Sunday, April 14, 2013

Les Miserables

That awkward moment when you and your drunk friends plan a revolution and NO ONE shows up...

Directed by: Tom Hooper
Released: 2012
Staring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Sasha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Amanda Seyfried Samantha Barks, & Colm Wilkinson
Rated: PG-12
Times Viewed: 3


  Hipster musical Morgan has to say this...I am terrified by the obsession that people have with this film. Yes, It's a pretty good movie but the musical is MUCH better. It's just kinda scary. TUMBLR, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, PINTREST, YOUTUBE, people are posting Les Mis non stop everywhere...I mean good, great...if it gets you interested in the music and the book bravo but...ah...so much everywhere. 

  So here's how I've watched this movie. The first time I watched it, I was blown away by the sheer scale and amped up music score. I'm quite used to listening to the original Broadway cast recording from 198(1?) So lots-o synthesizer, but great voices.  Then, as with any movie, you rewatch it and see...well just things you didn't see and aren't necessarily looking for. Things to poke fun at...like an older sibling poking fun at the younger. You do it out of love; not because you wish any hard feelings...it's just too funny not to. 

Honestly, "Honest Trailers" are the best. 

Bah, so I suppose I have to get it out of the way now...The LIVE singing. Duh, duh, Duuuuuhn!

  So the first time I heard about this I was like OH MY GOSH! THAT SOUNDS AWESOME! GREAT IDEA...MORE ACTING INSTEAD OF REHEARSED SINGING! Umm...ya I take that back. Again, a good IDEA but just executed...poorly? In reality this has NOTHING to do with the singing abilities of the actors, except poor Russell Crowe and possibly Amanda Seyfried, but let's think about this. Making a movie and performing in a musical are two very different things. Movies have takes. Take after take after take. And when you do a take multiple times you are going to get tired, your VOICE is going to get tired. This leads to awkward pauses, sing talking, and all over poor quality of singing. Take Anne Hathaway. Yes her performance while singing "I Dreamed a Dream" was heart wrenching and worthy of an Oscar, the actual song itself has some horribly low low notes and terribly troubling high notes. Apologies, but I must speak the truth! Chorus is good. Individuals not on key...just sounds...eh...not sure what to make of it...


I'm just not a fan of it. And really, I see all these people walking around campus listening to the movie soundtrack on their iPods and I'm just like HOW? It's about 45% talk singing. No lie. Not music. Monologue-ing. 


Also, they fudged up my favorite songs "Love Montage/A Heart Full of Love" But that might have been Amanda Sigfasddsfjlkj fault. And that's all I'm going to say to that...
     
   So APART from the live singing/singing EVERYTHING, This was a fantastically made film. Tom Hooper, who you all may know, is the relatively new, Oscar winning director of The Kings Speech and the brilliant yet under-viewed The Damed United. This man is the KING of the period piece. He is the Duke of Detail and the Count of the CGI Crane shot! Ehehe ok not that the later of the two is really that impressive but this man takes everything little thing into account when directing. Even teeth! Genius he is, Tom Hooper had the make up department make caps for the majority of the cast becaauuse if you're singing with you trap wide open (Anne Hathaway has an unbelievably large mouth) the audience WILL see each and every one of your teeth. And in the mid 1800's dentistry wasn't the industry it is today. 


Anne Hathaway sports a less than lovely smile during her performance as Fantaine.
  For the amount of detail Hooper puts in his films he works at polar opposites of shot ratios. The film opens with a huge (cgi :S ) descending crane shot and uses this technique several more times throughout the film; however, when it's not CGI, there are some beautiful cinematographic moments set in the mountains earlier in the film. Wide shots are then contracting by...

   Yes...Tom Hooper loves, looves his extreme close-ups. Not saying they're horrible but can you just back it up like two frames and you'll be good. There are also a couple of odd angles he enjoys shooting at...maybe Hooper is friends with J.J. Abrams...psh Anything is possible. 

  So how's the cast? Obviously there won't be much to talk as far as acting is concerned but there is still quite a bit to be said about this star studded cast. 

  The Good
          Hugh Jackman, Sasha Baron Cohen and Eddie Redmayne/Samantha Barks.

  Casting Hugh Jackman in the leading role was, without a doubt, the best decision that was made in the film. Jackman is not just a movie star, he IS a singer. He's been successful in many a musical. In other words, he is the experienced one. Jackman ages his voice with the character and while his vibrato may be a BIT for me, he is the one who most effectively utilizes the new concept of live singing...Jackman does have some pitch issues at times when he EMOTES ehehe, but so does everyone else.

  Sasha Baron Cohen...I remember I when I thought you were just that nasty Borat man who ran around in string speedos. Thankfully over the past few years, Baron Cohen has proved me wrong. I now LOVE seeing this man. He is a fantastic character actor. He can transform himself into anyone yet still always seems to have such a self aware presence. Take Hugo, a "serious" role for him but with many added humorous attributes. He's just a treat and bumps any film up ten notches.  

Eddie Redmayne...Not only are you completely adorable, but I LOVE YOUR VOICE. Please, Eddie Redmayne, skip hollywood, get a some more lessons and and become an OPERA SINGING! With some training he could be fantastic. 

Eddie Redmayne can creep on me anyday. Anyone else see him in My Week With Marilyn? He was wonderful!

    I really enjoyed the fact that they cast a relatively unknown actress for the part of Eponine. Samatha Barks was perfect for the part. She didn't over act and she didn't under act. She was spot on. 

The Bad
        Russell Crowe and Amanda Seyfried. 

In interviews Top Hooper said they needed someone who could go toe to toe with Jackman both physically and in acting ability...so they chose...Russell Crowe? Russell, Russell Crowe. YOU TIRED! You tried SO hard and it's sometimes painful to listen to and watch. You were uncomfortable...and so were we...But you tried.




Amanda Seyfrinedajs;kldjfaks FOR THE LIFE OF ME I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO TYPE YOUR NAME WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP AT LEAST 10 TIMES!
    I have to hand it to A.S., if you would have told me 5 years ago that she would have a career after Mean Girls, I would have laughed in your face. After playing such a memorable role like Karen in the unforgettable Mean Girls I would have thought it impossible for her to get past the dumb ditzy teen. But SHE DID! So while she is not my favorite, I must say GO GIRL. Really. Good for you.  Yes, some of her movies are stupid (Mama Mia) and some of them are quite bad (Red Riding Hood, a guilty pleasure of mine) but she keeps trekking on and landing roles so...good for you! And I must say, if I had to choose between A.S. and Taylor Swift, I'm ecstatic that they chose A.S. If only she could have gotten a couple more lessons. The role of Cossette is basically the role of Johanna in Sweeney Todd. You're locked inside a house with a considerably older man, (who in the case of Les Mis is sexy, buff and scruff Hugh Jackman in stead of a creepy judge who raped your mother and imprisoned your father) you meet a boy through a window/gate and without a proper conversation fall desperately in love with him before YOU know his name even though HE knows yours. And he says your name...all the time. But seriously, this I think this soprano part must have been written for the same girl or at least is always sung by one that sounds like a song bird gargling lemonade. It's sooo sweet but toooo much weeble-wobble. And RANDOM, but is anyone else creeped out by her overly large eyes? In Les Mis especially...they age her too much. Just looks disturbed. To reconcile this insult, she did look HAWT at the Academy Awards...she made my Best Dressed list.

Perhaps it's just me, but she's not looking too good here...
mid 30's I'd say...Step away Marius!

  As much as I pick at her for singing, guess what? SHE ADMITS that she's not the best and needs more work. I read an article in which she expressed her interest in joining a show like Wicked on Broadway but came right out and said she wasn't (vocally) ready. Again, GOOD FOR HER! This is not sarcasm, I am truthfully happy for her. Unlike most young actresses, she recognizes he weaknesses and wants to get better. 

...Know what? GOOD LUCK! 

Elegant and lovely, Amanda SEYFRIED at the 2013 Academy Awards.

Overall, I like this movie. The singing is not singing and some times is can be laughable, but Tom Hooper knows how to MAKE beautiful, moving films and it's a fantastic musical by itself. Musical are never intended to be taken too seriously and that's why sometimes you just need to let things go and flow.



       Random thoughts while watching the last hour of the movie
-THERE IS A barricade boy WHO LOOKS LIKE CONAN!  
Coco. Found.
-Hugh Jackman is too sexy to be anyone's father. Open billowy white shirt, manly man chest. This is inappropriate. 
-CGI Crane shots
-SBCOHEN killin' it
-so many freckles...
-Tennant Hair.
-Hugh Jackman basically wills himself to die. It's ok. 
-Valjean and Fontine are going to have ghost sex. ANGST! ANGST! ANGST!
-WHENEVER I SEE COLM WILKISON I JUST FEEL LIKE CRYING BECAUSE HE WAAS JEAN VALJEAN!!! 
-OK that last song is overly impressive and moving. Nice job.
-CAMERON dUCKIN MACKINTOSH! If you ever want to kiss a Broadway producer, he's the one. (He and Andrew Lloyd Webber are buds)
-That "Suddenly" song ya I don't like that stuff...ick.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Oz: The Great and Powerful

You know James Franco was high on set when he repeatedly called Glinda "Wanda" for a good 30 minutes of the film.

Directed By: Sam Raimi
Released: 2013
Starting: James Franco, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, Mila Kunis, voice talents of Zach Braff & Joey King
Rated: PG
Times viewed: 1


   The fantasy genre has always been a favorite of mine and I'm always open to a new, exciting revisit of the classics; however, the original trailer for Oz: The Great and Powerful left me feeling anxious for several reasons. First, James Franco. I know he is a huge darling of many a young hollywood fan but in all honesty I find him as dry as the blunts he probably smoked during the filming of this movie. Are blunts dry? I don't really know...we'll say yes for simile's sake. Second was the visuals...As I've mentioned in previous post, I am not a huge fan of 3-D dependent films...but I figured since it is a FANTASY film along the lines of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, it could be forgiven and James Franco ignored.
 Months pass and eventually my excitement to see Oz grew, so last tuesday night (it was a slow week) my friends and I made the journey to our local AMC. We bought our outrageously expensive tickets, popped on our hermetically sealed 3-D Ray Bans, and were prepared to be wowed by the spectacle of the Land of Oz!

     Overall Impression  
Oz: The Great and Powerful, while high on visual splendor proves to be lacking in script and quality acting.

  The biggest disappointment from this film was my expectation for it to be MORE than a children's movie. From the trailer it seems darker, scarier...just what Hollywood has been doing with recent remakes of classic children's stories, fairytales and fables (Red Ridding, Alice in Wonderland, and Hansel and Gretel) While there are definitely some very scary creatures including the Bad Witches flying baboons and the Green Witch herself, Oz is without a doubt a children's movie. I honestly had no clue going in to the film that it was rated PG and after seeing the flying baboons I was almost positive that it was PG-13...but then the last hour commenced and the sap started to flow.  

Would your 10 yr. old child be ok with this crazy creature reaching out of the silver screen? I don't think I could have handled it! 
  Once the audience scrapes past the intricate and impressive land of Oz filled with high chroma characters and iridescent fog and bubbles, they'll find the film itself is another watered down attempted to teach children that GOOD ALWAYS WINS...even if the man who get's you there is a total con artist.  The script is just sooo dumbed down filled with question, answer, question answer conversationa and lot's of "Look out! This way! Oh my goodness! There're behind us!" The whole film (concerning the script) verges on the edge of too literal to enjoy for an older audience. At least in a film like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, Burton effectively utilizes some mature jokes and characters to engage his older audience and fan base.  Burton is the master at incorporating the morals of a children's film with the maturity of adult fantasy without catering too heavily to one or the other. Biggest examples Alice in Wonderland (which I'll compare to Oz a bit later in a visual aspect) Frankenweenie, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 

  Now WHO was it that directed this film? SAM RAIMI. Sam, father of gore n' horror, RAIMI. How he convinced Disney to let him direct this movie I'll never know, but I feel like there could have been so much more from him. I feel, since he knew he would be dealing with a well known children's story, he had to dumb it down to avoid any type of backlash from the company and  parents alike. I suppose it's a bit unfair to compare Raimi to Burton..I mean let's be honest...Sam Raimi and Tim Burton operate on opposite ends of the horror scale. Tim creates the quirky, creepy characters, but never anything in the gore end of horror (save Sweeney Todd)...that's Sam's territory. The man creates whole movies around the concept of dismemberment and chainsaws. i.e. The Evil Dead. Perhaps they two should have a meeting and exchange notes...I love Tim Burton and after watching The Evil Dead 2 I've decided I kinda, sorta do like Sam Raimi and his cats in a box style of directing and creating. 

James Franco with Director Sam Raimi  on the set of "Oz: The Great and Powerful."
Is that the book of the dead you're reading Sam? 
So now I have you completely confused by my self contradictions "Oh it's too scary for children, but the story line is too dumbed down to be taken seriously by an older audience." I have to apologize, but honestly, I'm not sure WHO to recommend this movie to...The movie was easy to follow, not confusing, definitely fun to look at but THIS SCRIPT IS SO BAD! So I guess I'll start by giving you some of my positive reactions to the film first...

Visuals concepts, 3-D, & the first 45 minutes.

  As I've written before, this movie is gorgeous to look at. The opening credits are fantastic featuring optical illusions and such, all in mind bending black and white.  I really LOVED that when the film started in Kansas they used the same black and white color palette as well as the smaller screen ratio. The film didn't HAVE to be made this way...the creators could have assumed everyone knows the classic Wizard of Oz and will connect the Kansas in that film to the Kansas in this film but they used the same techniques anyway and I really appreciated that. What I also almost passed out over was (*small spoiler*) the girl who Oz was in love with in Kansas (also played by Michelle Williams) said that she was going to marry Frank(?) GALE. AS IN DORTHY GALE'S FATHER

And Disney was kind enough to put the beautiful opening credits on youtube! Even more impressive on the big screen in 3-D

A magical score by Danny Elfman makes me think if this really WAS a project intended for Tim Burton...

As stated numerous times, I am not a fan of 3-D being put in to films when it is NOT needed or movies that are primarily visual effects, HOWEVER for Oz it all works because this is set in a fantasy land that couldn't exist without the help of 3-D and CGI. Apart from several locations that look more like Wonderland than Wonderland did in Tim Burton's adaption, the set design behind this world is brilliant. I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.





  The humor in the first 45 minutes or so of this film is actually quite good. Franco (whom I don't care for) is overly theatrical, charming and a total con artist. Exactly who he should be. But then...after the Balloon has landed in Oz and Mila Kunis' character get's involved...it's all (apart from the visuals) down hill from there.

The Bad

The Acting
  Apart from James Franco, I had high hope for the cast of OZ. I mean, Michelle Williams? She's brilliant! And Mila Kunis proved in Black Swan that she is more than just Jackie. And Rachel Weisz is consistently engaging and believable. Sadly ALL fell apart due to a TERRIBLE script. Proof that bad writing and a bad story can lead to an over all bad movie and the impression of bad acting. I must say...Mila Kunis without a doubt is the WORST. I can't even describe how terrible she was...It was rage and pain but rage and pain that a high school student does in their sophomore one act play. It didn't help when she did turn truly evil and transformed into the wicked witch she looked like THIS...
LET'S MAKE HER AS LITERAL AS POSSIBLE!

I mean this LOOKS awesome right? Right...until she appears and opens her mouth.

Costuming
  This is my territory people and let me put on my Tim Gunn face and say this...EDIT PEOPLE EDIT!! There was just so much random crap thrown on EVERYONE, especially Rachel Weisz's character. Gorgeous, green sequin dress? Lets add feathers on your back AND shoulders AND a huge slit so you can wear leather leggings AND knee high boots! Just WHY!?

So the top I love...then as we go down it's a dress with leggings underneath and just WHY!? I can't explain.
  I feel like there was no turn direction or concept behind these costumes. No connecting thread...Glinda is dressed in half 1930s evening gowns and half Galadriel armor...Mila Kunis was an Equestrian Rider(I actually would have loved that in a different movie), then a 1950's debutant, then THEE most literal translation of "WITCH" If I ever saw one. Individually there are parts of each costume that were impressive but when brought together they just confuse the audience and don't give any inspiration to the true feeling of the land of Oz. Costuming is SO important to the overall feeling and continuity of a film...I feel Oz just assembled 3 different costumers, had them all make separate collections, then picked at random interesting pieces from each. If you read my review of Anna Karenina, you'll understand the importance of connection, continuity, and a solid concept in costuming.




I cringe because this ensemble has NO place in the film! It doesn't fit....
PLUS!!! #1 irritation, the people of Oz didn't where a spec of green!? Anger and sadness.

           GARY JONES...I'm coming after you...