Rating: C+
Probably my favourite musical of all time, I couldn't wait for Les Mis to come out Christmas Day. The unfortunate thing was that the stars were a little bit of a distraction to an otherwise excellent rendition of Victor Hugo's classic.
This iteration of the musical takes a little while getting used to. Usually, when musicals are put on the big screen, the singing ends up being part of the soundtrack. Instead, Tom Hooper decided that the singing was going to be part of the script. So this does 2 things.
1. On most sound systems, the singing is going to be on the centre speaker and the music on the side/surrounding speakers.
2. You have to act AND sing at the same time.
For myself, I found this to be part of the distraction. Case and point, Anne Hathaway's character Fantine has a big powerful solo that she has to cry through. Ever try crying and singing at the same time? It's not the easiest thing to do, and I do have to compliment her for that. But at the same time, at certain points, it almost seemed like she was screaming. Not so good.
I couldn't decide if Eddie Redmayne (Marius) had a problem acting, or a problem acting AND singing at the same time. His voice was actually pretty good, I mean heck, he DID win himself a Tony award. You see, when you're on stage and doing musicals, you don't act so much with your face as you do with your voice and your body language. And like I said about having the singing as part of the script, it's really hard to do both at the same time.
The biggest distraction however, came in the form of Russell Crowe, who played Javert. Yes, he has his band, 30 Odd Foot of Grunts, but that sort of singing is entirely different than the type of voice you use for musicals. His voice simply pales in comparison. It's particularly evident during his little back and forth with Hugh Jackman, who actually came from the world of musicals.
It's watchable enough for sure, and very well done despite these distractions. But I thought it was rather sad that the supporting cast members seemed to have better voices than the starring cast. Again, distracting.
~Cheers.
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Sunday, 29 April 2012
Movie: The Raven (2012)
Rating: C+
I really wonder if Hollywood is afraid of making anything provocative, shocking, and daring. The Raven had so much potential, and a wealth of back material to draw from. And while it was clever, it wasn't particularly smart. Where there were plot twists, they weren't particularly mind-bending. Yet another movie in this year's indulgence of mediocrity.
It's been said that John Cusack is probably the most natural actor of our time. And I quite agree with that. It's a shame that most of the other cast members in this film was not so natural. And while I feel that Cusack is miscast in this role, I think he did an admirable job as Edgar Allan Poe, I feel that the role would have been better served being played by someone a little darker, say perhaps, Johnny Depp.
The biggest problem of the movie was its lack of direction. There really would have been no difference if they completed this movie with 1 murder, or with a dozen. The clues of the murder led you to the next clue and not to who the killer was. So really, The mystery and chase was really rather pointless. And while ONE of the murders was decidedly graphic and macabre, none of the other ones had the same level fear, torture, nor blood.
Perhaps one would be more involved in the movie if they were more familiar with Poe's work, but I doubt very many know more than a handful of his life and work well enough to find the correlation intriguing. This movie could have had so much more depth. It could have been significantly more gripping. Or they could have opted to make it totally tragic. Instead, they opted for mediocrity.
~Cheers.
I really wonder if Hollywood is afraid of making anything provocative, shocking, and daring. The Raven had so much potential, and a wealth of back material to draw from. And while it was clever, it wasn't particularly smart. Where there were plot twists, they weren't particularly mind-bending. Yet another movie in this year's indulgence of mediocrity.
It's been said that John Cusack is probably the most natural actor of our time. And I quite agree with that. It's a shame that most of the other cast members in this film was not so natural. And while I feel that Cusack is miscast in this role, I think he did an admirable job as Edgar Allan Poe, I feel that the role would have been better served being played by someone a little darker, say perhaps, Johnny Depp.
The biggest problem of the movie was its lack of direction. There really would have been no difference if they completed this movie with 1 murder, or with a dozen. The clues of the murder led you to the next clue and not to who the killer was. So really, The mystery and chase was really rather pointless. And while ONE of the murders was decidedly graphic and macabre, none of the other ones had the same level fear, torture, nor blood.
Perhaps one would be more involved in the movie if they were more familiar with Poe's work, but I doubt very many know more than a handful of his life and work well enough to find the correlation intriguing. This movie could have had so much more depth. It could have been significantly more gripping. Or they could have opted to make it totally tragic. Instead, they opted for mediocrity.
~Cheers.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Movie: The Tree of Life (2011)
Rating: B-
OK. I get it. The world is like a tree. And like a tree, it grows and spreads, and splits, and blossoms. Our lives too, reflect that. But in all that imagery and symbolism and beauty and awe, there needs to be some sense of cohesion, flow, and continuity. Somewhere. Anywhere.
Terrence Malick starts the movie off with random shots of the past, the present, and the future with some awe inspiring shots of absolute magnificence that is so randomly perplexing that while some might call it cinematic poetry, I can only describe as a convoluted collection of photographic genius that left me to wonder if this was some randomised National Geographic footage. All that was missing was the Alexander Scourby narration (although I guess these days, it would probably be done by Morgan Freeman. Haha).
Aside from the first 40 minutes where Malick tries to randomly select beautifully crafted footage to symbolise the creation of the world, including shots of waterfalls, volcanoes, and I'm sorry...Dinosaurs(?!)...There is a feebly concocted jagged story of a father (played by Brad Pitt) and his family. While some of the arbitrarily selected snippets showed a boy's struggle growing up, it's a pretty weak collection of memories for the boy to grow up to be so morose and tormented. The boy grows up to look remarkably like Sean Penn, which makes no sense because there's really no reason for him to be in the movie. Oh right...so that they could put his name on the poster.
If, somehow, you're able to see past the arbitrary randomness to the symbolic abstractions, this distorted metaphor for "The Tree of Life" is a visually stunning, cinematically perplexing experience.
~Cheers.
Blogger's Note: I loved the way Mike Ward from Richmond.com finished off his review of the movie:
"I admire “The Tree of Life” – in the same way I admire the white-haired lady in the “Guinness Book of World Records” with 28-foot fingernails. By the way, after “The Tree of Life,” you’ll probably have to cut your nails, just saying."
OK. I get it. The world is like a tree. And like a tree, it grows and spreads, and splits, and blossoms. Our lives too, reflect that. But in all that imagery and symbolism and beauty and awe, there needs to be some sense of cohesion, flow, and continuity. Somewhere. Anywhere.
Terrence Malick starts the movie off with random shots of the past, the present, and the future with some awe inspiring shots of absolute magnificence that is so randomly perplexing that while some might call it cinematic poetry, I can only describe as a convoluted collection of photographic genius that left me to wonder if this was some randomised National Geographic footage. All that was missing was the Alexander Scourby narration (although I guess these days, it would probably be done by Morgan Freeman. Haha).
Aside from the first 40 minutes where Malick tries to randomly select beautifully crafted footage to symbolise the creation of the world, including shots of waterfalls, volcanoes, and I'm sorry...Dinosaurs(?!)...There is a feebly concocted jagged story of a father (played by Brad Pitt) and his family. While some of the arbitrarily selected snippets showed a boy's struggle growing up, it's a pretty weak collection of memories for the boy to grow up to be so morose and tormented. The boy grows up to look remarkably like Sean Penn, which makes no sense because there's really no reason for him to be in the movie. Oh right...so that they could put his name on the poster.
If, somehow, you're able to see past the arbitrary randomness to the symbolic abstractions, this distorted metaphor for "The Tree of Life" is a visually stunning, cinematically perplexing experience.
~Cheers.
Blogger's Note: I loved the way Mike Ward from Richmond.com finished off his review of the movie:
"I admire “The Tree of Life” – in the same way I admire the white-haired lady in the “Guinness Book of World Records” with 28-foot fingernails. By the way, after “The Tree of Life,” you’ll probably have to cut your nails, just saying."
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Movie: Bruce Lee, My Brother (2010)
Rating: C+
Most people have heard of Bruce Lee. Several biopics have been made over the years talking about this superstar, his life, and how it was cut short. Most however, gloss over his childhood focusing instead on his time in the US. This rendition, based off of memoirs, written by his brother, talks about him and his family growing up, and how he got his start in Hong Kong.
The movie stars some relatives unknowns along with Tony Leung (梁家輝）and Christy Chung (鍾麗緹) as Bruce's parents. The movie is largely superficial, talking about Bruce and his buddies getting into trouble, and how he breezes into fame. But it's a feel good story and not a documentary. It doesn't talk about any personal demons he had or anything like that. But just gives you an overview of how he grew up.
If anyone knows anything about Hong Kong biopics, it is to believe no more than 20% of what's presented to you. This movie, is the same. Not a GREAT movie by any stretch of the imagination, but gives you certain insights to how Bruce grew up, his family, and life in Hong Kong in the 60s. Also, a great job by Tony Leung, and the kid the plays Bruce as a child? Brilliant.
~Cheers.
Most people have heard of Bruce Lee. Several biopics have been made over the years talking about this superstar, his life, and how it was cut short. Most however, gloss over his childhood focusing instead on his time in the US. This rendition, based off of memoirs, written by his brother, talks about him and his family growing up, and how he got his start in Hong Kong.
The movie stars some relatives unknowns along with Tony Leung (梁家輝）and Christy Chung (鍾麗緹) as Bruce's parents. The movie is largely superficial, talking about Bruce and his buddies getting into trouble, and how he breezes into fame. But it's a feel good story and not a documentary. It doesn't talk about any personal demons he had or anything like that. But just gives you an overview of how he grew up.
If anyone knows anything about Hong Kong biopics, it is to believe no more than 20% of what's presented to you. This movie, is the same. Not a GREAT movie by any stretch of the imagination, but gives you certain insights to how Bruce grew up, his family, and life in Hong Kong in the 60s. Also, a great job by Tony Leung, and the kid the plays Bruce as a child? Brilliant.
~Cheers.
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Movie: Cleopatra (1963)
Rating: B.....and C-
I've always been a fan of the classics. In my case, it simply means that I've always WANTED to watch them. Unfortunately, never really found the right opportunity to watch them. But after the recent passing of Elizabeth Taylor, I decided that it was high time I watched one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time, and a movie, that for the first time ever, gave an actress $1,000,000 in salary.
Critics have mostly bashed this movie, and quite honestly, I don't blame them. However, regardless of whatever the Academy was smoking, this film WAS nominated for Best Picture for the Oscars. As the trailer points out, Cleopatra is indeed a spectacle to watch. It is lavish and opulent, over the top and stunningly beautiful. It doesn't unfortunately, take away from the fact that this movie is 4, yes count'em.... FOUR HOURS LONG! It was long enough that it actually included an intermission!
Cleopatra is actually 2 movies in one. The first tells the story of Cleopatra's ambitious affair with Julius Caesar, played brilliantly by Rex Harrison.The script was witty, smart, and the movie itself was as ambitious as Cleopatra's plan to rule the world. The second, tells the story of Cleopatra's torrid affair with Marc Antony (Richard Burton). But I felt that this is where the movie ran out of steam. The chemistry between Taylor and Burton was obvious; heck, their affair off the screen (and eventual marriage.....twice...) became as talked about as their affair on screen! Directionless chatter and drivel, coupled with poorly orchestrated battle scenes made the 2nd half of the movie arduous to watch, and tedious to sit through.
While Cleopatra isn't required viewing, Elizabeth Taylor shines and shows why she nearly single handedly changed America's rating system for movies. And I can't see very many movies today that will invest money into such brilliant hubris and opulence.
~Cheers.
I've always been a fan of the classics. In my case, it simply means that I've always WANTED to watch them. Unfortunately, never really found the right opportunity to watch them. But after the recent passing of Elizabeth Taylor, I decided that it was high time I watched one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time, and a movie, that for the first time ever, gave an actress $1,000,000 in salary.
Critics have mostly bashed this movie, and quite honestly, I don't blame them. However, regardless of whatever the Academy was smoking, this film WAS nominated for Best Picture for the Oscars. As the trailer points out, Cleopatra is indeed a spectacle to watch. It is lavish and opulent, over the top and stunningly beautiful. It doesn't unfortunately, take away from the fact that this movie is 4, yes count'em.... FOUR HOURS LONG! It was long enough that it actually included an intermission!
Cleopatra is actually 2 movies in one. The first tells the story of Cleopatra's ambitious affair with Julius Caesar, played brilliantly by Rex Harrison.The script was witty, smart, and the movie itself was as ambitious as Cleopatra's plan to rule the world. The second, tells the story of Cleopatra's torrid affair with Marc Antony (Richard Burton). But I felt that this is where the movie ran out of steam. The chemistry between Taylor and Burton was obvious; heck, their affair off the screen (and eventual marriage.....twice...) became as talked about as their affair on screen! Directionless chatter and drivel, coupled with poorly orchestrated battle scenes made the 2nd half of the movie arduous to watch, and tedious to sit through.
While Cleopatra isn't required viewing, Elizabeth Taylor shines and shows why she nearly single handedly changed America's rating system for movies. And I can't see very many movies today that will invest money into such brilliant hubris and opulence.
~Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
