way: I am something of a Les Miz nerd. I discovered it in middle school when I checked the Original London Cast Soundtrack Recording from the Okolona Public Library. I absorbed that show, which spoke directly to my melodramatic, depressed, teenage self. Call it misery-porn, but the show was perfectly emblematic of the big musicals of the 80's. It remains one of the most successful shows of all time, around the world.
I have obsessed over the various cast albums, from London to Broadway to the 10th (and 25th!) Anniversary shows. It is the show that made me fall in love with Frances Ruffelle (who originated the role of Eponine in the West End and then came to Broadway and won the Tony for the same) and made me a lifelong fan of Terrence Mann (and not just because he was in all four Critters movies).
The show is sappy, sure, but the music is still powerful and moving, and I can still listen to those recordings and be transported instantly to an important time in my life. I know these songs, they are a huge part of me.
So I entered the 2012 film Les Miserables hopeful, if cautious. There were some things to be concerned about, but I believed the power of the songs would be enough to overcome any obstacles presented by translating the stage show to the screen.
I am very sad to say that I was disappointed in the movie. I have no way of being objective about it. I can't experience the movie with fresh eyes, or tell you how someone new to the show (or even Victor Hugo's massive doorstop of a novel) might react to it. I can only react as someone who treasures the show itself.
First, the good; while it was difficult to mentally separate the role of Jean Valjean from stage star Colm Wilkinson (who appears here in the role of the Bishop who sets Valjean on the righteous path, his presence a very pleasant nod to Wilkinson's many years performing the Valjean role onstage), Hugh Jackman acquits himself nicely. His eyes tell a lot of the story, of weary fugitive Jean Valjean, a poor man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving child, who then breaks parole and becomes the mayor of a small town. Jackman is hunted by the relentless Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), who is intent on seeing Valjean brought to justice, no matter how long it takes, or how much Valjean has changed. Yes, there were moments when Jackman's voice didn't work for me, but the haunted, hunted nature of the character is still ably communicated. I like him in the part.
Better still is Anne Hathaway, who earns the praise heaped upon her as the disgraced Fantine, a single mother who is exiled from her job as a seamstress (working in a shop run by Valjean) who must sell her hair, her teeth, and finally her body, in order to send money to support her daughter Cosette. Hathaway is broken, tragic, and unquestionably the best singer in the cast. Though her portrayal of the character is much more manic than that of, say, Patti LuPone or Ruthie Henshall, (which means that her signature song "I Dreamed a Dream" is not able to truly soar to the heights popularized by Susan Boyle), it rings true for film. In this cinematic adaptation of the show, this signature song isn't supposed to be pretty, or beautiful, or belted out the way it would be from the proscenium. The filmed version is quieter, more intimate, shaky, overwrought, in order to truly capture Fantine's despair. For this film, this seems like the right choice.
So, I liked Jackman and Hathaway ok. I obviously love the material. So...now onto the long list of what I DIDN'T like about the movie:
1. Russell Crowe can't sing, and apparently he can't act anymore either. His Javert is completely flat, bringing none of the passion or menace that the role requires. His singing "style" is completely monotone, his face a blank slate. It is a truly terrible performance or a truly terrific role. I have no idea what anyone was thinking in this casting.
2. Sascha Baron Cohen has been cast as the innkeeper Thernadier. While he brings some needed levity to the show (as the character does in the stage version as well), his presence here seems like stunt casting, and is distracting at best.
3. The direction: Tom Hooper won a Best Director Oscar for his work on the syrupy The King's Speech, but his work here seems amateurish. His insistence on using close-up after close-up, partnered with jarring, confusing cutting, makes the movie a real mess, visually. Occasionally the frame will open up to illuminate a larger landscape (such as at the climax of Valjean's "Who Am I" number at the beginning, and the final shot of the film) but for the most part it is needlessly claustrophobic and ugly.
Then there's his decision to use live vocal performances instead of using lip-synch. While the thought may be admirable, in practice it leads to decidedly mixed results. To be blunt, for a musical, there is a lot of bad singing here. I appreciate it as an experiment, but for a big, explosive, beautiful musical, you really need to have, you know, good vocal takes. Some of the performers acquit themselves better than others. Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you again.
And...now I'm tired. Les Miz is long, and my disappointment coupled with the running time exhausted me. At the end of the day, I can say that most of what I liked about the movie felt more like a reaction to hearing songs I really love, rather than being a positive reaction to the film itself. I would be curious to hear what folks who aren't familiar with the show thought about the movie. Whatever you think about the songs or the story, I just can't imagine that the shooting, cutting, and bad vocal performances (RUSSELL!) would be easy to overcome.
I wanted to love this movie. Instead it made me put on the old stage sountrack and think about what could have been. That being said, the tears still flowed freely for the last 15 minutes or so. Whether or not that was the movie, or the music, or a combo of both, working on me, I can't say. Your mileage may vary.
I can't imagine this version of Les Miserables satisfying me. The previews pushed all the wrong buttons (for me). I'm surprised you gave it a try. Your dedication is admirable (on some level).
ReplyDelete