Les Miserables (2012)

Released in 2012 under the direction of Tom Hooper on a budget of  $61 million with distribution from Universal Studios; "Les Miserables" is the ambitious film adaptation of the huge long running Broadway musical based off the novel by Victor Hugo of the same name. Previous film adaptations were more based on the original book and were straight-forward dramas, one such drama included an adaptation from 1998 that starred Geoffrey Rush, Liam Neeson, Uma Thurman and Claire Danes. But the adaptation most people are familiar with the 1985 Broadway musical adaptation by Claude-Michel Schonberg, Herbert Kretzmer and Alain Boublil with help from the mastermind producer behind some of the longest-running Broadway shows like "Phantom of the Opera," "Miss Saigon" and "Cats;" Cameron Mackintosh. Now Tom Hooper is a name you all may be familiar with as he received an Academy Award back in 2010 for the feel good British drama "The King's Speech," though before that time, his credentials as a director showed rather minor results since he had directed certain television miniseries or episodes for BBC. With those credentials, one would question why Mr. Hooper was chosen to direct this widely beloved musical when it's clear he has no experience with musicals? We're going to see whether or not he'd done right or if he should have stuck to costume dramas.

Plot: 1815, France. Prisoner 24601/Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) after 19 years of prison for the crime of stealing bread for his sister's child, has finally been placed on parole by Javert (Russell Crowe) but Valjean's yellow-tick-of-leave identifies him as a convict, making finding work difficult as the cruelties of the world weigh him down. One night, he is warmly welcomed into the house of a Bishop (Colm Wilkinson, the original Jean Valjean from Broadway) where he is fed and given a place to sleep, but Valjean, bitter at the world, steals his silverware and is caught by the local police. To his surprise, the Bishop lies to the police by saying he gave them to Valjean, even giving him silver candlesticks that "he left in such a hurry he forgot to take the best." Valjean, shocked and moved that someone treated him with love and respect and appalled at himself for stooping so low, decides to escape his parole, change his name and begin a new life. You got all that? Because that's only the prologue.

Cut to eight years later, Valjean is now the town mayor and owner of a crucifix factory. One of the employees Fantine (Anne Hathaway) is discovered to have a daughter that is being cared for by innkeepers and they demand more money for her care. This discovery gets her fired from the factory, forcing Fantine to sell her locket, hair teeth and body to raise money to support her daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen). When she has a run-in with Javert, Valjean arrives and hears her plight, realizing he is partly responsible for making her life miserable, he takes her to a hospital and swears to take Cosette to her. As that goes on, Javert informs Valjean that someone has been mistaken for the escaped prisoner 42601, unable to cope with the guilt of sending an innocent man to prison, Valjean tells the truth to a court that believes he's not feeling well, as he runs off to the hospital to be with a dying Fantine, promising through song to find and raise Cosette. As she dies, Javert arrives and, although Valjean promises to return to prison after three days, tries to stab him with a sword, which only leads to Valjean escaping to the inn owned by the Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter who perform one of my favorite songs in the musical) to purchase the abused and poorly cared for Cosette from them. 

Nine years later, there is unrest in Paris (as usual) as these students decide to organize a revolution with the death of Lamarque (a French dude which apparently seemed to care about poor people in this musical). Enjolras (Aaron Tveit) and Marius (Eddie Redmayne) are the only students that you'll bother to remember their names unless you're a total die-hard Le Mis fan. Marius catches sight of Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and is instantly infatuated with her. Javert just so happens to also be working in Paris now, Jean Valjean tries to hide Cosette from the world, Eponine (Samantha Banks), the daughter of the Thenardiers, is in love with Marius but he doesn't seem to take notice, Enjolras rallies the people of France to revolt as everyone gets together to sing "One More Day." 

And that's Act 1. If you want to see what happens in act 2, see the movie. Heads up though, this movie is so cruel, it lacks an intermission. I have seen a high school performance of this musical with an old high school classmate I talked to a few times named Andrew Garret who played Valjean, who did so good a performance, that, to me, only HE is Valjean. Back then, the musical left me cold, even today with this film adaptation, I'm still cold towards it. Not so much that it's bad, but because it's so over-blown and huge that, it feels more appropriate for the stage. To get down to it, a musical version of Les Miserables was a nifty idea that worked on Broadway, but to see it in theaters as a major film adaptation, it's rather disappointing and the scale doesn't really feel any bigger than your imagination allowed you to create for you when you saw it on stage. But plotwise, I think describing the prologue and Act 1 should be enough to give you an impression of what you're in for if you choose to see this movie. 

Characters:

Hugh Jackman: People have been saying that he's the best Valjean, personally, nothing will beat Colm Wilkinson or Andrew Garret in my mind. His singing voice isn't terrible, his background in theatre really pays off and he's a good performer, but that's really all I see him as in this movie, is a performer, not the character. Yet people are saying he deserves an Oscar, I imagine those people who say that, haven't seen the stage version. I also have to say, I wasn't too pleased of Jackman's take of "Bring Him Home," go on YouTube and watch Colm Wilkinson's 10th Anniversary performance, THAT is an amazing performance. 

Russell Crowe: One word to describe his performance: stiff. When he arrives in the movie, he sounds as if he is putting too much effort into his singing performance. Eventually, you get used to it and you warm up to his performance, especially when he performs "Stars," after that, I just grew into it and began to care. strange to consider that he used to be in a band and yet when he acting with his face and body, he makes it work.

Anne Hathaway: the second best singer in this movie. All the things you heard about Anne Hathaway deserving an Academy Award is indeed true. On the stage, the many performers who play Fantine, despite all the suffering they go through, somehow still belt out these big numbers from them. Anne Hathaway's performance is one of suffering, one of depression, one of surrender. She is forced to stoop this low just to pay for her daughter's upkeep, she is utterly devastated, also, unlike the stage adaptations I've seen, this was the first time I actually saw Fantine getting her hair cut off and getting her teeth removed. This pulls you into her suffering even further and successfully pulls at your heartstrings.

Amanda Seyfried: No doubt, the worst singer in this movie. Unlike Russell Crowe who grows on you, once she begins to sing "In my Life" it felt like listening to nails on a chalkboard. It's clear to me she wasn't picked for her singing voice, she was picked to act for the camera. She does that part well, the singing part, not so much. I honestly would have preferred Lea Michelle- no actually I take that back. Hell, if they really wanted a competent performer, just go to West End and firkin hire somebody to play Cossette, come on! Give them a chance to break out from theatre into film!

Eddie Raymane: Just like Amanda Seyfried, I doubt he was picked for his singing. He does manage to perform "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" rather well emotionally, but I personally couldn't stand him. But I guess I would rather prefer him over Nick Jonas any day, no actually I take that back, I would rather it be Drake Bell. (looks around expecting people to throw things at me) huh, I guess you guys wouldn't care either. 

Samantha Banks: I found out this girl actually played Eponine for the 25th Anniversary Concert and this this is her first film acting credit. She does a pretty good job to say the least and her singing voice makes her the third best singer in this movie. She does manage to combine acting with her lovely singing voice swimmingly, but her final scene is, well, pretty goofy to say the least  (I won't spoil it, but when you see it, you'll just shake your head) but regardless she gives a fine performance.

Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter: You will never have a dull moment when these two appear on the screen. They are so nasty and yet so entertaining to watch. While I was rather annoyed by the movie's constant edits to show them pick-pocketing their customers, despite them seeming to not even notice these innkeepers robbing them blind. Regardless, their singing was good, but their costuming suggested that Tim Burton was visiting that weekend on the set, though it'd be fitting considering that Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter both were in "Sweeney Todd and the Demon Barber of Fleet Street."

Production: Am I the only one who thinks the set design looked more fake than the props and sets you would see on stage? The second half of the film really looks like they filmed everything on a set and not in an actual town. The parts that actually look like a town, all CGI and not really good CGI to be honest. It really stands out and looks unfinished. Also, for a movie that's major marketing is focused on the actors singling live to the cameras instead of lip-synching to the camera as was done for the last 80 years. But honestly, I felt this didn't add anything except allowing actors to cry while singing the song. Most of the musical performances are single shot takes and the performers are just walking round while singing. Even Anne Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream" is a whopping 4 shots, one shot is pretty much just holding on her as she sings and cries through the song. While her performance is still good, I would have at least liked to have seen maybe a flashback of this guy who took her virginity, friggin anything! This must have been the easiest editing job since it's comprised of long takes and cutting away to different angles of the same action. The music itself is superb, as someone who is an open opera fan but also a closeted fan of musicals, I find the music to be creative and catchy. I have to respect how the musical finds way to reuse it's own music tunes and reworks them for other songs. For example, if you listen carefully, if you listen to "Valjean Forgiven" and then listen to "Empty Chairs/Empty Tables" you might hear a similarity. A more blatant and obvious example of this repetition of utilizing previous music throughout the musical is "Look Down," which is heard at the beginning, heard again when the scene shifts to Paris then once again when Valjean is begging to Javert to let him save Marius and he begs for him to "Look down, Javert, he's standing in his grave!" It's a very clever way to reuse music you heard previously used to show the complexity of the characters and what they are going through. The reason I say this now, is because the song they wrote for the movie, "Suddenly," it has not purpose in being here. It feels really out of place and it's pretty much just 3-4 minutes of Valjean saying "Hey! I'm a daddy now! How about that?" it's the most forgettable song of the movie and it doesn't borrow any previous tunes from the musical, hence why it feels out of place.

Bottom Line: For a musical that is supposed to be ground-breaking, I barely felt the ground shift at all. The only thing this movie has done is allow actors to combine their acting ability and perform with their faces while they sing instead of having to lip-synch to what they sung to months before when they had recorded. For some of the actors, they managed to pull off the acting and singing part off pretty well, other times, it was more like the actors did better in the acting department than in the singing department. Maybe because I've seen the musical, I had this unrealistic sense of expectation for this movie to follow in the same vein. I should have been more kind and realized that this movie was trying to do it's own thing but still retain what the fans love about "Les Miserables." The acting and direction is competent and the music is still great to listen to, so much so that, I found myself singing along in the theater near the end when they sung "One Day More," thankfully for me, it caused the other audience members to do the same so I didn't feel too bad about singing along. Would I see it again? Yeah, but only when it comes to DVD or Blu Ray or OnDemand. I honestly would recommend you go on Youtube and watch the 10th Anniversary or the 25th Anniversary Concert, the actors in that are also singing live to cameras who film their performance uninterrupted. Those performances are excellent (though why they had Nick Jonas as Marius for the 25th Anniversary, I don't know) and while this movie is great to see in the movie theaters, I would recommend you see the stage version some time in your life.

Final Rating: 3/5

Until next time, I'll keep the fires stoked for the next time we burn through celluloid.

Django Unchained

**Warning, the following review contains the uncensored N-Word. If you are easily offended by this, please do not read this review about an over-the-top unrealistic spaghetti western fantasy. Thank you**

"How do you like the bounty-hunting business?"

"Kill white people and get paid for it? What's not to like?"

-Christoph Waltz, Jamie Foxx "Django Unchained"

- -

Released in 2012 under the direction of Quentin Tarantino on a budget of $40 million with distribution from Columbia Pictures; "Django Unchained" is Tarantino's newest genre mash-up and his ninth directorial release. Naturally, the movie is a revenge fantasy tale, just like Tarantino's previous World War II fantasy "Inglourious Basterds,"Tarantino, for anyone who is as unaware of this guy as you are about the character Django, is a filmmaker who takes influence and ideas from other movies and manages to give nods to these genres he pays homage to. His early work began in the neo-noir field with films like "Reservoir Dogs," "Pulp Fiction," and "Jackie Brown." It wasn't until he finally got his name out in Hollywood was he able to get the budget to make movies in the genres of movies he adored, becoming a household name in 2003/2004 with "Kill Bill Vol.1 and 2." After "Kill Bill," Tarantino's movies began to feature characters seeking revenge, from Abernathy, Kim, Lee and Zoe Bell chasing after Kurt Russell to Shosanna Dreyfus burning down her own theater to kill the Nazis. Regardless, I've been anticipating this movie since I even heard the title back in 2011, was it everything I was hoping for and more?

Plot: Two years before the Civil War broke out, Django (Jamie Foxx) a slave is being transported to a plantation in Mississippi when he is approached by a Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) a German Dentist turned bounty hunter buys his freedom under the condition that Django helps him locate The Brittle Brothers (Cooper Huckabee, Doc Duhame, M.C. Gainey), a trio of ruthless criminals. They manage to complete this plot in the first, hmm, 45 minutes before Schultz learns of Django's plan to rescue his German-speaking wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) and buy her freedom as well. The current owner of Broomhilda? Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) slaveowner and francophile of the plantation Candyland (no, really, that's it's actual name) that is looked over by house slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson). Will Django get his wife back before Calvin realizes the ruse?

This was what I waited a year and a half for? Plotwise, the movie is a little too familiar, but I don't blame that on Tarantino's part, this film is after all supposed to be a homage to Spaghetti Westerns, this movie in particular is loosely based off an obscure Italian film barely anybody bothers to look up. The movie that spawned nearly 50 unofficial sequels: 1966's "Django" a spaghetti western ripping off of Sergio Leone's "Fistful of Dollars" from 1964, which is an unofficial remake of Akira Kurosawa's "Yojimbo" from 1961 (Yeah, see? I did my homework too). But in the sense of a narrative, the movie feels like two stories written separate from each other, one meant to be the main plot while the other was meant to be the plot to entice the studio to produce the movie. You can pretty much tell the movie makes the transition from the Brittle Brothers plot to the Rescuing Broomhilda plot when Django and Schultz go up into the Mountains and the soundtrack plays "I Got A Name" by Jim Croce. I personally feel that Tarantino could have corrected this problem if he had the characters kill them off one by one periodically throughout the movie, what do I mean by that? Well, let's say instead of killing them all in one setting, Django kills the first Brittle Brother while the others escape, then the characters go into the mountains to hunt down the second Brittle brother and then the third Brittle Brother is hiding out at Candyland. This would make the two plots converge together perfectly if Tarantino had a second writer, like Roger Avery, Tarantino's co-writer for "Pulp Fiction," whatever happened to him I wonder… I feel I should bring this up, this one little gaping plot hole made near the end when Calvin discovers Schultz and Django's ruse, Calvin threatens violence unless they pay him $12,000 for Broomhilda's freedom and Schultz just happens to have that money in his wallet, thus buying her freedom. This raises the question, why didn't they just tell Clavin that they really wanted to buy Broomhilda and were willing to pay 12 grand for it, boom, conflict resolved.

As for the dialogue, well, I've made it no secret that I look up to Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" as my dialogue writing bible, but it seems there have been a sh*t storm of controversy over the film's constant usage of the term "nigger," from major film critics to even Spike Lee, it seems that everyone is getting upset over this movie's usage of the derogatory phrase. To that I say "why is it a show like "The Boondocks" which has characters saying 'Nigga' more times than the characters in "Jackie Brown" get a free pass and this film doesn't?" to which you would reply "it's because the people who make "The Boondocks" are black and Tarantino is white, therefore it's considered racist." Yet, when a director like Steven Spielberg directs "The Color Purple" or Craig Bewer writes and directs "Hustle & Flow" they are praised for the racial boundaries they cross despite the fact that both filmmakers are white. With that argument in mind, one would think, "oh, well Tarantino is being deep by making this movie exploring the horrors of slavery at the time" that would be the case except Tarantino doesn't exactly explore that. In fact, the whole aspect of slavery boils down to "man slavery sure was bad, wasn't it?" Hate to break it to you Tarantino, but you don't need to do that, we have the 1977 television ABC miniseries "Roots," a show that told the story of three generations of slaves from the capture of an African youth and his trials to when he is forced into slavery as the story moved from him to his daughter to her son. Sure, that was a television miniseries, but "Roots" had a story to tell, "Django Unchained" has two under the guise of one. Just like "Inglourious Basterds" it's a film that's not at all realistic or historically accurate, it's blatant wish fulfillment aimed at the African American audience to empower them and make them say "boy, if only we had a gunslinging negro back in the day." Though considering how few African Americans there were in the audience for this screening I went to, I don't think it's working Tarantino. Ironically, in 1974, Mel Brooks release "Blazing Saddles" a film that was praise for it's comedy and yet criticized for it's use of the word "nigger," yet, 38 years later, it's considered a comic masterpiece.

Characters:

Jamie Foxx: He's good, he's stoic, he's tough and when he initially gains his freedom, he gives the right reactions of confusion and uncertainty before he finally adjusts to the concept of freedom. Considering that originally, Will Smith was cast to play this role, Jamie really does give a good performance as a tough action hero guy but also a romantic on the side. Plus, how rare is it you get to see Jamie Foxx's hairy testicles and shooting up a bunch of guys saying "d'Artagnan motherf*cker" as well as wearing a bright blue hilarious costume?

Christoph Waltz: His last outing with Tarantino won him an Academy Award, but in "Basterds" he was so good that he was intimidating. Here, he's rather humorous, but he does have his moments of building depth when he shows he has a sense of humanity against slavery and cruelty to the lowly, yet he holds no qualms against shooting a father in front of his child or shooting an officer of the law, just so long as he happens to be a wanted criminal. Nevertheless, Christoph gives a great performance

Leonardo DiCaprio: Mark my words, you will never take your eyes off him once he comes onscreen. He's so over-the-top and dastardly that it's hard to even take him so seriously. This works against Leo as it makes it difficult to see him as anything but intimidating. Well, I take that back, he does have this one scene near the end where he does become pretty threatening where he grabs a hammer and threatens to smash the back of Broomhilda's head in. He's cold, but like Aldo Raines, it becomes hilarious watching an actor as well-known as Leonardo DiCaprio play a character totally against his type and run with it. I've heard people suggest he might be one of the serious contenders for best supporting actor at the Oscars this year, personally, I think while he was good, as a villain, his performance was based off his ability to do hired things just pass it off with a gleam in his eye and a smile on his face.

Kerry Washington: For a girl that Django spends 2 hours fighting to acquire, she's really not all that interesting since she doesn't say much. In fact, I think she gets at least, what 15 to 20 lines of dialogue. Still, that's not the fault on part of the actress, but I think that's a fault on part of the screenplay since most of the film, she appears as some vision to Django.

Samuel L. Jackson was also pretty good, so good in fact it's almost scary to see him play this sort of house Negro that is so loyal to the Candie house that he abuses his fellow slaves, making him no difference than Calvin Candie or the other slavers themselves. The rest of the cast is pretty much playing a game of "Hey I know that person!" Jonah Hill and Don Johnson play some Southern ambushers who get a really funny scene arguing about not being able to see out of the bags on their heads, Zoe Bell, Tom Savini and Robert Carridine all have practically look-really-hard-to-see-them cameos, but the best cameos of this movie include the director himself sprouting an Australian accent and actor Franco Nero, the original Django, in a cameo that is only funny if you understand that he played Django ("D-J-A-N-G-O. The D is silent" "I know.")

Production: Here's a little bit of trivia pursuit for all you movie goers; what is a spaghetti western? The answer is that it's a western film that is set in America yet filmed largely in Italy using locations that suggest the American frontier. So here, Tarantino filmed in California, Wyoming and Louisiana, all of which are excellent locations, especially the mountains, they were so beautifully shot. The movie is gloriously bloody, if you haven't left the theater 10 minutes into the movie when Dr. King Schultz shoots a horse, then you are not going to enjoy the violence in this film. It's so graphic and bloody, probably even more graphic than "Kill Bill", but without the swords. The soundtrack is probably Tarantino at his most eclectic; utilizing compositions from Spaghetti Western composing legends Ennio Morricone and Luis Bacalov (the latter scored 1966's "Django" and also wrote the theme song that is heard in the opening credits of the film) as well as folk singer Jim Croce was included in the soundtrack. It's an eclectic soundtrack that definitely ranks up there as one of the best soundtracks put together by Quentin Tarantino.

The editing, is another story. I usually find the editing with Tarantino's choice for camera shots to be clever, but here, it doesn't feel as masterful. But this is due to the fact that seasoned Tarantino calibrator editor Sally Menke sadly died in 2010 from a hiking accident. She and Tarantino were simply a superb pair, a director who wanted to include everything with an editor who respected that but knew when too much was too much. The Tarantino editing torch has been passed to assistant editor Fred Raskin, whose previous credits included the "Fast and the Furious" movies….well that's a positive he's a keeper. His editing isn't the worst, but feels like the editor just didn't want to cut out so much of the movie when, trust me, 30 minutes should have cut down cause at 2 and a half hours, even my patience has it's limits.

Bottom Line: I have been eagerly waiting for this film for a year and a half, nothing was going to stop me from seeing this movie. Hell, even on the supposed "end of the world" crap, I proudly proclaimed I would be so pissed if the world did end before I saw "Django Unchained." Believe me, I was very enthusiastic about seeing this film and I got exactly what I hoped for, minus the run time. The story could have been fine-tuned to still keep both stories but to make both flow more with the plot in my opinion, it was a delight to see such recognizable characters like Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio playing characters they don't usually play. It's a western that is so over the top and self-referential for us ciniphiles, I grinned with every nod Tarantino made to pull out the big guns to deliver his dream project of a Western. Is it flawed? Yes. Could it be better? Yes. Is it boring? To each his own, but no, I was entertained all the way through and that's good enough to me. So to all the critics out there who be hating on this movie, shut up and stop ruining my fun and let me enjoy the entertainment….why are all you Star Wars fans looking at me like that?

Final Rating: 3.75/5

Until next time, I'll keep the fires stoked for the next time we burn through celluloid.

 The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey Review

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry bare sandy hole with nothing in it or to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort."

-J.R.R. Tolkien's first lines of "The Hobbit"

Released in 2012 under the returning direction of Peter Jackson on a budget of $180 million with distribution from Warner Bros. Pictures; "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is the first part to Jackson's adaptation of the wildly popular 1937 fantasy novel by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, the same author who wrote "The Lord of the Rings" in 1954-55. Since their publication, the books created a legion of devoted fans and imitators who were enchanted by this world created by Professor Tolkien. Naturally, over the years, there have been adaptations of his works, from British radio dramas, video games, animated shorts and, of course, film. While some are familiar with the 1978 adaptation by Ralph Bakshi, the adaptation that is practically universally known are the ones done by Peter Jackson, a New Zealand filmmaker who came from being a sort of nobody to becoming the biggest name in Hollywood since Steven Spielberg. From 2001 to 2003, Jackson adapted and released three movies all based on the books by Tolkien and the movies were wildly successful, both in the box office and critically, so much so, "The Return of the King" swept the Oscars that year, garnering Jackson with the gold for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director and Best Picture. Now, Jackson returns to the silver screen with his newest adaptation based on Tolkien's previous novel, "The Hobbit." The 1977 adaptation by Rankin/Bass is probably the most well known of the adaptations for the book, but Jackson plans to follow the source material closely, by releasing three movies for a 300 page book….wait what?

Plot:

Taking place in the form of a flashback, 60 years before the events of "The Fellowship of the Ring," Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is approached by the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and The Company of Dwarves, Dwalin, Balin, Kili, Fili, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur (Graham McTavish, Ken Scott, Aidan Turner, Dean O'Gorman, Mark Hadlow, Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Peter Hambleton, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter) and Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). They arrive to recruit Bilbo to be their fourteenth member to journey with them to The Lonely Mountain and help them reclaim their home from the fierce dragon Smaug. Although Bilbo is hesitant, he agrees and joins their quest, But the trail is laden with danger, from bickering trolls to Misty Mountain goblins to Wargs, and that's only the enemies that were actually IN the book. Our heros also face a Pale Orc that has a history with Thorin and his pack of orc-riding Wargs, a Necromancer who wields the sword of the Witch King of Angmar, and the greatest enemy of them all, the run time.

I'm not joking. Yikes, 2 hours and 45 minutes for the running time yet it feels longer than that, which I wouldn't mind that if they didn't include things that weren't in the regional text. Saruman The White (reprised by Christopher Lee) wasn't in the book, neither was Galadriel (reprised by Cate Blanchett) and nowhere in the book do they mention Sauron, Radagast the Brown Wizard (Sylvester McCoy) wasn't in the book (at least to my knowledge) and, of course, this Pale Orc that is dragged in to add drama even though he's never mentioned anywhere in the book or in any of the other books (to my knowledge, maybe he is mentioned somewhere and I just don't know it). Point I'm making is that there is a LOT here that was not in the book and before you ask, in case you couldn't already tell, yes, I have read the book. I love the book. One of the best books I ever read in fact. Tolkien's world is huge and fascinating, and the tale of personal growth and adventure, makes the book fun to read. This movie felt drawn out and overdone. The story is really straightforward, the plot in the movie feels like it's being dragged away at times just to include plot elements that just continue to lengthen the movie.

But for the parts they do include, some are cool. The scene with the rock giants, though not in the book, is seriously cool, the part with Bilbo and the mountain trolls, in the book and pretty damn funny how it's played out with all the trolls bickering amongst themselves. The highlight of the movie: Bilbo and Gollum in the cave, trust me, it's amazingly directed and superbly handled by the actors.

Still, for the things they kept, they do a good job with it, for the things they included, I hope they are resolved quickly before they're drawn out to the point where they become annoying.

Characters:

Martin Freeman: Probably the best actor in this movie. He really knows how to channel Bilbo's nervousness, his panic to situations like trolls throwing him around and the many times he thinks about home and regrets coming on the journey. It's a performance that's funny, but identifiable and perfectly captures the Bilbo Baggins of the book.

Ian McKellen: Still the wise old wizard as before, but I can't help but feel his screen time sort of affects the interest and mystery of Gandalf the Grey we grew to know from The Lord of the Rings. He's not terrible, don't get me wrong, he's dignified and he knows how to grab your interest in a scene, but I felt kinda cheated out that being a powerful wizard that he is, the most magical things he does in the film is leave a marking on Bilbo's door, break a boulder, disappear and reappear whenever it's convenient and light pine cones on fire to use as molotov cocktails. Come on, isn't this the same Gandalf who used his magic to fling Saruman around 60 years from now?

The actors playing The Dwarves: They fit the roles well, though they spend most of the movie killing orcs/goblins or being funny. They have moments of depth, but it feels downplayed since the movie has so many action scenes and comedic moments that the three seem to blend together.

Hugo Weaving: He's here to collect the nice paycheck, next!

Cate Blanchett: Pretty bland sh*t here, least she got her paycheck. Next!

Christopher Lee: It was pretty fun to see him again, but he was also here just to collect the paycheck.

Andy Serkis: For as brief as his role was, DAMN it was so good to see Gollum again. He's such a fascinating character and it was really interesting to see him play the game of riddles, switching from the Smeagol who is more playful and pitiful to the angry and harsh Gollum. The infamous "Riddles in the Dark" was probably the most flawless scene in the movie.

Production:

If anything can be salvaged from this movie, it's Jackson's production team. Naturally, they go above and beyond. The Cinematography is, again, beautiful, but some landscapes look as if Jackson went back to the same locations he used before but he just picked different spots to film it. For example, the open field with all the rocks where the dwarves run away from the Wargs to find the Hidden Valley of the Elves, looks an awful lot like the same field from "The Two Towers" when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli entered Rohan's border. I'm also a little disappointed that the movie took a back seat to using practical effects and models like in the previous films, the majority of the last third of the movie is so CGI heavy, it becomes depressing. The Pale Orc is all CGI yet all the other Orcs are guys in makeup- oh my mistake, they're CGI'd this time around. That's other thing that's disappointing, the makeup. That's not to say it looks terrible, but what disappoints me is that that the movie uses more CGi than makeup. I loved the makeup in the original trilogy, it felt realistic and it immersed you into the movie and it made the action all that more believable and intense. The action in this film felt like an odd combination of intense and humorous, but humor is something I've come to expect from Peter Jackson, considering this is the same guy who made "Brain Dead." The Music is once again, done by Howard Shore, he definitely helps return you into the world of Lord of the Rings and, even though I was initially tired of the "Song of the Misty Mountain" that had been playing in the trailers, the movie continually integrated it into the soundtrack in the form of a motif, just like how the blaring of the horns from the tune "The Bridge of Kazad Dum" is constantly played throughout the movie to incite the feeling of majesty and excitement, which is what Shore does here as well. At times, the soundtrack does get too goofy, but it sticks to what it does best, being awesome when there is intensity.

Bottom Line: Despite my criticisms, this is still a good movie. If you can tolerate the run time, which really should be an hour shorter than it needs to be, than you will still be entertained. The actors play their parts well, some better than others. Martin Freeman's performance was fun, Ian McKellen was good, the actors who played the dwarves did what the script called for them, even though most of them don't have a lot of depth in the book itself. The scenery is impressive, but the movie feels less realistic than the last time we visited the World of Middle-Earth, but in the long run, that's more of a preference than a criticism. The real criticism comes from the length of the movie, which is full of the material from the original book and the rest from material I have no idea where it came from (though I was told it came from Tolkien's posthumous book "Unfinished Tales") but I'm not sure since I haven't read everything by Tolkien. Because of this added material, it just makes the movie feel longer than needed and at times, I thought I was watching the Extended Cut instead of the actual movie itself. As for the 3D, it worked, I didn't think it was necessary but, eh, it worked. If you're wondering if I saw it in 48 Frames Per Second that the movie is being advertised, no, I planned to, but the theaters that were showing it were sold out. Besides, I saw the original Lord of the Rings in glorious 24 fps and I'll see the next one in the same frames. Regardless, I had fun with the movie, is it flawed? Yeah, it's not as majestic as the original LOTR films but we still have two more movies to sit through before I can make a complete criticism to the adaptation on a whole. But in the meantime, I'll stick to the Rankin/Bass adaptation, it seems to have come the closest to the source material while omitting some elements for the sake of narrative.

Final Rating: 3.5/5

Until next time, I'll keep the fires stoked for the next time we burn through celluloid.

Skyfall

Released in 2012 under the direction of Sam Mendes and distributed by Columbia Pictures on a budget of $20 million; "Skyfall" is the 23rd movie in the James Bond franchise that has been running active since 1962, hence the year 2012 marks it's 50th Anniversary. For anyone who has lived under a rock, James Bond, or agent 007 as he's called, is a British spy working for an secret service agency called MI6 and works to defend the world from villains that threaten the safety of the world, all while drinking his dry vodka martinis, driving fast cars and shagging women. I've been a fan of the 007 films ever since I saw "Casino Royale" in 2006 and I had to get my hands on all the movies and see them. Hell, I wrote a retrospective on all the films (minus the unofficial "Never Say Never Again") but left "Skyfall" open as I hadn't seen it yet. Well, that's changed now, I've seen it and I can tell you that it's "the best James Bond movie ever" right? You wish.

Plot: After finally ditching the luggage of that Vesper bitch from the last movie, MI6 Agent 007, James Bond (reprised by Daniel Craig) pursues a hitman who has stolen the names of undercover NATO agents who are hidden in terrorist organizations. While attempting to retrieve the files, Bond is accidentally shot by MI6 agent Eve (Naomie Harris) and is presumed dead. Months after his supposed death, he returns to duty when he learns an explosion was set off at MI6 headquarters, all while his boss M (reprised by Dame Judi Dench) receives threatening messages from a cyber-terrorist/former MI6 agent Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem). Can Bond save the day and defeat this flamboyant terrorist? Well duh, Bond has been stopping insane terrorists since 1962, what makes you think this is any different?

The movie is a step up from "Quantum of Solace" as it doesn't deviate away from from this interesting premise of a super secret agency to focus on this one chick's issues with this evil general dude. But it does seriously have a complete shift in tone once we reach act 2. At that point, it becomes a different movie that stops being 007 and becomes a completely different movie. I've mentioned before that the newer Bond films took ideas from the Bourne movies to bring in new audiences, but the hardcore fans heavily criticized them for deviating away from the tone that most 007 movies utilized. This movie especially suffers from the same problem. [SPOILER ALERT! READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T LIKE TO BE SPOILED!] Once Bond comes face to face with Silva, he captures him immediately only for Silva to escape so he can attempt to assassinate M while dressed as a police officer. After that, Bond escapes with M in the Aston Martin DB5 from "Goldfinger" that comes with forward machine guns and ejector seat and they drive away to Bond's childhood home where he preps the house for a big shootout with Silva and his mercenaries. [SPOILER OVER!]

These plot elements not only feel recycled from previous Bond films (an MI6 agent who goes rogue? "Goldeneye" anyone?) as well as other films, namely "The Dark Knight." A villain who is captured only to escape? You can't expect me to believe they came up with that by themselves. The elements of classic James Bond are here: the mad man villain, the gadgets, the fast cars with bond girls. Though these elements are here, it doesn't precisely feel like a 007 movie, but more like some different action movie altogether, but it's a good action movie I'll give it that.

Characters:

Daniel Craig:  Craig is fine actor and he does sell some of the more personal moments, especially around the third act. But he mostly seems to be acting from the Jason Statham level of "I really don't want to be here" acting. He's good, but he lacks the suave charm of Brosnan or Connery. 

Perhaps this is really stemming from my preference of viewing James as a heartless killer yet charming and suave lover to the ladies, but I wasn't really the most engaged to see James Bond's original home in the 3rd Act. That's not to say I'm not in support to see 007 fleshed out as a character, but fleshing out a badass and humanizing them, while it's proven to work before in the case of Sarah Conner from "Terminator 2" for a character like James Bond, fleshing him out kinda takes away some of the badassery out of him and only adds more mystery to a shoddy backstory. Oh well, to each his own.

Judi Dench: Yes folks, the rumors are true. This is Dame Dench's final performance as M, get over it. While I missed her hard-ass personality that she brought to the Brosnan films when she was brought on to be M, she brings a mother-like presence that's explored, but not as much that it could have been. Regardless, she still retains this strong presence that holds your interest and demands attention. The speech she gives in the second act about how their enemies being invisible and hard to define, is really a great throwaway reference to the last 50 years of 007 and his conflicts with the Soviet Union. It also reflects today's politics since we can't really label our enemies if we don't know who they are.

Javier Bardem: Remember when Javier Bardem was really creepy in "No Country For Old Men?" He's not that intimidating at all in this movie. The worst this guy seems to do is put his hands on 007 in a way that suggests he might molest 007. Other times, he seems to act like a cry baby "boo-boo! I was captured but you didn't come to rescue me so I decided to become a terrorist and get revenge on you! Nyah!!!" Funny thing was, his evil plan to use technology to rig elections and rob bank accounts actually sounded ingenious but just like the last movie, they bring up this ingenious idea and then screw it over by going a totally different direction. I find this guy to be an idiot of a bad guy, what bad guy orders his men to check an MI6 agent for weapons and yet they don't check his pockets for anything that looks like a small radio? I would understand it if Bond could hide it in his shoe like in "Goldfinger" but the fact he hid it in his pocket and NOBODY checked his pockets. What the fresh hell is this bullsh*t?

Ralph Fiennes: I'm glad that he's finally playing a more subdued performance when his career has practically been defined in the last few years as being so over-the-top evil for his roles like Voldemort or Hades. I liked that he actually was what M should have been, a no nonsense guy who will not take Bond's sh*t, you know, what M used to be before Daniel Craig took over. But that doesn't mean he sits around frowning. At a shootout scene, he took a bullet for M and despite the wound, managed to pick up a gun and shoot at some bad guys. THAT is badass.

Everyone else is just…meh. Naomie Harris is a poor Bond girl since she doesn't do much and she doesn't really do too much. Ben Wishaw may capture the vibe of Desmond Llewelyn, but he lacks the humor and appeal of him. I know Llewelyn is dead, but I missed his subtle and humorous persona. Albert Finney is good, but considering that his role was originally supposed to go to Sean Connery, it feels like they threw him in this role last minute, but that's not to say he's bad, just not too memorable.

Production: Every James Bond movie is famous for having 007 go to exotic locations and this movie seemed to get that down, for the first act. Sure, 007 goes to China and he goes to an extravagant casino that houses Komodo dragons just to have an obvious death scene, but after that, the movie seems to stick to the UK with the Underground tunnels, the streets and then some godforsaken place around Scotland. Yeah, exotic locations my ass; if "Casino Royale" did anything right, at least THAT showed more variety in it's locations. This is one of those Bond movies with the most unimpressive cinematography since "Die Another Day." Fight choreography is okay, it's still the Bourne style of kinetic fighting, but this one seems to go for the more ridiculous and unrealistic sense of tempting death that made the original Bond films fun to watch, problem with that though, when your previous films have tried so hard to be grounded in reality and yet you take this old style of tempting death, sorry 007, but you can't do that. If there is one thing that I have been admirably kind to that will get a safe pass from me is the opening song by Adele, which I have to say, she makes up for the last few artists chosen before and totally blows the doors down with this great song that heralds back the classic days of 007, which is what I think this film was trying so desperately to do to appeal the Bond fans demanding 007 return to his roots.

By the way, this has been bugging me for days, but the gadgets made by Q:

Gun with hand print identification: First of all, how is that even useful? Clearly, the only time it would even work is if Bond drops it and someone else picks it up and tires to use it. So clearly, Q designed it with the intention that would happen, yet he asks Bond to bring it back in pristine condition (oh please, like 007 EVER brings back anything in good quality).

Radio: the only gadget that actually seemed useful, but what bugs me more than anything is that Bond just left it in his pocket. I mean, he could have implanted it in his shoe, like a REAL spy would, but no, he just left it in his pocket where the henchmen didn't seem to bother to remove and show their boss. How f*cking lazy is that? I don't care if he wanted to get caught, that is just really lazy writing.

Bottom Line: I admit, I was one of those guys who wanted Bond to go back to his roots, but this was not what I meant by it. This feels like a confused mess of a film that's trying way too hard to appeal to the 007 folks who want to see Bond go back to his roots and yet stay to what grabbed the new fans that they make a film that barely feels like either, but a cold carbon copy of "The Dark Knight" but without the stylish direction and intense pacing from Christopher Nolan and try to throw in elements of "Goldfinger" and "Goldeneye." This movie just feels like it's going from one point to the next, giving little build-up to all this pay-off that doesn't feel very rewarding. It has a lot of things I did like, but the things I didn't like just outweigh the good in this regard. This film just felt like it was trying so hard to go through the motions of making a great Bond movie that they just didn't seem to look at the script and say "wait, this looks familiar…like, not really James Bond but more something else. Oh well, we need money, we almost went bankrupt you know!" oh, that's right, silly me, now I get why this movie ripped off "The Dark Knight," MGM had to announce Bankruptcy back in in 2010 but they were saved by Spygalss Entertainment. They needed money and they noticed that "The Dark Knight" had made a billion dollars worldwide while "Quantum of Solace" made only half that amount. It only makes sense to steal ideas from the movie that made more money that you.

But that's not what's bugging me the most; what's really bugging me that is that all the major critics are hailing this as "The Best Bond Movie" which is total bullsh*t. The best Bond film without debate is "Goldfinger," it invented the genre and created archetypes that influenced the spy genre that is still felt today. "Skyfall" just takes these ideas and tries to claim it's paying homage to classic 007, but if you really compare the this movie, you'll find this film really takes more from Batman. What, from a scene in Hong Kong up in a tall skyscraper smashing windows, capturing a bad guy just so he can escape, the bad guy and his henchmen dress up as police officers, the bad guys capturing a young brunette before killing her, a bad guy who has been scarred; all that's missing is Daniel Craig to put on a cape and cowl and drive around on on batpod. 

But if I had to pick between seeing this movie or "Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2" again, I'd choose the former.

FInal Rating: 2.75/5

Also, How DARE you blow up the Aston Martin DB5 MGM, how DARE you. Is that your way of mocking the fans who have been watching these movies for 50 years?