I have such mixed feelings on this one. I loved parts and I really disliked parts. I had never seen this musical in any form before, so I'm not sure how much of that is the musical and how much is the adaptation. For instance, I thought that a lot of the story was very jerky and disjointed. In middle or high school I had read an abridged version of the novel, and I remember there being a lot more to it than was found in the musical. I remember there being more Fantine, more of young Cosette, more of Marius and his buddies, more to Jean Valjean's story and his relationship to Javert... just more everything! In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia tells me I'm not wrong: "the novel elaborates upon the history of France, the architecture and urban design of Paris, politics, moral philosophy, antimonarchism, justice, religion, and the types and nature of romantic and familial love." So clearly the point of the story suffered in the condensing process and made the historical parts of the plot harder to follow.
Anyway, to the music. I really enjoyed the big "group" numbers, "Look Down," "ABC Café / Red and Black," "One Day More," and "Do You Hear the People Sing?" I liked the Thénardiers' "Master of the House" for similar reasons, but I didn't like the Thénardiers at all. I don't know if they were solely for comic relief for a musical with a very serious subject or if Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen were just too over the top (somehow I think it's the latter), but they were just too distracting. I also thought a lot of the individual numbers were overdone, as if they were trying to perform on stage and project the emotion, forgetting that the audience is much more immediate in film. They had the right idea, but it was just too much. For instance, Fantine's "I Dreamed a Dream" and Valjean's "Valjean's Soliloquy." However, I was absolutely enchanted by young Cosette's "Castle on a Cloud" and thought Éponine's "On My Own" and Marius's "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" were beautifully done. (Although I must say, despite my love for Eddie Redmayne, I thought a little bit of that song was out of his range. Either that or his voice cracks way too much when he is crying and singing!) In general, I thought Éponine, Marius, young Cosette, and the ABCs were the big standouts in this film. Lastly, I was very underwhelmed with both Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe's singing abilities. Jackman wasn't terrible, but I think he would be much better with more chipper-sounding music. Crowe just didn't enunciate or emote much at all, which made his multitude of songs very jarring (despite some seemingly beautiful lyrics about the stars especially).
Of course visually it was stunning: sets, costumes, makeup, hair. The main exceptions were the Thénardiers (who just stood out too much visually as well) and the prostitutes who Fantine takes up with (they were garish, as they should have been, but something about them was too much as well). My friend informs me that the role of the priest was played by the "original" Jean Valjean, so that was cool too.
Now I've downloaded the soundtrack so I can start listening and memorizing the words, which will help me get a better feel before I watch it again. I also think I may need to read the book (unabridged this time), because it really is a fantastic tale and I know there's so much more to it.
Rating: 3.5
Showing posts with label anne hathaway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anne hathaway. Show all posts
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises (2012, U.S.)
Ugh. What just happened? I saw this with my brother, who was seeing it for the second time, and his reaction seemed pretty close to mine, even knowing what was going to happen. It was so confusing. I feel like I'm throwing the word "disjointed" around a lot these days, but that's just what it was. The timeline was very unclear. It seemed like events were happening very close together, but suddenly a change in the weather indicated that it had actually been months or more. (I think we decided that the main timeline, not counting flashbacks, was a little over a year.)
The acting was good, the sets were good, the costumes were good, the Bat-toys were awesome (I love that motorcycle thing)... But the plot was just overly ambitious and the writing lacked flair. The villain Bane was supposed to be the coolest villain of all time, but I found him almost ridiculous. His face mask is never adequately explained, his voice was supposed to sound creepy and just ended up getting on my nerves, and various plot twists (which I won't give away) completely ruined the power he had as a villain and all of the impassioned speeches he gave (probably the best writing in the movie). Perhaps a lot of the let down stems from being the third in a series where the first was really fresh and the second was well-crafted and featured one of the most brilliant performances by one of the most brilliant actors of his generation (Heath Ledger). Or maybe it was just that unwieldy. It's hard to enjoy something when you're trying so hard to keep up. It's one thing with a foreign film or intense drama, but a super hero movie... I like smart movies with capes, but this wasn't smart, at least in its entirety.
I am having a hard time putting my feelings into words here, so I'll give it up. Stick to the first two installments.
Rating: 2.0
The acting was good, the sets were good, the costumes were good, the Bat-toys were awesome (I love that motorcycle thing)... But the plot was just overly ambitious and the writing lacked flair. The villain Bane was supposed to be the coolest villain of all time, but I found him almost ridiculous. His face mask is never adequately explained, his voice was supposed to sound creepy and just ended up getting on my nerves, and various plot twists (which I won't give away) completely ruined the power he had as a villain and all of the impassioned speeches he gave (probably the best writing in the movie). Perhaps a lot of the let down stems from being the third in a series where the first was really fresh and the second was well-crafted and featured one of the most brilliant performances by one of the most brilliant actors of his generation (Heath Ledger). Or maybe it was just that unwieldy. It's hard to enjoy something when you're trying so hard to keep up. It's one thing with a foreign film or intense drama, but a super hero movie... I like smart movies with capes, but this wasn't smart, at least in its entirety.
I am having a hard time putting my feelings into words here, so I'll give it up. Stick to the first two installments.
Rating: 2.0
Sunday, December 11, 2011
One Day (2011, U.S.)
I had been looking forward to this movie for ages. I read a review of the book in Library Journal or Booklist last year before it was first published in the U.S., bought it for the library, and read it as soon as it came out. I loved it. Of the 122 books I read last year, it was one of only 7 that I gave five stars to. I thought the concept, the writing, the everything was absolutely stellar. Therefore, I guess it was inevitable that the movie could only pale in comparison.
I've said recently that Anne Hathaway has really been growing on me lately, and I really liked her in this. I think I've seen Jim Sturgess in a couple things, but he's never really stuck in my mind. I really liked him in this too. Their chemistry was decent, much better as friends than lovers, but it still worked. The costumes and sets really help keep the viewer oriented as the plot whizzes from year to year, from the late 1980s to the present day. Like the book it's based on, the movie's story is fundamentally good. I just didn't feel as emotionally invested in the characters as David Nicholls made me feel.(This is slightly odd, as Nicholls adapted the screenplay himself. Novels and films are inherently different mediums though, I guess.)
I don't know, I feel like I'm being unfair. If I had seen the movie without reading the book, I probably would have thought it was incredible—writing, acting, setting, and the rest. As it is though, I feel like I'm comparing a stationary star to a comet. The one just isn't as magical having experienced the other. Still, I definitely recommend the movie. (And highly recommend the book!)
Rating: 3.5
I've said recently that Anne Hathaway has really been growing on me lately, and I really liked her in this. I think I've seen Jim Sturgess in a couple things, but he's never really stuck in my mind. I really liked him in this too. Their chemistry was decent, much better as friends than lovers, but it still worked. The costumes and sets really help keep the viewer oriented as the plot whizzes from year to year, from the late 1980s to the present day. Like the book it's based on, the movie's story is fundamentally good. I just didn't feel as emotionally invested in the characters as David Nicholls made me feel.(This is slightly odd, as Nicholls adapted the screenplay himself. Novels and films are inherently different mediums though, I guess.)
I don't know, I feel like I'm being unfair. If I had seen the movie without reading the book, I probably would have thought it was incredible—writing, acting, setting, and the rest. As it is though, I feel like I'm comparing a stationary star to a comet. The one just isn't as magical having experienced the other. Still, I definitely recommend the movie. (And highly recommend the book!)
Rating: 3.5
Friday, June 24, 2011
Bride Wars (2009, U.S.)
I have to say that I was underwhelmed by this one. I really think that Kate Hudson is the queen of romantic comedy (although this wasn't really a rom-com, strictly speaking) and I have developed a new appreciation for Anne Hathaway, plus the concept looked good. I thought this was going to be a really cute, really funny little chick flick, but it just wasn't that great.
Sure, there were some funny moments, but they could have been funnier. They also had great set-ups for potential jokes that were left hanging. It's even possible that Hudson is losing her touch. On top of all this, I just didn't think it was that well written. Neither of the relationships, much less both, seem strong enough to lead to marriage. On the other hand, the girls' friendship seemed strong enough that it wouldn't fall apart with the slightest tension as it did. A lot of pieces didn't mesh. Also, I saw the "twist" ending coming from about 20 or 30 minutes into the flick, which doesn't say much for the writing/plotting.
A good word to characterize this one is weak. Weak characters, weak writing, even weak acting. For a Hudson rom-com fix, see How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. For a Hathaway rom-com fix, see Love and Other Drugs.
Rating: 2.5
Sure, there were some funny moments, but they could have been funnier. They also had great set-ups for potential jokes that were left hanging. It's even possible that Hudson is losing her touch. On top of all this, I just didn't think it was that well written. Neither of the relationships, much less both, seem strong enough to lead to marriage. On the other hand, the girls' friendship seemed strong enough that it wouldn't fall apart with the slightest tension as it did. A lot of pieces didn't mesh. Also, I saw the "twist" ending coming from about 20 or 30 minutes into the flick, which doesn't say much for the writing/plotting.
A good word to characterize this one is weak. Weak characters, weak writing, even weak acting. For a Hudson rom-com fix, see How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. For a Hathaway rom-com fix, see Love and Other Drugs.
Rating: 2.5
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Love and Other Drugs (2010, U.S.)
I was really surprised by how much I liked this movie. Of course I was excited to see it because I love Jake Gyllenhaal, though I've never been especially fond of Anne Hathaway. (What made me decide I didn't like her? It seems like everything I've ever seen her in, I've been impressed. Maybe her voice bothers me? I can't figure it out! I guess from now on, I'll say I like her a lot.) Anyway, this movie was great. A lot of movies from the 1990s feel very dated, but this movie made last year about the 1990s felt not quite nostalgic, not quite historical, but something like that. Instead of feeling "so 1990s," it felt like it was recreating a sort of idealized '90s. It's hard to explain, but in any case, it worked well.
The setup was also very effective. It opens showing Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal) selling electronics (very '90s electronics!) to men, women, old ladies with equal success. The brief scene really defines Jamie as a born salesman and charmer. And the ensuing tryst with the manager's girlfriend in the storeroom defines him as a born womanizer... and charmer. It's quite a surprise when we next find him at his wealthy parents home, with a father and sister who are doctors and a brother who is a software millionaire. His background seems so unlikely with his current life.
Anyway, he eventually gets into selling pharmaceuticals for Pfizer, mainly trying to get doctors to prescribe Zoloft instead of Prozac. The insight into the drug industry is absolutely fascinating. I don't really know that much about it, but it felt realistic to me, at least. And there is a lot of industry humor thrown in that was truly amusing, and once he starts selling Viagra, it only gets better. Normally I'm not into crude humor, and one would think that selling a sex drug and jokes about its use and situational comedy (think long-lasting erections) would not amuse me at all, but it was actually done fairly tastefully and made me laugh out loud. Surprising.
In the middle of all this drug-selling, Jamie meets Maggie, a woman of 26 with early-onset Parkinson's Disease. Her character was so complex it was nearly staggering. There's her disease and her worries about it and her refusal to be defined by it. There's her art. There's her undefined job, which involves taking senior citizens to Canada where they can afford their prescriptions. (Yet more commentary on the drug industry.) There's her desire for frequent no-strings sex and refusal to be in a relationship, even when it's obvious to the viewer that she's falling in love. Anne Hathaway was absolutely stellar in her performance, down to her shaking hands and lethargy (caused by her illness) and up to her flawlessly-performed emotional breakdowns. Paired with Jake Gyllenhaal's charming, selling, womanizing Jamie, it just really worked. Great stuff. (I also have to insert a side note on a subject I don't usually take the time to comment on: sex scenes. Some were strangely detached feeling, which I suppose is good since it was a no-strings relationship in the beginning. But one was especially beautiful once they were more together... It's raining outside and it's shot through the window, so all the viewer sees is the watery, unfocused forms of very gentle lovers on a lovely deep red bedspread. It was quite beautiful.)
Basically, it had all the hallmarks of the best of the best romantic comedies, but I almost don't want to call it that. Mostly the comedy came from his job and the romance was much more dramatic (and far from funny), and these two elements were combined flawlessly. Added to the very unique characters and plot, the quasi-nostalgic (or whatever you want to call it) feel, the interesting details of the pharmaceutical industry and Parkinson's disease, and some wonderful performances, this was one of the best "romantic comedies" I've ever seen.
Rating: 4.0
The setup was also very effective. It opens showing Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal) selling electronics (very '90s electronics!) to men, women, old ladies with equal success. The brief scene really defines Jamie as a born salesman and charmer. And the ensuing tryst with the manager's girlfriend in the storeroom defines him as a born womanizer... and charmer. It's quite a surprise when we next find him at his wealthy parents home, with a father and sister who are doctors and a brother who is a software millionaire. His background seems so unlikely with his current life.
Anyway, he eventually gets into selling pharmaceuticals for Pfizer, mainly trying to get doctors to prescribe Zoloft instead of Prozac. The insight into the drug industry is absolutely fascinating. I don't really know that much about it, but it felt realistic to me, at least. And there is a lot of industry humor thrown in that was truly amusing, and once he starts selling Viagra, it only gets better. Normally I'm not into crude humor, and one would think that selling a sex drug and jokes about its use and situational comedy (think long-lasting erections) would not amuse me at all, but it was actually done fairly tastefully and made me laugh out loud. Surprising.
In the middle of all this drug-selling, Jamie meets Maggie, a woman of 26 with early-onset Parkinson's Disease. Her character was so complex it was nearly staggering. There's her disease and her worries about it and her refusal to be defined by it. There's her art. There's her undefined job, which involves taking senior citizens to Canada where they can afford their prescriptions. (Yet more commentary on the drug industry.) There's her desire for frequent no-strings sex and refusal to be in a relationship, even when it's obvious to the viewer that she's falling in love. Anne Hathaway was absolutely stellar in her performance, down to her shaking hands and lethargy (caused by her illness) and up to her flawlessly-performed emotional breakdowns. Paired with Jake Gyllenhaal's charming, selling, womanizing Jamie, it just really worked. Great stuff. (I also have to insert a side note on a subject I don't usually take the time to comment on: sex scenes. Some were strangely detached feeling, which I suppose is good since it was a no-strings relationship in the beginning. But one was especially beautiful once they were more together... It's raining outside and it's shot through the window, so all the viewer sees is the watery, unfocused forms of very gentle lovers on a lovely deep red bedspread. It was quite beautiful.)
Basically, it had all the hallmarks of the best of the best romantic comedies, but I almost don't want to call it that. Mostly the comedy came from his job and the romance was much more dramatic (and far from funny), and these two elements were combined flawlessly. Added to the very unique characters and plot, the quasi-nostalgic (or whatever you want to call it) feel, the interesting details of the pharmaceutical industry and Parkinson's disease, and some wonderful performances, this was one of the best "romantic comedies" I've ever seen.
Rating: 4.0
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Alice in Wonderland (2010, U.S.)
You never can guess how a remake of a classic like Alice in Wonderland will turn out. On the other hand, any project that involves Johnny Depp, HBC, Tim Burton, and Danny Elfman is guaranteed to be a winner.Having forgotten the adventures of her childhood, the 19-year-old Alice returns through the looking glass and finds her destiny is in stopping the Red Queen, not marrying some pompous ass in England.
Wonderland is definitely a land of wonder. All of the mixed live action and CGI really does something amazing. The bizarre plants and animals, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, the Cheshire cat, and above all the Red Queen... wow.
I love HBC and Johnny Depp. They are incredibly talented actors. But I think that Tim Burton just coaxes the absolute best performances out of them. I mean, I could limit this review to one sentence: HBC as the Red Queen and Johnny Depp as the Hatter. End of sentence, end of review.
Amaaaaaazing.
Rating: 4.0
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Passengers (2008, U.S.)
So Anne Hathaway has never been my favorite, though I am quite fond of Patrick Wilson. I think Netflix might have recommended this one to me.Claire is a therapist counseling the survivors of a plane crash. The survivors remember an explosion that the airline says didn't happen. When the passengers start disappearing, Claire is determined to find out what happened. She's helped by Eric, one of the survivors who she begins a romance with.
This was actually pretty good in terms of mystery and suspense, in a very slow-building, creepy way. I can't compare it to anything without giving the whole thing away, but let me just say your skin will be crawling by the end. Not bad!
Rating: 3.5
Labels:
3.5,
anne hathaway,
conspiracy,
counselor,
david morse,
ed shearmur,
mystery,
patrick wilson,
plane crash,
plot twist,
ptsd,
rodrigo garcía,
romance,
thriller
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Get Smart (2008, U.S.)
I've never seen the TV show Get Smart, so I can't really judge it as an adaptation. There were some funny parts that had a definite 1960s taste to them, and they actually carried over fairly well to the modern movie. I gather that a lot of the gadgets they used, such as the famous shoe phone, came straight from the series.Steve Carell is terribly funny. Sometimes I really don't like the movies he's in, but when he's given a role that isn't in one of those lowbrow comedies, he's great. And he makes a wonderful Maxwell Smart. The rest of the cast was okay, but nothing spectacular. Anne Hathaway underwhelmed, as usual. (Especially disappointing, considering she does have great talent in there.)
The plot was a bit murky and hard to follow, but then considering it's a spoof of the espionage genre, perhaps that makes sense. All in all, a pretty entertaining flick. Not the best thing I ever saw, but still pretty good.
Rating: 3.0
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Rachel Getting Married (2008, U.S.)
I only went to see this one because two of my friends wanted to see it. I never thought I would live to see the day when the following sentence would pour from my brain to the page, but here it goes: The best part of this movie was Anne Hathaway.I know. Turns out that when she's not playing a flake, she does have the ability to play a character who's... not a fake. (To be fair, I did also think she was pretty good in Brokeback Mountain.) She plays a girl fresh out of rehab, reunited with her family in her childhood home for her sister's wedding. Hathaway portrays the myriad of emotions and reactions in an overwhelmingly convincing manner. Her interactions with her sister, parents, various friends and family members, and another former junkie are wrought with complexity. You can really get in her head.
Other than that, the film was one long snooze-fest. The family Rachel is marrying into is just too weird. As is the wedding. And the other guests. It seems to me that if you want your audience to relate to a character, you should make her surroundings and the other characters more familiar to the average viewer. There should be more "everyman" types and fewer of the unique crazies that overrun this one.
Really, that's all I can remember to say about this one. It was way too drawn out for what it was. A character study can only go on for so long. I was dying to leave the theater and go to bed by end, which hasn't happened to me in years. I doubt I would recommend this to anybody. (Although my two friends seemed to quite like it. So who knows, you may want to try it.)
Rating: 2.0
Labels:
2.0,
anne hathaway,
bill irwin,
drug addict,
family,
jonathan demme,
mather zickel,
musicians,
rosemarie dewitt,
sisters,
wedding
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




