Les Misérables Review

In the movie industry, there are some genres I have little to know love for. The romantic comedy  category is one of those, mostly because each film resembles all the others. The musical bracket is also one I have little fondness for. I cannot say I see the purpose in singing every minute of the story. Once in a while, however, a feature film comes to stand apart from the rest. Will Smith’s “Hitch” did that for me as a romantic comedy, and Les Misérables is a musical I have really taken a liking to.

An adaptation of the stage play, which was an adaptation of the original novel by Victor Hugo, though it has a few light moments–a very few light moments–the motion picture tells a tale sadder than most. Hugh Jackman plays Jean Valjean, a paroled convict, who served 19 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread. Upon his release, he finds himself in a world where he has no working opportunities, leading him to either become a street beggar, or go back to the thievery he knows. While he momentarily chooses the latter, stealing from a bishop, the mercy of that bishop causes him to turn his life around, though he adversely becomes a fugitive in so doing.

Russell Crowe is Javert, an officer of the law, and Jean Valjean’s constant pursuer, even to the end, some 17 years later. He mercilessly stands on the good side of the law, ready to, with extreme prejudice, bring all lawbreakers to justice.

Anne Hathaway is Fantine, a single mother, in a time where such a thing was a disgrace. She attempts to keep it a secret, working a job to earn and send money to her daughter Cosette, who is cared for by two neglectful would-be guardians, Thénardier & Madame Thénardier (Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, who also serve as the comic relief). She is willing to do anything to see that her daughter is taken care of, which is a claim we get to see the extent of.

Amanda Seyfried plays the older Cossette (the younger is briefly played by Isabelle Allen), who falls in love with Marius (Edde Redmayne), a French revolutionist. Amidst the sadness, depression, and oppression, this love is where the story finds its light.

The picture has lots more characters, which also include Aaron Tveit as Enjolras, leader of the student revolutionary party, and Samantha Barks, the only actor or actress from the broadway play. I personally like a big cast of characters because I feel it gives a vast audience different reasons to like the same film. And everyone performs well, from the biggest names down to the smallest.

There are a number of standout performances, three of which quickly became my favorites. Hugh Jackman’s “Valjean's Soliloquy,” Anne Hathaway’s “I Dreamed a Dream,” and Eddie Redmayne’s “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” are amongst the cream of the crop. Everyone’s preferences will very, though, because there are a lot of good songs here.

During production, a big topic of discussion was the decision to have live singing, instead of prerecorded performances. It makes such a difference, too, as it allows the actors and actresses  to act and react to each other in more ways than body language and facial expressions.

On another technical side, makeup is well done, helping to set the depressed mood. Makeup is probably best used on Hugh Jackman, who makes the most drastic transformation from prison convict to a mayor. The only place I thought the makeup could have been used better was on Russell Crowe, who after 17 years, still pretty much looks the same. 

Les Misérables is a good movie that makes me want to, if not see the play, at least read the book. I recommend it.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 Review

Not to be confused with Christopher Nolan’s epic “Dark Knight” trilogy, “Batman: The Dark Knight Returns pt. 1” is an animated adaptation of Frank Miller’s 1986 graphic novel of the same name. In the comic book world, it is considered to be one of the all-time legendary comic book runs (it ran 4 issues). Though there is no possibility it will ever achieve the same level of acclaim, because it is a retelling and that is just the nature of retellings, that does not mean it is far off. It is actually very good, arguably the best original animated movie DC Comics has put together to date, its only competition being “Batman: Year One.”

“Returns” shares a few similarities with “Rises,” as one can tell Nolan took some inspiration from the comic in crafting the finale to his trilogy. One of those similarities is that Bruce Wayne has been retired for a long period of time (10 years here). The Bruce we find here struggles with an almost post traumatic stress disorder, still having nightmares of his parents death from his childhood. His relationship with Jim Gordon, who is a month from retirement at the ripe old age of 70, is as good as ever. Gordon even knows that he is Batman, and they casually older times over dinner. When asked about Dick Grayson (the original Robin), though, it is said that neither communicate any longer.

With no Batman to ward off the evil, Gotham is getting darker by the day, as  a new threat to the city arises in the form of the mutants. A past-his-prime Batman reemerges from the shadows to once again rid the streets of Gotham of this new evil. With Gordon in tow, the aged Batman also recruits a new Robin, a female Robin.

The adapters of the comic did a number of things right, the first being that they stuck to the script, or the source material. The main downfall of most adaptations is that there is a team of writers put together, who pick and choose what to keep the same, then add and subtract what they feel is necessary. The problem with that approach is that the team of writers are never legendary as is a Frank Miller, in this particular case, otherwise they would not be writing for such a low budget project, so what is remade is usually something of much less considerable quality.

On a technical side, the quality of the animation is pretty good. It is obviously nothing like a classic Disney feature film, or Hayao Miyazaki anime movie like “Spirited Away,” however, it is about as much as one could ask for, considering the scale of the project. If there is one difference in preference I have, it is that I would have loved to see Batman in a more black and gray, like “The New Adventures of Batman,” rather than the blue and gray. But that is what he is drawn like in the comic book.

In these adaptations the one thing I give a pass on altering are the fight scenes. Because comic books are limited to slides, the confrontations between Batman and his adversaries are not told in great detail, rarely lasting longer than a page or two. DC’s animation team shines in this respect, the two gems being Batman’s two fights with the mutant leader.

Unfortunately with all the praise inevitably comes a few criticisms. Being that it is a part 1 obviously indicates the part 2. I could understand it and give it a pass, if this one seemed so large that it would seem unreasonable to include the rest, however, it is only 76 minutes. The way I feel is that they could have just made a larger 2 hour movie, instead of asking fans to pay what will eventually total around $40 dollars, once part 2 hits store shelves.

A few more small criticisms have to do with a choice in voice casting, and a form of dialogue. Set in a near future, the mutant thugs have their own slang that they speak, which just does not translate very well to the movie. Maybe back in ’86, when the comics came out, it sounded  kind of cool, but it is about as lame as slang can get. In writing, future slang is just one of those things that should never be dabbled in because it will never be gotten right. As far as the voice goes, it is the choice to use Peter Weller (Robocop) instead of Kevin Conroy. Not that he does a bad job, in fact he is pretty good, but I grew up with Conroy voicing the “Animated Series,” so he is Batman to me. It was most likely casted this way for the purpose of giving Batman a more age hardened voice, which is understandable.

Whatever cons I have with the movie, it will not stop me from recommending it.

8/10

Jack Reacher Review

On a morning like any other morning, a man sits on a downtown park bench, a bouquet of roses at his side. A woman buys an expensive watch for a special man in her life. A businesswoman walks to a bank, seeking a lone. A young nanny, accompanied by the girl she cares for, takes a walk in that park. A mother visits the baseball stadium to purchase tickets as a reward for her son’s good grades. An unknown sniper, perched in a parking garage across from the park, takes aim at human targets. Six shots are fired, five lives are taken. This is the opening scene of Jack Reacher.

The presumed sniper, James Barr (Joseph Sikora), is taken into custody. When he is sat down with district attorney Rodin (Richard Jenkins), and investigator Emerson (David Oyelowo) to sign his confession to the murder of the five victims. Instead, he writes, “Get Jack Reacher.” Enter Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise).

A military veteran, Jack Reacher is a trained killer, with many skills at his disposal. A man with a dry sense of humor and a witty mouth, he produces a few funny moments early on. Throughout the film, he hardly ever uses a gun, but he is most deadly person onscreen. There is a history of him up to his departure from the military 2 years prior to where the story begins, so his existence is undeniable, and yet it is presently impossible to prove that he does exist. He is a “ghost,” a character describes him as, who is found only if he steps into the light, or wants someone to find him. There is no detail that escapes his eye, which makes him reminiscent of the character Lisbeth Salander, for those familiar with “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Because he is so uncommonly, and maybe unrealistically, good, critically it may become a bit of a nuisance.

When Jack answers the call of James Barr, he is contracted by James’ defense attorney, Helen (Rosamund Pike), daughter of the accusing district attorney, Rodin, as her lead investigator. Once the two begin digging through the case’s evidence, they are led to believe Helen’s client may be innocent. And the story takes off from there.

Technically there is not much to complain about. The script is well written, and the actors and actresses do a good job of bringing it to life. A notable performance to mention is Robert Duval as Cash, a shooting range owner. An aging man with a hole in the bottom of his marble sack, he becomes the movie’s comical relief.

I recommend seeing Jack Reacher.

8/10

Snow White and the Huntsman Review

Snow White and the Huntsman, starring Kristen Stewart as Snow White, and Chris Hemsworth as the Huntsman, plays out as an alternate retelling of “White White and the Seven Dwarves,” incorporating more action to please the contemporary summer blockbuster crowd. Being a sort of action take on a fairytale, it expands its horizons to a larger audience. No doubt I likely would not have seen it otherwise. After all, I did pass on “Mirror Mirror.” 

No matter the entertaining moments of the film, the movie is undeniably flawed. The manner in which Ravenna, the films villain, overtakes the kingdom of Tabor is ridiculous and unreal. (SPOILER WARNING, I guess.) After a battle against the approaching Dark Army, King Magnus, the king of Tabor the father of Snow White and a widower, finds and rescues Ravenna, a sorceress in disguise. He finds her so beautiful, they marry the very next day–yeah, for real, the very next day. She in turn kills him in his own bed on their wedding night, and brings an awaiting army into the kingdom to take over. So, she pretty much conquered the kingdom in 2 days. Being so easy to take this kingdom over, it is a wonder it did not fall sooner to a strong gust of wind. After the conquest of Tabor, the land is left in ruins, and Snow White is imprisoned.

At a young age, Ravenna (Charlize Theron) was the recipient of a spell that gave her beauty and power. The only thing that could undo the spell was another more beautiful than she herself. Enter Snow White. (The argument is whether or not Kristen Stewart can be considered more beautiful than Charlize Theron. I am going to go ahead and say no.) She has obviously been done wrong in the past by men, so now she gives them no trust, instead using them only for her own gain.

The complaints are not over; later, when Snow White escapes into the Dark Forest, a forest said to be so deadly, the huntsman, the only one known to have gone through this forest and lived to tell of it, tracks her down with a handful of other soldiers, and in the end there are no casualties to this forest. The forest seems to not live up to its deadly reputation if all these people go in and come out alive.

Another con is during the lead up to Snow White retaking the castle, wherein she rallies an army to fight alongside her. Being that she has been imprisoned for such a large part of her life, you wonder when she had time to learn the swordplay that she uses to win the battle. On the other hand, though, if we are going to have a story where she is all of a sudden “Snow White Warrior Princess,” then at least let there be an entertaining final confrontation between her and Ravenna, but to say the least, it is pretty sorry.

I personally felt the movie’s script was far underdeveloped. More thought to sew up these flaws would have went a long way. There will be a sequel, so maybe next time.

5/10

Life of Pi Review

Life of Pi, based on the book of the same name, is a tragically inspiring story. The story follows the life and adventure of Piscine Molitor “Pi” Patel from his youth in India, the country of his birth, where he discovered and practiced various religions, and crafted his nickname “Pi” due to the ridicule of the similarity between his name “Piscine” and the word “pissing,” through his teenage years, where he and his family uproot themselves from India and head toward a new life in Canada. The tragedy occurs in the form of a shipwreck, through which he becomes an orphan, as his parents, brother, and all other ship crew members and passengers are killed, except for “Richard Parker,” a zebra, hyena, and orangutan. The recount of Pi’s early life is given by his older self, told to a young writer, who was told to seek him out because of his unbelievably unique story.

A film with very little dialogue outside of the narrative between Pi’s older self and the writer, it is reminiscent of Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg’s “Castaway,” or Pixar’s “Wall-E,” where the events of the adventure are the storyteller. Not to mislead, Pi is accompanied by “Richard Parker,” a bengal tiger, where, through their unlikely relationship, this tale has much heart. For such a film as this to excel, it calls upon those said events to hold such a power to captivate it’s audience, and, in this respect, it shines.

With a heavy reliance on computer generated graphics, Life of Pi risks becoming an annoyance with all CG animals, an island, and sky reflecting ocean. It is a gamble that pays off in stunning ways, as it retains a naturalism that many other films lose. Anyone can tell at a glance it is CGI simply because there are so many unreal things here, yet the film manages to capture one in the beauty of those fantastical moments.

An impressive fact to note about Life of Pi is Suraj Sharma, the young man who plays Pi as he is going through his drifting days at sea, is not even an actor, or he at least was not until he played the character here. He did a really good job, so it will be interesting to see if he chooses to continue acting. 

Being such a unique story, which was first a book that reportedly led many to believe that it was impossible to successfully adapt as a motion picture, it likely will not appeal to every person. However, I believe it is very entertaining, and that those who, without a great deal of skepticism, give it a chance, will like it, too.

9/10

Thomas Landrum