Les Miserables (2012)

Title: Les Miserables (2012)

Director:  Tom Hooper

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter

Review:

Poverty stricken times call forth films about poverty stricken people and no other film is more suitable for today’s borderline depression era days than Les Miserables, a film that truly explores the sadness and desperation that comes with being less fortunate, actually, to be more accurate it truly wallows in it. But I’m of the mind that even the sadder parts of life have to be explored, life is bitter sweet and to say that life is all peaches and cream simply isn’t true. There’s a lot of sadness out there in the world we live in and it is important we talk about these sad parts of life, it is important that we don’t ignore the darker issues, for how are things to get better if we ignore problems? Les Miserables focuses in on one of the saddest elements of society: extreme poverty.

On this one we meet Jean Valjean, an ex-con who went to jail for stealing bread. On the particular day we meet Valjean he is set free and tries looking for a regular job, but due to the fact that he’d been in jail, he gets rejected left and right. He soon ends up in a church, screaming at god in anger, asking God why his life so miserable. But then a twist of fate makes Valjean reconsider his life and so he decides to reinvent himself and a few years later, Valjean becomes the owner of a sewing factory. Unbeknownst to him, Fantine, one of his female employees gets fired for no good reason. Unable to care for her little baby child, Fantine ends up on the streets, selling her body in the seediest parts of town. It isn’t long before death comes knocking at Fantines door and Valjean, feeling guilty for her death swears to take care of Fantine’s little baby daughter,  Cosette. What happens when Cosette grows up and wants to live her life, apart from Valjean? 

Right away, from frame one you know this movie is epic; we see Jean Valjean and hundreds of other prisoners pulling a boat into shore with ropes as they sing, and I just knew this one was going to be special. First thing you notice when you see this film is that the actors are singing for real, the songs aren’t dubbed or pre-recorded, which takes a little getting used to because normally musicals pre-record every song and actors are simply lip-synching as they sing and dance, but not on Les Miserables; here the actors really sing on set, live and this is the way you’ll hear it. I was pretty blown away by Jackman and Hathaway specifically, but really, everybody does a bang up job here. Anne Hathaway sings a song that just might bring you to tears, and win her an Oscar. I’d say maybe Russell Crowe was the only one a little off at times, but even he did a commendable job. So be ready for a musical that feels just a little bit more realistic then others, every breath, every sob between songs is heard, the pain and the feeling in the performances is projected more efficiently because of this technique.

As I watched this version of Les Miserables, I noticed how similar the story is to films like Annie (1982) and Oliver! (1968). All of these films are musicals and all three are about little orphan kids living in poverty. All three films have kids living with horrible step parents who want to take advantage of the child, and in all three films, the child is rescued by a genuinely good person looking to give the child a chance at a better life. But I guess in scope and tone, Les Miserables is closest to Oliver! The only thing that makes Les Miserables a bit different then these other two films is the element of romance, a love triangle that developes and the French revolution! The people of France in Les Miserables are on the verge of rebellion and this theme of the oppressed being sick and tired of being treated like garbage is an important one on this film because the misery of the people is often simply a reflection of what’s going on with its government. Are people just gonna sit back and let their government trample them? Or are they willing to die fighting for their freedom? Interesting themes no doubt. I found the character of Javert, the policeman following Valjean interesting. He is torn between serving the government and doing what his human side is telling him is right. This character has an interesting duality there.

The Oscar nominations are in and both Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have been nominated for their work on this film, which isn’t really a surprise. Les Miserables has also been nominated for Film of the Year, so this lets you know there is something special about this film. Plus with a cast like this one, wow, who wants to miss this show? Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonhan Carter who worked together previously in Tim Burton’s Sweeny Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) reunite here with great comical effect, playing the evil step parents of poor little Collette. But screw the Oscars, The Film Connoisseur is telling you this one is awesome, a cinematic experience of the highest caliber; a film that will move you to tears. Not to be missed!

Rating: 5 out of 5

Dark Shadows (2012)

Title: Dark Shadows (2012)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Jackie Earle Haley, Jonny Lee Miller, Chloe Grace Moretz, Bella Heathcote

Review:

Tim Burton’s always been one of my favorite directors. The guy is an artist through and through and it shows on his films. He always puts such emphasis on the mood and look of a film that even if the film is crappy (which has happened) you can rest assured you’ll at least see something that will look interesting. But even I must admit that he’s turned into a pretty hit and miss kind of director. Some of his films reach perfection like Sleepy Hollow (2004) and Ed Wood (1994); which to me are his brightest days behind the camera, some are halfway decent like Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007), and some are downright disastrous abominations like Planet of the Apes (2001) and Alice in Wonderland (2010). This is why whenever one of Burton’s films comes to the big screen; I always give them a chance. I could end up watching one of the good ones. Now take in consideration that I was never a follower of the old Dark Shadows television show, I only saw a couple of episodes sporadically. I’ve never seen any of the previous Dark Shadow films either so I’m judging this one solely on its own merits. This review comes to you from a Tim Burton fan whose been dissapointed with his recent batch of films. So, the question remains, was Dark Shadows a good Tim Burton film?

Dark Shadows is all about Barnabas Collins, a young man in love with a girl called Josette DuPres. At the same time, a powerful witch called Angelique Bouchard also has the hots for Barnabas, and she doesn’t take kindly to rejection! So when Barnabas rejects her advances, she puts Josette under a spell and sends her to her death. As for Barnabas, he gets locked inside of a coffin, buried alive and cursed to live the life of a vampire! Fast forward 196 years later, and some people unwillingly unearth Barnabas who is now faced with the fact that he’s been buried for nearly 200 years. Barnabas is now headed towards  a culture clash of gargantuan proportions! He must quickly learn the ways of Lava Lamps and Rock and Roll. He also discovers that the Collin’s family is no longer as prominent and rich as it once was. So now, Barnabas’ has only one major concern in his mind: restoring the Collin’s family to it’s former glory. Will he achieve it?

So I went into Dark Shadows kind of skeptical, would it be one of the good ones, or would it be a sucky Burton flick? If you ask me, with his recent slate of films, Tim Burton has been kind of selling his soul for money with films like Alice in Wonderland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). Would Dark Shadows be one of these fluffy colorful get rich quick films? Or would this be one of those Burton films that he puts extra care and attention to? My answer is yes, this is one of the good ones! First off, I enjoyed the humor. Going into this I was expecting Tim Burton’s version of The Addams Family. You know, a cooky, spooky, funny family, and that’s pretty much what I got, only thing is that this film is aimed more towards adults. It has sexually explicit jokes, and lots of dark humor. My only gripe is that this film should have been ‘R’ rated. I mean, you’re having a female character giving Barnabas Collins oral sex for Christ’s sake! Make it an ‘R’ rated film and you don’t have to shy way from the blood and gore which brings me to the one and only thing I didn’t like about the film, in terms of the gore it felt restrained.

Tim Burton, working his magic with Johnny Depp

Let’s take for example Sleepy Hollow (2004) which I consider to be Burton’s masterpiece. It’s a fairytale, it’s dark, it’s gothic, it’s gory…and it was rated ‘R’ which was the perfect thing to do. After all, this was a movie about a guy who goes around decapitating people, there’s no way around it, Sleepy Hollow, though based on a fairy tale (which are usually aimed at kids) needed to be rated ‘R’ so you wouldn’t shy away from the gory nature of the story, from the horror. If you ask me, Dark Shadows should have been an ‘R’ as well. Aside from the fact that it’s a film filled with a sexual situation or two, Barnabas is a vampire, a blood sucker. One scene that has Barnabas feeding on a group of young kids should have been a blood bath, instead, Burton cuts away and we don’t see the potentially gruesome scene, even after all the build up that goes on before it. I guess this is the way films are made today. Everything has to be watered down PG-13, just to play it safe. Just to make sure you’re film will make as many millions as it possibly could. Well, you know what, I got news for you Hollywood; Sleepy Hollow was ‘R’ and it still made a huge amount of money. But whatever, filmmaking is equal parts business and equal parts art, I’m sure here Burton was just following orders from studio execs not to go over the top with the blood and gore. I’m just saying; this film needed a bit more gruesomeness. Still, this is a minor hiccup with the film, what else worked about it?

Well for starters as it is expected in a Burton film, the art direction was superb. I loved the look of Collinwood, the mansion that the Collin’s family inhabits. It’s this gigantic old mansion filled with room after cob web filled room, with dark hallways and secret passages. At times, with certain shots, I felt like I was watching an old Hammer film, which is probably exactly what Burton was going for. Burton did a good job of mixing that look that horror films from the 70’s had with his gothic, artistic sensibilities. The result is a film with a very different color palette then your usual Burton film, the film is colorful, but the colors are kind of muted, the way the colors looked on the old Dark Shadows television shows. I would say that Burton was successful in replicating the way Dan Curtis’s films and television shows looked. But the film still has Burton’s ‘gothicness’ to it. And by the way, I want to applaud the fact that CGI was kept to a minimum on this one, finally, this film like a real film and not like a bunch of actors are standing behind a green screen. The CGI is used the way it should be used, whenever it’s necessary. Mr. Burton, The Film Connoisseur salutes you for this!

Dark Shadows is a spooky flick filled with everything from ghosts, to witches, to vampires and even werewolves, a horror fan should be happy with this film. I also enjoyed the phantasmagorical images Burton came up with in those scenes dealing with the ghosts that inhabit Collinwood. This is a horror film, but it’s also a comedy, and the characters are funny in their own kooky ways, with that mordant Burton sense of humor which is present in many of his films. Dark Shadows marks Burton’s eight collaboration with Johnny Depp, who is great as Barnabas, the character is likable even though he’s a villain which is a tough feat to achieve, its Barnabas that will keep you entertained through out, great character. Some complaint that this movie is slow, or boring, but I found it to be great fun, the dialog, the sarcasm, the witt, honestly at times it felt like The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) of the horror world. You know, the story of a family trying to recover its former glory. And for those that complaint about this film being ‘boring’ just remember that Dan Curtis’s films were never action packed films, they were always quiet, spooky tales about family. And this is what this film captures well, it captures that fog filled cemetery, with the ghosts creeping about the hallways of the mansion, the dark corridors...the gigantic ominous looking house with a history. I’m guessing what some people might not like is that this version of Dark Shadows is a comedy, and the old show wasn’t, but if you look at the campiness of those shows today, you might find comedy in it.  

In terms of the comedy, I say the film succeeded. I was laughing like a mad man with some of the jokes, especially those dealing with Barnabas and his clash with the 70’s, great fish out of water stuff there. The comedy is a bit subtle, and it’s more related to the dialog than slapstick or physical comedy, so what these characters say and the way they behave is what should keep you giggling. The film reminded me of The Addams Family (1991) in many ways, let’s see, we have the eccentric family members, the gigantic and spooky mansion, the family treasure and the strangers who want to get their hands on it, and finally, the honor of the family name. These are all elements that both films share, but Dark Shadows adds the element of sexual obsession to the mix, though Gomez and Morticia had a little of that going on as well. So both films are similar, but Dark Shadows is decidedly more adult in a way.  Final words is that this was a satisfying Tim Burton film, and I’m glad because I’ve been waiting for a good Burton film for a while, glad I didn’t give up on the guy. He’s still got it in my book.

Rating: 4 out of 5

  

The King's Speech (2010)

Title: The King’s Speech (2010)

Director: Tom Hooper

Cast: Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush, Guy Pearce

Review:

The King’s Speech was the big winner on Oscar night 2011. It won four Academy Awards: Best Actor (Colin Firth) Best Original Screenplay (David Seidler), Best Director (Tom Hooper) and Best Film of the Year. I thought it deserved the awards that it got, because it is a good film, with excellent performances and a well written screenplay. Personally, I was rooting for Darren Aronofsky to win the Oscar for Best Director for Black Swan, but whatever, as it turns out The King’s Speech was the big winner of the night. You know how The Academy loves an inspirational film with characters conquering their fears and achieving their goals. Black Swan was probably too dark a movie for The Academy, who we all know likes their winning films to be happy, shinny and up lifting. The King’s Speech certainly fits those prerequisites.

The King’s Speech is a film that focuses on the pressures and stress that fall upon a political figure. You and I (read: the common man) can’t really grasp what it means to suddenly become such an important political figure for a whole nation, so the movie does a wonderful job of doing it for us. It’s interesting to note that King George VI (played by Colin Firth) became king only when his brother, King Edward VIII (played by Guy Pearce) renounced the thrown. When King Edward VIII inherits the throne, moments after his fathers death, the first thing he does is burst into uncontrollable crying. At first we think he is crying over his fathers death, but it soon becomes clear that he is crying because he doesn’t want all the responsibility that comes with the title. Apparently, all King Edward VIII wanted to do was have a good time through life, partying, falling in love, he didn’t care about being a King, which is why after a short tenor as the King of England, King Edward VIII renounces the thrown and hands it over to his brother King George VI. Problem is, King George VI has a speech impediment, he stammers and the stammering gets worse when he has to addresses the nation. Enter Geoffrey Rush, speech therapist, to help him with his problem.

The most interesting aspect for me about this film was how The King of England has to come down from his royal palace to meet with a common man to help him out of his dilemma. Geoffrey Rush’s character Lionel Logue isn’t a high class aristocrat, nope; he is just a common man who is good at what he does. He doesn’t even have a degree! Yet here he is; the kings’ last hope. The film constantly questions the seat of power; it literally tries to bring the high and mighty King, the ultimate representation of political power, down to a more human level. Lionel Logue constantly tries to humanize The King, begging for him to come off his high horse. I think the movie quite cleverly squeezes these themes in the film, sort of reminding governments, hey, you know, you wouldn’t be up there if it wasn’t for the help of the common man, the poor guy who has a family to feed and does an honest days work. And I really liked that about the film. It’s the king actually listening, spending time, and thanking the commoner for his services. I liked that idea, because it’s something that those in power sometimes forget: that the governed are real people, with real situations, they aren’t just statistics. So kudos to the movie for that.

It also questions the power that a political figure actually has. I mean, just how powerful is a King or a President of a nation? In certain cases, and this holds true for the United States as well, the King or the President is just a symbolic figure, the big honchos making the decisions are really back stage, while the king or president is just there to talk to the people. One scene has the King saying: “If I am King, then where is my power? Can I declare war? Form a government? Levy a tax? No! And yet I am the seat of all authority because the people think that when I speak, I speak for them” There is another scene where Lionel sits in this royal chair where only kings and queens have sat in. The king gets his panties all up in a bunch over this telling Lionel to get off the chair, that he is trivializing everything. Lionel tells the king: “I don’t care how many Royal assholes have sat on this chair, its just a chair.” I liked this aspect of the film because sometimes people tend to deify political figures and forget that they are just humans, with fears and limitations, same as you or I.

I enjoyed the film mainly because it’s a film that begs governments to show a thread of humanity with its ‘loyal subjects’. It bets for governments to treat their subjects, however common they maybe, with the dignity and respect they deserve. Because who knows, maybe one day they might need us for something. It’s a movie that gives value to the common man as an important part of society. I loved the performances; Geoffrey Rush plays such an adorable, goofy and candid character. I love it how he confronts the king, brings him down to a more human level. Colin Firth starts out as a stubborn guy who hates himself and his stammering, a guy who is filled with anger. He slowly, with the help of Lionel, learns to deal with his anger, conquer his speech impediment and finally addresses the nation in the proper way. It’s the reason why the film won four Oscars, it’s an uplifting tale, where a man goes through this whole evolution, and conquers his fears. In the process, he learns a thing or two about humility, sympathy for others and true friendship.

Speaking of conquering ones fears and all that, the screenwriter for The King’s Speech, David Seidler also stammered when he was a child, and King George’s story motivated him to over come it, so the film has a bit of authenticity to it when it comes to the whole psychological process of overcoming a speech impediment. Another Interesting thing about David Seidler is that up to this point he had been working mostly on writing straight to dvd and television films like the David Carradine vehicles Kung Fu Killer (2008) and Son of the Dragon (2006). His only brushes with theatrical releases were his scripts for Tucker a Man and His Dream (1988) and an animated feature film called Quest for Camelot (1998). He’d always wanted to write a film about King George VIII, so he started working on the screenplay which he’d always had in the back of his head. Low and behold, years down the line he ends up winning an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay and the film itself is the big winner of the night! Seidler isn’t exactly a young pup (he’s well into his seventies) yet here he is in his Golden Years, winning an Academy Award. When he received the award he said “My father always told me I’d be a late bloomer!” He gave a great acceptance speech at the Oscars, without a bit of stammering to be heard! Hooray for late bloomers!

Rate: 5 out of 5

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Title: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Director: Tim Burton

Stars: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover and Alice Mia Wasikowska

Written by: Linda Woolverton based on Alice In Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

Review:

I miss the days when fantasy movies were real. I know that sounds like a contradiction of sorts, because by nature, fantasy is not real. It’s imagination running wild. What I’m referring to is that I miss the days when fantasy filmmakers actually went through the trouble of building sets to make their films, in this way making their fantasy world more tangible, and in a way real. I miss the days when to make whatever fantastical creature the script called for they would resort to puppets or animatronics. Even stop motion animation felt more tangible then computer generated images. But as they say, times are a changing; and I have to learn (reluctantly so) to adapt to that change. I guess. Plus, I’m sure studios are resorting to movies dominated by computer animation for monetary reasons. It must be a hell of a lot cheaper to build a set on a computer, than it is to build it for real. Still, I miss that level of “reality” in fantasy films. Films like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland sometimes make me feel disconnected from them. But whatever, I’m not going to bitch and moan about that, because in a strange way, computer animation is a great way to go for films like this one. I just wish there was more of balance. Im of the mind that not every single little frame of the movie has to be computer animated! There should be a balance. My favorite fx movies are those that use computer animation only when its absolutely needed. Whenever its used excessively, it simply feels like lazy filmmaking to me.

In Alice in Wonderland everything save for the actors is completely computer animated, and it shows. Granted, there is artistry involved in the animation, the film and its visuals are filled in every corner with color and detail, and it is dazzling to look at (specially with those nifty 3-D glasses) but still, I couldn’t help the feeling of detachment from the film. This feeling I’m sure was not only due to the films computer animated nature. I’m thinking it also has to do with the way the story was told. Tim Burton has said that he didn’t want Alice in Wonderland to feel as if Alice was simply going from one weird character to the next. That he wanted to make a movie that we could connect with. Sadly, in my opinion, he did the exact opposite of that! The way I saw it, Burton made a very disjointed film. It did feel as if Alice was jumping from one weird character to the next, from one bizarre situation to the next, without a sense of cohesiveness to the proceedings. In my opinion, the movie didn’t flow. It felt to me like Alice just went from one crazy character through the next without any character development, without knowing exactly what makes her tick. It had a glimpse of character development in one scene where Alice realizes that she is dreaming, she knows this is all happening in her head, but that moment is brief. In my opinion, there should have been more introspective moments like that one in a movie that happens mostly inside of a characters mind.

I guess my main gripe with this movie was that it felt cold and detached. But did I enjoy any other aspects the film? Well, Tim Burton is an artist, and as such, he pays special attention to the artistic elements of the film, the visuals. Once you watch this movie you definitely feel like you are in Tim Burton territory. That gothic nature to Tim Burton’s films is there with the crooked trees and the strange dark characters, so I enjoyed that familiar Tim Burton Universe feel. I also dug Johnny Depp, who has become a permanent fixture in Burton’s cinematic escapades. Depp is known for playing quirky, off beat characters in Burton’s films and The Mad Hatter is a welcome addition to Depp’s weird characters file. He is the one thing that gives the film a bit of emotion. Helena Bonham Carter was perfectly cast as the Red Queen, she adds many funny moments to the movie specially whenever she screams “of with his head!”

This time around, Wonderland, or Underland as it is referred to on this movie is a bit darker then the one we might remember from previous Alice in Wonderland movies because this film shows us an underland that’s been ravaged by the evil government of the Red Queen. Everyone is poor, suffering, the houses are burned down and basically, Underland is falling apart. Except for the Red Queens castle of course which is filled with servants and luxuries. In this way, the film is actually very subversive in nature. I’m surprised at just how many subversively themed movies are coming out lately (check out my review of Shutter Island to see what I’m talking about) and Burtons Alice in Wonderland can be counted amongst those films that display a hatred for the government and the way things are being handled by it. Mad Hatter and his friends are all a gang of rebels who play at being mad, so the authorities won’t harm them. “Never mind him, he is mad” the Red Queen says at one point not realizing the Mad Hatter and his friends are the ones she should be fearing the most. It’s a common thing to show the subversive rebellious character as being “mad” and at the same time very sane…again, read my review for Scorcece’s Shutter Island (2010) or Falling Down (1993) to see what I mean.

The Mad Hatter, leader of the revolution

Also, there was a scene that I found pretty edgy thematically, and its one when The Mad Hatter actually suggests that Alice should kill the evil Red Queen. I thought that was a pretty bold statement from Burton right there. Kill the Queen, replace her with the good queen, and let the kingdom be happy and merry again. Normally, I warm up to films of this nature cause I like subversive films, the ones that go against “big brother” and all that. And I did enjoy the themes Alice in Wonderland was playing with, but I still couldn’t warm up to the film itself. Things got worse as the movie progressed into a predictable third act with Alice going up against the Red Queen and her evil dragon. I was kind of bored by this point. To me even though this movie was interesting visually, it was just a movie going by the numbers from one plot point to the next, without reaching out to the audience for some emotional connection. I didn’t really dig that. Movie directors need to remember that when a movie is on, they have the audience’s full attention and that this is the moment which they need to use to connect with them. I didn’t feel this so much with Alice in Wonderland.

One of the big questions with this movie is: Is it too scary for kids? Because after all, this is a Disney movie, and Lewis Carroll's book is a childrens book. My answer to that question is that Lewis Carroll's Wonderland stories were always dark and strange to begin with. They were trippy from the get go. So if you couldnt take Lewis Carroll's books, chances are, you'll probably find this one too scary for kids. Me? I thought it was weird and strange, but not all that scary. The one scene that I thought went a little too far for a childrens movie is one scene in which Alice has to cross a body of water to reach the Red Queen's castle, and the body of water is filled decapitated floating heads. Which Alice begins to walk on in order to get to the Queens castle. But again, Alice in Wonderland was always a surreal trippy experience and this film does hold true to the original book in that sense.

From a visual standpoint, the movie is pure eye candy. The whole 3-D experience has really taken off now. It’s making Hollywood more millions then ever this time around because they have actually perfected the whole 3-D thing. Many people out there think that 3-D is a gimmick, and it is, but I’m of the opinion that 3-D works wonders on certain kinds of films. Like fantasy films for example, or sci-fi, or simply films in which special effects take center stage. When Alice falls down the rabbit hole, it’s an experience. 3-D isn’t a new thing, it’s been around since 1890! It took off with horror films during the 50s, mainly Vincent Price horror movies like House of Wax. 3-D has always been around in one form or another, but only now has it reached its full potential in theaters. It doesn’t give you a headache, the glasses give the images a depth that you don’t get when you are watching a regular film and it’s a trippy fun experience. This is really the only way in which the film worked for me. Its not Burtons worst film (Planet of the Apes still holds that place, and I don’t think it will ever loose it) but it isn’t his best either.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5