Les Miserables (2012)

Running Time: 158 minutes.
Media: Cinematic release (Hoyts Broadway)


True story, when I was seven, my mother had a number of books in French that I was interested in reading... There was Around the World in 80 Days, The Three Musketeers, From the Earth to the Moon, and Les Miserables. I couldn't help asking my mother "Who's Les? He's got a pretty awful surname...?"

Alright, you can stop laughing... I did think it was a pretty unfortunate surname. And I never thought to see the musical until recently, and now that I have seen this adaptation, I would love the opportunity to see this once it makes its way back to Australia... that and Avenue Q, but I digress...

I was really happy about seeing this widescreen, and I knew that being a 2½-plus hour movie, the category of "EPIC!" would consistently flash in my head as I watched it, I made myself comfortable. Being a late session there weren't many people around... in fact I would have been surprised if there were no more than ten people in this particular cinema. This made for a wonderful viewing session.

Moving on, Les Mis has managed to garner nine (count them, nine) BAFTA Awards, including Best Film, Best British Film, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role and eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Now given that Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have already won Golden Globe Awards for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress respectively, the odds of them bagging an Oscar each this year are quite high... I wouldn't be surprised if this movie gets a clean sweep.

For those living under a rock, Les Mis, is the story of the struggle of one Jean Valjean (played by Hugh Jackman), who has made a promise to a former and now dead worker of his to look after her illegitimate daughter. Valjean is also on the run from parole after serving a nineteen year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread... Times were harsh back in pre-revolutionary France. Valjean's nemesis is a prison guard, Javert (played by Russell Crowe), who has made it his life's work to hunt Valjean down and bring him back to jail for breaking parole.

Cosette, played by the ever adorable Amanda Seyfried is the adopted daughter of Valjean, with her mother, Fantine, played by Anne Hathaway. The musical is such that very little of the script is spoken, it's sung through pretty much from beginning to end... which kinda reminded me of how it was with Evita. The music is wonderful and it captures your heart, because it is bubbling with raw emotion... especially from Jackman and Hathaway... all other characters kinda pale in comparison... Russell Crowe less so, seeing that a number of critics have said that his only real musical experience stems from his involvement in his band 30 Odd Foot Of Grunts, and an assortment of random appearances... But you know what? He pulls it off just fine, I like his performance as Javert. Javert is a very troubled character, and as a result, the singing must follow in a similar manner to reveal the character through their music. Valjean is hurried and passionate and loving and determined for survival, and his singing conveys that. Javert's character is focused and troubled at the same time, with an obsessive streak with finding Valjean and bringing him to justice, and Crowe's singing conveys this too.

Hathaway's... just... extraordinary, I had to shake my head in disbelief in how beautiful and heart wrenching it was... It put Susan Boyle's rendition to shame. Fantine (Hathaway's character) is only focused on one thing, not herself, but the life of her daughter, Cosette. She's literally sacrificed herself so that he daughter could live. I believe her portrayal of Fantine. I wanted to cry, I really did.

Jackman, though said by a number of critics as "not as good" as his 1985-1987 London production counterpart, Colm Wilkinson, is actually remarkable, he embodies that role... and he's quite believable. What I was surprised about though was how he managed to shape up for the role. He actually lost 15 pounds (6½ kilos), to become the gaunt and emaciated ex-convict Jean Valjean, and gained 30 pounds (13 kilos), to become the mayor, Monsieur Madeleine, the new identity adopted by Valjean. Jackman is known for the vigorous regimes he undertakes for certain roles. He had a similar regime when he underwent a high intensity weight training regimen to improve his physique for the role of Wolverine in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. He altered the training program to shock his body into change and also performed cardiovascular workouts. So that shot of him as Wolverine rising from the tank after having his bones infused with adamantium - no digital touches whatsoever.


Rusty's portrayal of Javert is complex, but you kinda feel sorry for him after realizing he (Javert) is only just trying to do his job... He's taken a lot of flack for his performance, and I can see why some people may think that way, but I feel he gave it his all in this role; and while though that may not be enough for some, without Javert there can be no Jean Valjean. For those who don't care, look towards the end of the film at Javert's final scene where his soliloquy kinda makes you understand why he spent all that time chasing Valjean, and the inevitable demise thereafter, but prepare to cringe at the very moment.

There are a few surprises scattered here and there throughout the film. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play Monsieur and Madame Thénardier; and they previously starred together in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, so their ability to work together musically is surprisingly upbeat. Bonham Carter looks like she tends to, a bit necrotic... She does star as a number of unusual roles, doesn't she? But she works well as Cohen's husband on-screen. Cohen works wonders as Monsieur Thénardier, and I think kinda steals the scenes he's in. He's a hidden jewel in the movie... a built in "easter egg" of sorts.

Who else, oh yes... For those playing at home, the Bishop is indeed Colm Wilkinson, the original Jean Valjean from the London production back in the 80's. I hear there's also a cameo of Frances Ruffelle as a prostitute who harasses Fantine, but I have yet to find her. I almost squealed in my seat when I did, not that the other ten or so audience members noticed... Being a late session I enjoyed this movie without much interruption, and I enjoyed it so much, I almost came close to singing along... But I didn't, but any musical that makes you feel like doing so must deserve some sort of credit for moving you.

That is why I am giving Les Miserables a 4½ star rating. It comes very close, but there's a feeling that it doesn't quite give you the opportunity to sit back and take in the performances, it's almost as if it wanted to finish a lot sooner than expected. I may also be docking the ½ a star due to the slight tranquilizing effect that Crowe gives as Javert in certain scenes. Although he does well for what I believe is his first musical, he doesn't bring it home. Sorry Rusty, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed your performance, but I feel that somehow you seemed a little subdued in the final edit; that could very well have been to direct our attention to Hugh, who knows? Four and a half stars.

Hop

Running Time: 95 minutes.
Media: DVD.

Be warned, I did give this movie 2 stars. Why? I mean sure, it's got cute little bunnies, cute little chicks, well... a whole heap of cute little chicks and one larger Spanish speaking chick; and Kaley Cuoco... but it kinda screws up within the first minute of it playing.

James Marsden does a little narration, only to throw in the biggest spoiler of the movie some thirty seconds into the movie. To me, it sounds like a bit of a dig. Why give it away? I don't know why Universal Pictures thought this was a good idea... After all, the focus, according to the previews of this movie that  had seen was all about our furry friend here, E.B., played by Russell Brand. It eventually gets turned around to be a stronger focus on Marsden's character of Fred O'Hare, a slacker in Hollywood who lives with his parents, Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins.

Now, I was under the impression that this movie was meant to detail E.B.'s strain with his father, a real square, and the Easter Bunny, played by a very not-so-square Hugh Laurie, who wants to pass the torch down to E.B. and make him the Easter Bunny Elect so to speak. E.B. is not so happy with the idea, wanting to be a famous drummer. And dammit, there's only one way he can do it, by leaving Easter Island (what a brilliant location for the Easter Bunny and his son!) and going to Hollywood to make his dreams come true.

E.B. meets up with Fred and causes a little chaos for him, only for Fred to still help him with getting onto Hoff Knows Talent, a talent show in which it seems David Hasselhoff has stripped away possible co-hosts and plans on doing the job himself. And speaking of which, Carlos, the second in command to the Easter Bunny, wants the head job himself... only to really do away with sending kids chocolate eggs and candy, only to replace it with bird seed, dried crickets and worms... Now, while I appreciate Carlos' thoughts on nutrition, and I admit, crickets are nicer when they're deep fried (they taste like chicken), I'd rather have the chocolate. E.B. and Fred do what they can to stop Carlos' reign of error (that's no typo, it actually says "error", play on words), only for both E.B. and Fred both being given the title of co-Easter Bunnies... Trust me, I'm not spoiling it for anyone here, Marsden gave it away at the beginning of the film. I'm actually surprised to see it come to bear fruit at the end of the film.

Where to begin, where to begin... Okay, good points... Number one, Russell Brand's portrayal of E.B., brilliant choice in casting, I wouldn't have picked anyone else... but the funny thing is, I didn't really think it as Russell's voice, it was just a beautiful meld of fur and funny... Russell Brand is pretty much the rock star of the comedy world; and E.B. is the rock star of the bunny world. It's a nice smush of characteristics and it goes so well... like... fried eggs and Tabasco sauce...

Number two, Kaley Cuoco, she's cute, and she's got a lot of promise, and in this film she's Fred's sister... But sadly, she's not in the film as much as I would have thought... the film does focus on Fred and E.B. a lot but not much on the supplementary characters... a bit of a disappointment, but it's nice to see Cuoco in something other than The Big Bang Theory...

Number three, Hugh Laurie as the Easter Bunny... He's regal, majestic and carries the fate of Easter on his ears... I mean, shoulders... And yet he can put a brilliant spin on a role as equivocal as that of the Easter Bunny... Just as good as Mr. Bunny as he was as Dr. Cockroach, PhD in Monsters vs. Aliens.

Bad points... Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins, it's great they've been portrayed as parents, but it all seems so damn bubblegum... it honestly made me want to go back in time to the 1980's and barf... A movie like this... no, but I could honestly see these two being recast as Ward and June Cleaver in a new Leave it to Beaver movie.

Next bad point, Tiffany Espenson as Alex O'Hare, Fred's adopted younger sister... nice idea, but no... She's meant to be cute, adorable and more cute and more adorable... Please cue the puke noises again... I understand that she was there to add further character development to Fred because she was only there because of some play where she plays "Peter Cottontail" with tone deafness, but that's all she is, padding...

Next bad point, Fred wants to be the Easter Bunny? He wants that job?? The logic of this is kinda sick... inclusive of him hanging onto a twenty year-old chocolate bunny that was given to him upon seeing E.B.'s dad when he was like, six or something... Twenty year old chocolate... honestly? Who does that?

Final bad point, and this kinda poops on the whole concept of Easter,  and Christmas in the one go... more so than E.B.'s ability to poop candy jellybeans... The Easter Bunny drives a sleigh, at night, pulled by a bunch of magical flying yellow chicks... I can only shake my head at this in disappointment in response.

Hop runs for 95 minutes, which tends to put it in the children's maximum enjoyment level before they want to go play outside or before they ask mommy for a McHappy meal. I actually liked parts of it, but not all of it... the only real stars in this were Brand and Laurie; everyone else kinda brought it down several levels. Granted the animation is fantastic, as is the interaction between Marsden and a cartoon bunny, but that's as far as the enjoyment goes... As a result, and as much as I want to poop on a movie starring both Hugh Laurie and Russell Brand, Hop gets a two star rating.

Looper

Running Time: 118 minutes.

Media: Cinematic release.

Now I have to confess, I was a little slack in reviewing this film when I had the opportunity, but I did have a trip to Hawaii some few days after and no opportunity to boot up the blog and make it happen. This film has recently been released on DVD and Blu-Ray, so I recommend that you consider purchasing it.

"Recommend?" you hear me say... Does that mean that the Movie Madman is endorsing this movie? He is indeed, endorsing this movie. I actually found it quite an interesting one, albeit with some reservations, which I'll explain later. But then again, I am a science fiction fan (as opposed to being a science fiction freak), and this movie does play on the concept of time travel fairly well. The trick is with this movie is to bear in mind that there are certain sequences that must be considered in a certain order when watching the film. It also kinda helps if a diagram such as the one below, is drawn to help you understand what's going on. This kind of timeline in comparison to that of, say, the timeline of Primer, is tame in comparison. Take a deep breath before clicking that previous link, you have been duly warned.

We don't need no stinkin' Deloreans!

So how did this story line come about? Well, here's the Cliff Notes version. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the role of a hired assassin, Joe, who eventually has the opportunity to retire from the business when he shoots his future self sent back in time. Only drawback is, of course, that he would naturally know that some thirty years down the track he'll be sent through time to be shot by his younger self.

Now, here's the clincher. Bruce Willis, action hero extraordinaire, plays the older version of Joe. He's purposely sent himself back in time, not to get shot, but to kill the guy that eventually got his wife killed, who is at this point in Young Joe's life is just a little kid. So we have a young assassin trying to kill his older self who in turn is trying to kill some kid. Sounds a bit far-fetched, but that's only the time travel talking. You kinda get used to the ride once you start recognizing what's happening and when.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, what can I say about this guy that I haven't previously? In the last three years, he's appeared in Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Looper and Lincoln. He's made his performance in this recent film an incredible one and he just keeps on ticking, adding more and more to his repertoire. He's a fairly high commodity right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is just his way of warming up! JGL's performance as the younger version of "Joe" is remarkable, even down to the prostheses he wore to resemble a young Bruce Willis. He actually has a kind of James Dean look about him, and the nuances and voice intonation are remarkable. Throughout the majority of the movie, his demeanor is very calm and collected and that just added another level to it all. The chemistry between JGL and Willis is perfect, showing to sides of the same coin, though showing it some thirty years apart, and it works.

As to Bruce Willis, the man does not give up, A Good Day to Die Hard will be appearing in cinemas in 2013, and as far as I can tell John McClane's ex-wife is still yet to thank him for saving her life... Twice... As per usual his ability to play action hero pays off in playing the role of an action anti-hero, per se; or better yet, playing the role of villain without being the actual villain. I wish I could elaborate on that, but it's a little difficult to do so. Let's just say that he's a victim of circumstance. The role of Old Joe is corrupted enough to suit Willis, who seldom plays bad guys, to help portray him in the light best suited to view him as someone who didn't want to be bad, but had to be in order to get back what he lost so undeservingly. You almost feel sorry for the guy, who has risked everything to turn back the clock, quite literally. But OMG, there's a scene later on in the film where you see some serious need for anger management classes. He really lets his rage fly and that only brings us a little closer to understanding how much he's lost and what he'd do to get it back.

And speaking of anger management, Whoooooo! It seems the rage thing is a common trend in this film, the kid I mentioned earlier that Joe Senior has to kill off... I wouldn't want to piss this kid off, because his rage is some serious s[CENSORED]t right there, let me tell you. He makes the stuff that you see with Jean Grey at the start of X-Men 3 seem timid in comparison. Though he didn't really capture my heart either... Part of me kinda wishes Older Joe had succeeded because this kid is a bit of brat behaviorally, or in need of some serious mood-controlling medication.

Oh, and how did Emily Blunt get an American accent all of a sudden? I was kinda shocked to hear that kind of enunciation from her... Not that I was disappointed with it, far from it, I was just very surprised. She plays the role of the kid's mother who plays some pivotal role in this time travel affair. She's very nice in the film, although, she was waving a shotgun in the direction of JGL... It doesn't cancel one another out but she's seriously got issues with getting close to people, if the first date involves waving a shotgun in your face. She's very different to how I remember her from The Devil Wears Prada. Throw in a few second rate characters like those played by Jeff Daniels and Piper Perabo and... who haven't appeared in much lately and you have a semi-plausible cast who do make the plot move forward, but not with the enthusiasm I had originally anticipated with this movie.

As much as I liked Looper I have to confess I didn't really love it. The movie starts off well and gives a full rundown of how the time travel schtick works, but it seems to hurry up and try to sort everything out as quickly and neatly as possible. Angry kid, Joe Senior and a number of baddies resolve to do this with bullets and explosions and a couple of grunts here and there and the final ending as performed by Gordon-Levitt actually kinda serves as a sigh of relief for the film but also for the audience. I actually was glad that it ended when it did. I'm sure it did well in the box office, last check I made it had reached over $166 million in the States, but I don't think this was from repeat viewers; and if it was it was from geeks who were desperately trying to understand the timeline. I am awarding Looper 3½ stars for a valiant effort, but with a very haphazard rush to the finish with a cast of characters that seriously need a Valium or two to settle down...

The Shawshank Redemption

Running Time: 142 minutes

Media: TV Broadcast

You know, after having seen this at least ten times before in the past on DVD, TV and when it first came out on the silver screen; I never really thought to do a review on it. Shawshank is to films in the same way lasagna to me is seen as a comfort food. The movie is sorta like chicken soup for the soul. It's warming, nurturing and it cuddles you to sleep at night. As a result I was a little worried that I wouldn't do it justice. Sure, there are a few bumps along the way but in a drama you have to have the bad parts to make the protagonists appreciate the good parts. The Shawshank Redemption is no exception to this rule.

Now I have to confess, I don't watch much in the way of Tim Robbins; if anything, I'm more of a fan of his former partner, Susan Sarandon. But there's something about his character, Andy Dufresne, that seems to reach out and place a comforting hand on your shoulder to assure you that everything will be alright.

Andy Dufresne is a banker in the 1940's who is wrongfully sent to prison for the murder of his wife and her lover. Sent to Shawshank  State Penitentiary to serve two consecutive life sentences. He befriends a fellow inmate called Ellis Boyd Redding, also known as "Red", played by the only man who could narrate a sunrise and make it happen, Morgan Freeman. There is something about the narrative nature of Red's that makes you want to sit up and listen.

As Dufresne lives out his sentence, he struggles to survive from day to day amid a corrupt warden, violent guards, money laundering schemes and a group of sexually aggressive prisoners whose main objective is to break Andy's spirit, bones and teeth... The thing is, with a character like that of Dufresne, it blows the audience away with how strong this character is, how he keeps standing up, blow after blow after blow. Tim Robbins is symbolic as the battler, the underdog, the survivor; who still rises on top despite the challenges that face him. As a result, this movie has actually touched a number of people who have faced hardship in their everyday lives, and see this movie as a shining beacon of hope. The Movie Madman himself is also quite partial to the film, having been through certain hardship himself and managing to emerge to the other side, so I will say that this film does have a certain place in my heart.

Robbins' portrayal of Dufresne is heart-warming and there are times where you could just reach out and give him a hug. I guess what I'm saying is that you can really identify with him, especially if you can relate to being once down-trodden, or an underdog. As I said, this film is like comfort food... It makes you feel better after experiencing it, and this is definitely the case with Shawshank.

Morgan's character of Red was originally planning to be cast to Freeman. There were originally considerations to cast either Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Paul Newman, or even Harrison Ford. The novella that it was based on, written by horror author magnate, Stephen King, had written the character out as a middle-aged Irishman with greying red hair. When Frank Darabont cast Morgan Freeman because of his authoritative presence and demeanor, he stated that he couldn't see anyone else suitable for the role, and I'm inclined to agree. I will soon be receiving a copy of the novella in the mail and hope to read it and see how well it gels without the presence of Freeman. He seems damn near perfect for the role... 

There are a few additional actors who graced the screen within the film. Gil Bellows, who would have been quite young then, before he graced TV screens as Billy Thomas in Ally McBeal, plays a thief called Tommy Williams who helps give Andy some hope. Clancy Brown, of whom, serious geeks such as myself would recall, also played Victor Kurgan from the Highlander movie, reprises yet another type-set casting as a corrupt and sadistic guard, Captain Byron Hadley. Brown is a very good actor in my personal opinion, and he does take his work seriously. But an interesting thing I found out about this particular role of his, is that he didn't want to study the mannerisms or work of real-life guards, as he didn't want to base the character of Hadley on anyone in particular; which when you think about it is quite a noble gesture.

Who else... who else... Oh yes, the late James Whitmore, who died almost three years to the day, back in 2009. He is probably one of the more interesting actors in the film, playing the part of Brooks Hatlen, the prison's librarian, and one of the longer serving convicts of Shawshank State Penitentiary. Brooks is broken by the system, not knowing what to do with himself were he ever outside of prison. And that gets to me, he is basically the symbolic representation of those who accept what they are going through and let it happen to them. I shan't say what happens to him within the film, as that's a major spoiler alert. But it is one of the scenes that does make your heart stop momentarily.

Being a two-hour plus film, you expect something of some epic proportion, and the film delivers. This film has been nominated for seven Academy Awards back in 1994, but was beaten by a very much deserved Forrest Gump and a few other films. It seems a shame that none of the awards went to Shawshank as a number of awards also went to Ed Wood surprisingly.

This movie is certain of a lot more recognition due to its popularity and cult classic following and I can see why. This movie is well deserving of its five star rating, and I hope to see a few more films of this caliber, at a later time, even though there are very few films worth the standard of appreciation that warrants a five star rating...