Movie: Les Miserables

Director: Tom Hooper
Release Date: December 25, 2012
Studio: Working Title Films, Relativity Media
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne & Amanda Seyfried

2012 Poster - Universal Pictures

I feel like a bit of a fraud writing this review. I have never read the original novel written by Victor Hugo in 1862 and I have never watched the famous musical production of Les Miserables. But I did see the most recent musical film adaption on New Year's. So I can tell you what I have experienced.

I do enjoy a great musical on film. Moulin Rouge! (2001) and The Phantom of the Opera (2004) happen to be two of my favourite movies of all time. And it isn't just the singing. These two films have some of the most beautiful costumes and settings that truly transform you to a different time and place. A musical film creates imagery that isn't possible to do on stage. From what I hear, the recent movie of Les Miserables apparently has a similar affect on the audience that the stage just couldn't produce.

Les Miserables as a film is beautiful. It opens the audience's eyes to the extreme poverty of this period in France. There is no assistance and no way to move up in life. With nothing and no hope for a future, the impoverished of France seek desperate measures to survive.

The story begins with the main character Jean Valjean's (Jackman) release from prison by a guard named Javert (Crowe). Valjean is placed on parole and unable to receive any form of work under his current conditions. Starving and freezing, Valjean is found by an old bishop who feeds him and allows him to rest in his home. During the night, Valjean steals the bishop's silver and flees the home. After being caught by officers, the bishop insists that he gave Valjean the silver and that he actually forgot to take the candlesticks. Overwhelmed by the bishop's kindness, Valjean decides to change his life, break parole, and start fresh under a new name.

From here, he begins his own factory and becomes a wealthy man. After a worker, Fantine (Hathaway) is fired without just cause, forced into prostitution, and dies from disease, he vows to take care of her daughter, Cosette. Valjean never reveals his past to Cosette, but it leaves them constantly on the run after Javert discovers his true identity. Cosette grows up to be beautiful and naturally Hugo has her fall for a man who is at the centre of a revolution. Wanting to secure his daughter's happiness and stop a life of hiding,Valjean thrusts himself into the revolution to help save the young man.

Original Cover by Emile Bayard - 1862

It is a complicated plot line that needs to be followed carefully. It is also being told all through song...and I mean ALL through song. Now as I mentioned previously, I love a good musical, however I do prefer it with some talking. Viewers be warned that Les Miserables features sing-talking, which isn't as fluid as just singing alone. It also became awkward as characters sang/talked/died on screen, which inevitable prolonged the dying. Another negative was that it was about 45 minutes too long and audience members were becoming restless towards the end (at least the two I brought with me).

Overall, it was an experience and a very well-done film with the positives definitely outweighing the negatives.

Movie: The Dark Knight Rises



Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

 Movie: The Dark Knight Rises

Director: Christopher Nolan

Release Date: July 20, 2012

Studio: Warner Bros. Studios

Starring: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, & Joseph Gordon-Levitt



Ever day after school in my early grade school years, I remember coming home to my grandma’s snacks and flipping on the television with my three brothers to watch our favourite show: Batman.

Batman, we had determined was the best of all the superheroes. His black cape, his utility belt and the fact that he had no actual super powers gave us the hope that just maybe it could happen.

DC Comics created Batman in 1939. When Tim Burton’s original film, simply titled Batman (1989), was released I was only a year old. At 24, a five-year-old kid came into my bakery the other day and in complete incoherent excitement, told me about his Batman birthday cake. This, along with the recent release of Christopher Nolan’s final instalment, made me think that the Batman legacy has touched generations.

The third film, which will be forever scarred by the tragic opening night shootings, left the audience generally satisfied.

With the first two films, each movie seemed to stand by itself. Though they flowed together smoothly, both were distinct. Batman Begins set up Nolan’s series and gave incredible detail on how Bruce Wayne became Batman. The second movie, The Dark Knight was incredibly well done. Any doubts about Joker’s portrayal by Heath Ledger were shattered in the opening bank heist. Some people claimed that no one could compare to Jack Nicholson’s depiction of Batman’s greatest nemesis. However Jack’s version seemed laughable compared Ledger’s psychotic, chaos-loving adaptation. Ledger’s posthumously Oscar for Best Supporting Actor definitely secured him a spot as one of the best villains of all time.

With the second film’s huge success, I knew it would be difficult to outshine it with the third film. This film seems to be more of a continuation of the first film. If you hadn’t seen the first one, there would be a lot of confusing parts. Like why is Liam Neeson showing up in Batman’s visions?

My main complaint about the film would be the complexity of the storyline. There seemed to be a lot going on and sometimes simple is better. There were so many characters and sub-plots that you left the theatre wanting to see it again because you knew you didn’t catch everything. But I always love an excuse to see a movie again.

There were quite a few new characters introduced. The most notable being John Blake played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Gordon-Levitt creates a very memorable and dynamic good cop. In many scenes, he steals a lot of the spotlight away from other well-known characters and actors. In this film, we are also introduced to Selina Kyle (Catwoman) played by Anne Hathaway. She doesn’t add anything new to the Catwoman character. She is still sexy with attitude. I don’t even recall her being referred to as Catwoman now that I think about it and I definitely noticed there were no cats in any of her scenes. This was a good thing seeing that she is a cat burglar and finally not portrayed as a crazy cat lady (like Michelle Pfeiffer or Halle Berry).

The villains are depicted by Tom Hardy as Bane and Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate (Spoiler Alert: aka Talia al Ghul). Hardy portrays a much more complex Bane then previously seen. He wants to deliver Gotham back to the people and doesn’t believe in police forces. He does a great job, but I know a lot of people were comparing him to Ledger from the second film and thought he fell short as a villian. Hardy makes the character his own and impressed me. Cotillard is a famous French actress who is slowly making a name for herself in North American films. Her character, Miranda Tate, surprises the audience (and Batman) with a sudden confession of her true identity.

Christian Bale doesn’t disappoint in this final film and gives his very serious portrayal of Bruce Wayne. Gary Oldman shows flaws in Commissioner Gordon and Michael Caine gets emotional as the butler, Alfred Pennyworth. Morgan Freeman (who I love and can’t believe I am writing this) gets more screen time as Lucius Fox, but kinda falls flat in this film. None of his scenes had his typical dominant presence.

Overall, I really enjoyed this film (both the positives and the negatives in it) and would recommend it to anyone. Nolan finished the series with a great finale. Fingers crossed that when he and Bale get their final cheques, they will consider doing one more (since they definitely set up the ending with a chance for continuation).

Movie: The Hunger Games

Movie: The Hunger Games
Director: Gary Ross
Release Date: March 23, 2012
Studio: Lionsgate
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence & Josh Hutcherson

After recently reviewing the novel The Hunger Games, I felt the need to review the film that just came out. I saw it opening night (no not with the crazy people who went at 12:01 am) and with the book fresh in my mind, there were things that I both liked and disliked in the film. If you haven’t seen the movie this might be a good time to stop reading this post. Though I don’t plan to give too much away, I will probably mention some things that might ruin the movie experience for you.

Now I have heard that a lot of people who haven’t read the books absolutely loved it. And to be honest, this does not surprise me. It seems that this book was written to one day become a film. I would also like to mention that I am not one of those fanatical “book to film” haters who completely trash any movie that is not line for line to the book. I know that films can’t be an eight-hour remake of the novel.

Likes:

1. Jennifer Lawrence plays the lead role of Katniss Everdeen, a sixteen-year-old girl from District 12 who offers herself up as tribute to replace her sister from a certain death. Lawrence’s portrayal of Katniss is how I imagined it. Her character is strong and a good example to other girls. She also looks way better with brown hair than she does in real-life as a blond. The role of Peeta was also portrayed very well. There was much criticism by super fans over the casting of Josh Hutcherson. He is shorter with dark brown hair, but the dye job was perfect (like Lawrence, maybe they should stick to their character’s hair colouring) and the best part is the kid can actually act. I have seen him in a few other roles and he does a great job. I was glad that he showed up all the people who doubted him. Some other notable roles were Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket, Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, and Wes Bentley as Seneca Crane.

2. In the book, the story is told from Katniss’ point of view. We hear her thoughts and see what she sees. Unlike the book, the movie couldn’t have the main character talking aloud and giving away her position in the Games. As a result, the director showed the point of view of the gamemakers to explain certain aspects of the Games. It was interesting to watch the gamemakers and really worked to the film’s advantage. It wasn’t in the book, but it became a great addition to the story.

3. Again, we are taken out of Katniss’ point of view and we are able to see what the audience is watching on the screen at home. With the colour commentary given by Caesar Flickerman, it gave the moviegoer a realistic view as someone from the audience. With all the reality television we are watching, it really drove home the idea that it was a television game. This lacked in the reading of the book.

4. The sets were extremely well done. They were just how I imagined them (except for the cornucopia). They didn’t skimp anywhere. The poverty of the districts, the elegance of the Capitol, and the arena’s forest were perfect.

5. The romantic scenes between Katniss and Peeta in the film were actually better then the ones in the book. Why? I think it might have been because again we aren’t in Katniss’ head during the film and don’t have to listen to her awkward back and forth. In the book, the reader is dying for Peeta because at some points she is acting for the cameras and other times, she is actually showing true feelings. In the film, the viewer feels like she might actually care for him and isn't playing a role.

Dislikes:

1. The director packed too much in the last 30 minutes of the film. I remember looking at my watch when Katniss discovers Peeta by the river and realizing that there were at least 100 pages of the book left with only 30 minutes of film to go. As a result, things got shortened or worse, they were completely cut out. There was a lot that happened in those last few pages.

2. Some scenes would have been worth omitting to give more time to more important parts. With all the back and forth of the Mockingjay pin, it may have just been easier to pay an actress to play the role of Madge. Her character isn’t that important, but it is more about what the pin represents in future books. I mean the last book is called Mockingjay.

3. There wasn’t enough time spent with little Rue. Katniss spends a few days with Rue, but her role in the film was really not much more than 10 minutes… maybe 15 minutes. I was a Rue fan so I would have liked to have seen more, but the little girl who portrayed her was great.

4. I didn’t like the depiction of the mutts. In the book, they are described as having the eyes of the dead tributes. That aspect of the book wasn’t even touched upon. Also with all the technology available in films today, I would have thought they would have been more realistic and life-like. I mean even real dogs would have been better. 

5. Overall, I was kind of left wanting more. It definitely wasn’t a bad book to film adaptation, but maybe I just went in expecting too much. Something was missing.

I think this will definitely be the most successful of the three films as this was the best of the three books. The other two books were great, but the author’s ideas weren’t as original as in the first novel.

Now that I have written about The Hunger Games for both the book and film, I will wait to review Catching Fire and the Mockingjay. Besides it will give me an excuse to read the series again.

My Summer with Harry Potter

Books:
1. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997)
2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998)
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (1999)
4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000)
5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2003)
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2005)
7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007)

Author: J.K. Rowling
Published: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Originally I wasn't sure if I wanted to write a review on the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling. Everyone has read the books and the few who haven't are unlikely to be swayed. But after careful thought, I figured I wanted to share my views on both the books and the movies.

A lot of people have criticized the movies for not staying directly on the storyline, but I have to admit that the movies are what got me interested in the books in the first place.

In my grade six class, after much gushing about the series by the majority of the class, my teacher gave into having our co-op student read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. This was spring of 2000 (before the films had been introduced). My first reaction:this book is complete and utter nonsense. I mean I had just turned 12 and you want me to get into a story about a boy who attends a magic school and spends his spare time fighting off mountain trolls and flying on broomsticks in a game referred to as Quidditch. It didn't help that it was being read (in a monotone voice) by an unenthusiastic grade 12 student who couldn't properly pronounce any of the magical lingo. Thank god it was already June and we didn't have to finish reading it.

A year and half later, the movie was set to be released in November and my parents had promised to take my brothers to see it. Though I wasn't a fan, I was not one to turn down a free movie and popcorn. Who knows, maybe it would all make more sense on the big screen. I was hypnotize by it to say the very least. The wizarding world came to life before my eyes and I loved it.

Surprisingly though, it didn't entice me to pick up the second book. I'm not sure why. Maybe I thought I would be disappointed once again by the writing. The following November 2002 released the second movie and though I didn't find it as intriguing as the first, I also wasn't left disappointed.

I decided over the Christmas holidays to read the Prisoner of Azkaban. By the end of my two week break, I was also done with the Goblet of Fire. It was fun reading about characters who were the exact same age as myself at the time. Rowling had the ability to make her characters relate to kids who didn't have magic in their own life. Though they were studying fictional subjects, they still were going through the same stresses of being a teen.

I had to wait until the summer for the 2003 release of the Order of the Phoenix, which came out days before my big swim meet. I sucked it up and waited an extra two weeks before venturing into the fifth book in order not to loose my focus.

At this point the movies were now coming out one and half years apart. The third movie was released in June 2004. With a different director, the third movie cut out a lot of the book, but showed a more artistic view of Hogwarts.



In 2005, the sixth book was released which quickly became one of my favourites. With many twists and surprises throughout the Half-Blood Prince, I wasn't able to put it down and I finished it in days. I ended up re-reading it more slowly through a second time.

When the final book was released in 2007, all the fans were extremely excited. I was excited as well, however I hit a roadblock along the way. I began reading it and got stuck. Stuck at about page 250. I couldn't focus. I couldn't read. I remained stuck for two years. It wasn't just Harry Potter, but all books. I had a reading roadblock until the summer of 2009.

Maybe it was just fear of the end. What was I going to look forward to every few years? I did finally read it and I was relieved by the end results. And it wasn't really over. There were still more movies to be released.

Over the next few years, the movies progressively got better with each release. When I had heard that the final installment was to be released as two films, I was glad that the writer was aiming to stay true to the final chapter of this epic series. I naturally watched all the films before each of the final parts. The new films quickly became favourites.

A few days after watching the final installment, I realized I wasn't really ready for it all to be over. I could watch the movies over and over, but it wasn't the same as reading the details of Rowling's writing. I decided to spend the summer reading books one through seven. The first four books I had only ever read once each and these weren't read in order. While waiting for the fifth book, I read the Philosopher's Stone and the Chamber of Secrets. This time I was going to do it the right way.

I wasn't sure if it was a good idea. I might be trying to fill a literary void in my life. All great novels make the readers wish there were more books to come. A continuation of the story. But this wasn't just one book, it was seven and with all the books in the world, was I wasting my time by reading some over again? I'm glad to say I didn't waste my time and one summer I will likely read them all again.



1. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Book: Sets up the wizarding world. Hogwarts comes to life and the audience meets a boy who has not realized and could never comprehend his full destiny.

Film: The actors are only young children when they are thrown into their roles. Acting is moderate though well-done for kids who haven't experienced their full emotional range needed for these characters. Director Chris Columbus gives vision to Rowling's world.

2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Book: Actually found the book far more interesting than the movie. Begin to learn specific traits in the three main characters.

Film: Found the film to be the worst of all eight films. Actors haven't learned their characters. Professor Lockhart comes across as obnoxious in the film rather than comical as Rowling portrayed him in the novel. Director Chris Columbus has little creativity in the second film. Though many complain some films do not stick enough to the plot, the second film seems to lack any originality.

3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Book: It was a personal favourite of mine. First book that really allows the reader to explore outside of the castle and into the entirely magical town of Hogsmeade. There are new teachers such as Professor Lupin and Hagrid that every reader is cheering for. The constant presence of Sirus Black and the Dementors is felt on a continual basis. There seems to be little concern about Voldemort and this book really sets up the fourth in the series.

Film: This film was directed by Alfonso Cuaron and unlike Columbus, he took his creativity almost too far. There were a lot of complaints about this film cutting out too many important scenes from the book (for example they do not include a scene when Sirus Black breaks into the boys' dormitory). This film however shows far more diversity in both the scenes and in the characters' acting and for this Cuaron should be applauded.

4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Book: This book is almost a two-part story. The first part is the triwizard tournament competition between the three competing schools. The three tasks take up majority of the storyline as Harry competes in a series of challenges far above his wizard knowledge. There is a constant mystery surrounding this novel and we see different characters' viewpoints in this story. The second part of the story is the return of Lord Voldemort. Though they coincide with one another, the author still keeps the stories separate in their own way.

Film: This film was directed by Mike Newell. It was a good film, however the book was so long that much of the story was eliminated in the film in order to fit it in the time frame. In reality, this film could have been made in two movies due to the novel's length. If you hadn't read the book, the movie tends to be confusing for the viewer because of the choppy plot. This film shows the characters becoming teenagers and dealing with typical teen dilemmas such as asking someone to a dance.

5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Book: In the Order of the Phoenix, we see teenage angst at its best. Harry is a combination of angry, sulky and depressed throughout most of the story and therefore is constantly putting up a wall against his friends. After many people think he is crazy and attention-seeking for his tales of Voldemort, he finds himself very alone throughout the year. He does help form a secret student group called Dumbledore's Army which takes on the new teacher and headmistress, Professor Umbridge.

Film: The rest of the films are all directed by David Yates. The fifth film doesn't portray Harry's pain and feelings of being alone nearly enough. The character of Professor Umbridge steals many of the scenes. Played by Imelda Staunton, she is the useless Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher and ears for the Ministry of Magic. She later becomes the Headmistress of Hogwarts and her tyranny is felt throughout the school. It is under the direction of Yates that these films truly hit their stride in my opinion. Until this point, many of the true Potter fans never really felt that the films lived up to the epic novels by Rowling.

6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Book: As previously mentioned, the Half-Blood Prince was one of my favourite books of the series. This is the first time the author really lets you into the past life of Voldemort. Harry and the reader go back into people's memories of Voldemort and his history. The twists and turns let the reader realize how Voldemort came to power and how there is only really one way to destroy him through Horcruxes (objects that contain small bits of his soul).



Film: The film showed depth in both its direction and characters. We see many different aspects come into play. We learn more about Voldemort's past, but we also see the change in friendships between the characters of Hermione and Ron and between Ginny and Harry. Again there is a lot of teenage drama unfolding throughout the script that keeps things interesting.

7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Book: This book takes place mainly outside of Hogwarts. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are out searching for ways to find and destroy Horcruxes. They spend the first half of of the book in the wilderness of Britain trying to figure out a plan on what little information Dumbledore has left them. Throughout the book their friendships are tested and they often find themselves alone and aggravated. Eventually they find themselves back at Hogwarts because they know that the only way to find all the Horcruxes is to return to the one place where Voldemort felt was his home and naturally this is where the final battle unfolds.

Film 1: The producers did the final book justice by splitting it into two separate films. In order to preserve the books integrity, the first film took place mainly in their forest travels which they searched for Horcruxes. The three main characters find themselves turning on one another out of frustration and searching for any possible lead in desperation. They wind up at the Ministry of Magic, the house of Luna Lovegood, and Harry's birthplace in Godric's Hollow.

Film 2: The final film mainly consists of the long-awaited battle between Voldemort and Harry. Everything comes together when Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to return to Hogwarts to search for a Horcrux that was once a possession of one of the Hogwart's founders. We also learn the truth about the role of Severus Snape and we say goodbye to a lot of good characters because of the battle. It has good triumphing over evil and the film is a great finale to the series.