Les Miséra..boy that's a lot of singing!

I have to say, Les Misérables took me by surprise. I have not read the book, and I’ve never seen the live musical version of it, but I have seen two non-musical movie versions, so I know the story.  Prior to watching the current version with Hugh Jackman as ex-convict Jean Valjean and Russell Crowe as the fanatic Inspector Javert, I realized that it was a musical, but I didn’t realize how much! Virtually all of the dialog was sung, which I must admit took some getting used to. Looking back on it now, I have mixed feelings about it.

Much of it was nicely done and appropriate and enjoyable. But many of the scenes between Valjean and Javert are intended to be very dramatic and tense, so when they started singing their lines, particularly when one was threatening the other or prior to a fight (and sometimes during one!), I found myself chuckling on occasion. Pretty sure that wasn’t the intention of director Tom Hooper!  But that’s just me. Pretty sure I'm in the minority.

This approach also slowed down the pace of the story telling for me as well, as some of the musical numbers (including those of the kooky Thénardiers, the comic relief duo of the movie, well played by Helena Bonham Carter & Sacha Baron Cohen but garnering a bit too much screen time) really had nothing to do with the core of the film’s story: Javert’s relentless pursuit of Valjean, and how Valjean’s faith and integrity changed them.  In fact, it distracted from it so much that Hooper’s Javert almost felt like a secondary character in this film instead of being one of the two main characters.  Again, I have not read the book, so I’m only basing that on the two non-musical film versions I saw. Speaking of which, if you’re interested in watching a non-musical version of Les Misérables, I’d highly recommend the 1935 version with Frederic March and Charles Laughton.  Excellent.  The 1998 version with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush was pretty good too. Rush, in particular, was a fantastic Javert.

The cinematography in the movie was possibly the best part of the film.  Can’t say all of the actors looked like they belonged in the 19^th century (same problem “Lincoln” had), but the backdrop of 19^th century France, and Paris specifically, was breathtaking at times.  Hooper did a fantastic job in that aspect. It’s amazing what CGI can do these days. Hooper’s version, I’m happy to say, was also the most spiritual version of the Les Misérables I’ve seen.  I lost count how many times “God” was mentioned in the movie.  The Christian references to redemption and forgiveness was unmistakable and profound. Much more than in the two non-musical versions, and in particular the 1998 movie where it was underemphasized.

Although I didn’t read the book, after seeing Hooper’s version of the movie, I had to find a copy and read the ending, as his film ended completely different than the 1935 and 1998 movies. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that, unlike the other two, Hooper actually stuck with the ending in the book.  And no, I’m not going to tell you what they were and how they differed. It would spoil too much! But it is heartwarming and very well done.

So, in a nutshell, I enjoyed the movie, for the most part, once I got used to the singing dialog. I did like the non-musical versions better though. The acting was good, in particular Hugh Jackman who was very deserving of his recent Golden Globe win and Academy Award nomination. Due to a nice make-up job and a loss of weight, he was almost unrecognizable at the beginning of the movie. The character of Valjean is all over the spectrum as far as emotions go, and Jackman had the extra difficult part of displaying them while singing, which he did a great job of. Hooper seemed to have stayed loyal to the basic story, which is always a good thing.

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a "3" because of the cinematography. If you have a really big TV, then maybe a "2". And don’t forget to check out the 1935 version!

Abe is Definitely Worth Watching....Honestly.

No sense in waiting until February 24, might as well give Daniel Day Lewis the Best Actor Oscar now. He was that good as Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's epic, "Lincoln".  I enjoy playing casting director after watching a movie, trying to identify actors who I thought might have been a better fit for a particular role, but I honestly couldn't think of anyone who could have done a better as job as Lincoln than Lewis. Liam Neeson, who had originally been cast in the role before backing out, could have given Lewis a run for his money. But Lewis was nearly flawless. Although, to my knowledge, there is no known video of Abraham Lincoln, Lewis' lumbering, deliberate, soft spoken portrayal of Lincoln appears to be accurate from what historical data there is, and how we've grown to perceive him.

The movie itself, all 2 1/2 hours of it, is a history lesson that focuses on the first four months of 1865, during which time an intense struggle is occuring, both publicly and privately, on whether or not to pass the 13the constitutional amendment to abolish slavery.  In what is something reminiscent of the liberal vs conservative battles going on today in the United States political scene, the fight of the amendment featured the "anti-amendment" Democrats vs. "pro-amendment" Republicans.

In early January, 1865, just days before being sworn in for his 2nd term as President, Lincoln announces to his cabinet that he wants the House of Representatives to pass the amendment by the last day of January....a mere three weeks away. The 13th amendment had passed the Republican majority Senate the prior year, but was facing severe opposition in the Democratic majority House. Twenty votes short of what is needed to pass, Secretary of State William Henry Seward (played nicely by one of my favorite character actors, David Straitharn), hatches a plot to win over a number of specifically identified lame duck Democratic House members using a trio of "operatives". Not sure how historically accurate it is, but how these Democrats are specifically identified is a particularly interesting part of the movie.

While this covert plot is underway, Lincoln has another possible stumbling block to deal with.....the Civil War.  Hoping to use the 13th amendment as leverage to end the Civil War, efforts to end the war begin to intensify two weeks prior to the end of January, which puts Lincoln in a quandary:  if the war ends prior to the House vote, the amendment would all but fail.  But if he let's the war continue, thousands of lives could be lost in battle (including that of his recently enlisted son, Robert).  In the interest of not giving away any more of the plot, I'll stop there.  But it is a conflict that Lincoln intensely struggles with.  Thanks to great acting by Lewis, you can really sense the conflict Lincoln must have gone through, and the battle he must have had with his conscience.

After the Civil War/13th Amendment issue is resolved, the movie ends following Lincoln's assassination on April 15, 1865, just six days after the South surrendered, all but ending the Civil War.  The ending provided a nice, moving tribute to Lincoln, but I would have actually ended the movie a few minutes earlier.  Just prior to leaving for his ill-fated trip to the theater, Lincoln is shown meeting with his cabinet in the White House, during which time his aide walks in and reminds the President that the first lady is waiting for him outside in their "Presidential" carriage.  The aide doesn't say to where, but we find out soon enough. Lincoln is then shown, from behind and in slow motion, walking out of the White House. Powerfully shot by Spielberg, it obvious it was the last time Lincoln would set foot in his presidential home. As a result, and because that scene was so powerful, I would have ended the movie there, then flash some text on the screen explaining that Lincoln was assassinated later that night at Ford Theater, etc. I think it would have been a more moving, impactful ending. But that's just me! 

OK, now for more knit-picking.  Although the sets and locations used in the movie for the most part did make me feel I was in the mid 1800's, the actors did not. To me, most of them looked like 21st century actors dressed up like 19th century Americans. They didn't come off as authentic to me, and I'm not really sure why. Maybe filming it in black-and-white would have helped. I don't know.  And I'm still trying to figure out how W.N.. Bilbo (hilariously played by a plump James Spader) and his two fellow operatives were able to run right into the White House and directly into a conference room where President Lincoln was working without confronting a single soul!  Security was weak that day, evidently. All minor stuff. 

In conclusion, I do have to play casting director once more.  Tommy Lee Jones was satisfactory but not spectacular playing Representative Thaddeus Stevens (although, based on actual historical photos, he did look a heck of a lot like him), and as a result I would have loved to have seen Al Pacino in that role. Jones had a couple of courthouse scenes where he verbally duked it out with Democratic opponents. Jones was good, but those scenes had "Pacino" written all over them!

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), "Lincoln" is a solid a "4".

The Name is Fall, Skyfall....

Ok, I admit it. The only reason my wife and I saw "Skyfall" recently was because the "Lincoln" showing we wanted to see was sold out, and we didn't want to waste a drive.  And although we would have preferred to see "Lincoln", "Skyfall" turned out to be thoroughly entertaining.

If you read my "The Dark Knight Rises" blog, you'll know how critical to me a villain in an action movie like this needs to be. If they aren't, then the movie risks being a bore....at least to me. Fortunately Raoul Silva, the villain in "Skyfall" fits the bill. Played by Oscar winner Javier Bardem, Silva is an ex-M16 agent who, some years back, had issues with leader "M" (Judi Dench) and is out to get revenge.

Silva is cool as a cucumber yet always on the edge. He's extremely smart, yet creepy, strange, while very unpredictable. And talk about an entrance!  We first meet Silva about to introduce himself to Bond who's tied up in a chair. With a view from behind Bond's shoulder, we see Silva enter from the far side of the room. With the camera stationary, Silva slowly makes his way towards Bond (and the camera) like a snake stalking its victim, verbally toying with him the entire way.

Bond, oh yea, that's right.....this is a James Bond movie! And Daniel Craig's portrayal of an aging, vulnerable James Bond could very well be his best performance of the three he's done so far.  Stepping up to protect "M" from the vengeful Silva, Bond is forced to use his brains as much, if not more, then his brawn in order to stay a step ahead of his brilliant foe. This game of "cat and mouse" extends to the audience, as we as well try and figure who's going to do what next. And that's what makes this movie engaging. Not to mention the occasional surprise to keep us on our toes.  A lot of the credit for this should go to director Sam Mendes, who also helmed the critically acclaimed "American Beauty" and "Revolutionary Road".

Bond isn't alone in battling the dangerous Silva, however. Far from it. In fact, it's safe to say that Bond probably wouldn't have survived hadn't been for the help of fellow agent Eve Moneypenny (yes, the future receptionist for "M", and the same Moneypenny the first Bond, Sean Connery, began flirting with mercilessly back in the sixties), played by Naomie Harris. Not sure if that means this James Bond movie was a prequel to "Dr. No", the Sean Connery Bond movie which started the whole ball of wax in 1962, but that's a debate for another time.  Harris was very good as Bond's sidekick, and was a big factor in the ultimate outcome of the movie. Dench, Ralph Fiennes, and Albert Finney round out the top notch cast.

Finney, the 76-year old five-time Oscar-nominated actor who played the role of Kinkade, the groundskeeper for the Bond family home, was terrific during his few minutes of screen time, but I couldn't help think what a great cameo role that would have been for Sean Connery. At 82, I'm not sure he's even healthy enough to act anymore, but how fun would that have been to see Connery in that role!  If you saw the movie, then you'll know what I mean!

In conclusion, based on my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), "Skyfall" gets a "4". Great "Bond" action, and more importantly, you get to actually use your brain throughout the movie!