Les Miserables (2012)

This is such a cheery movie, it being all about unicorns and rainbows and the whatnot. Happy singing elves in the country of Happyland singing about life's continuous parties. La la la.
I think this film has caused me to suffer a bit of a cognitive break. Sorry about that.
Everyone is familiar with the story right? Some good people get put in bad situations and their lives get totally fucked and then it gets worse and then the hand of justice comes to fuck things up some more. I know. Right?
I didn't watch this to be cheered up or because I didn't know the story and got tricked into watching it. I watched this to see Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway. As a bonus I also got to see Helena Bonham Carter. Now, I was previously familiar with Jackman's and Hathaway's singing ability and was not let down. I was pleased to see that Carter did not embarrass herself which is kind of ironic considering that her character is somewhat shameless, made even more so playing opposite Sacha Baron Cohen as the Thenardiers. The real surprise for me was Russell Crowe, whom I had heard was tolerable as Javert - singing-wise as he is obviously a more than capable actor - yet found his singing to be surprisingly good. That's right. I like Crowe in this role. Broadway has a style that is somewhere in the middle of opera and pop music with pros and cons of each. I often do not like the singing style, even though I have mad respect for the performer's ability. I think it pretty much boils down to the extensive use of vibratto which I feel when used that much lends a melodramatic feel whatever the song or scene is supposed to convey.
I know from interviews I've seen and articles that I've read that Jackman, Crowe and Hathaway are very serious about their craft and if the role calls for them to do something extreme with their bodies, they will. At the beginning of the movie before Valjean has been released from prisong/slavery, Jackman is looking very thin and has the buzzed hair. I read that he had dropped some pounds for those scenes. Then we have Hathaway who gets her hair chopped off and also lost a bit of wait for the 'stylish' starving-prostitute look. Just take a look at her body weight in the other film she had come out last year, The Dark Knight Rises. Perhaps the biggest difference in weight was Crowe, however. He looks much like we have seen him in films the last few years, since he buffed up to play Robin of Loxley in the Robin Hood remake. But his film out earlier in the year, Fists of Steel, had him about 30 or 40 pounds heavier. (Just look at my blog for that movie to see what I thought about how he looked.) This is true commitment to your art. I am mentally sending sandwiches to Jackman and Hathaway, and one to Christian Bale because I'm remembering him in the Thin Man where he lost so much weight for the role that he looked like he might snap in two if someone sneezed on him.
My only complaint about this movie is that it's so long. Sure it's downright short when compared with The Hobbit, but it comes in at over two and a half hours. That's a long time to be subjected to the particular emotions the film illicits. Which I guess is how I ended up in that happy place full of unicorns and rainbows.

Les Miserables on IMDb

The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Now, it's been a might long time since I read The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkein, somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 years, but I don't remember it being quite so, um, yeah, what's the word I'm looking for? Prequelly. You read The Hobbit and it's all cool because it's this small adventure where spiders and trolls are the nastiest things you meet before coming to Smaug. And they were plenty nasty. In my mind's eye, I can see the dwarves and poor Bilbo spending the first half of the book being held prisoner by one baddie or another. They were just a bunch of blokes with more misplaced bravery than common sense. The movie has a bunch of freakin' action heroes banded together against insurmountable odds which they somehow manage to, er, surmount.
Look, I decided to love Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies from the moment I first laid eyes on them. I drank the kool aid and I ain't afraid to admit it. There are the books, which are great, really the standard still by which all fantasy novels are measured. But the movies aren't the books. They leave things out, they add things in. Was I unhappy that some things were left out? You bet I was. But, I also understand that to put in everything from the books would have made the already incredibly long movies incrediblier longer. And they still would have missed some things and changed others. Look at the Game of Thrones adaptation - 10 hours long and still missed what I think are some important things from the book. As an aside, when I started reading Game of Thrones, George R. R. Martin kept making references to the "small folk". I thought since he was using 'maester' instead of 'master' and 'ser' instead of 'sir' that he must just be calling his hobbits, 'small folk'. I was terribly disappointed when I found out that it was a term the gentry used for commoners and peasants. Where was I? Oh that's right, the movies are not the same as the books, yet they are brilliant in their own way. I love them as equals to the books, just the story told by a different master storyteller. And in case you're wondering, dear reader, I feel the same about the Harry Potter books and movies. There is no way that any movie could do complete justice to Jo Rowling's books, which in my opinion are some of the best books I have ever read, so they spun the tale their own way. A way which made sense to be told as a movie.
The Hobbit part 1, is almost the opposite of most adaptations. Jackson et al have all of these dropped or neglected things from the Lord of the Rings movies that they want to stick in somewhere. With the addition of the extra stuff, I think they might have forgotten how humble The Hobbit actually was. On the other hand, there are these cool (to me) back stories and foreshadowing that they're filling in for me, some of which may be based on the other books by Tolkien, but some which Jackson has added to make a movie more on par with the Lord of the Rings films, which is my nice way of saying that Jackson is trying to get a big scope movie from a small scope book.
Oh and where are the spiders? I know that they trolls come before the spiders in the book, but I don't know exactly where we are in the book so I can't tell if the spiders are yet to come or if Jackson left them out, deciding to only mention them instead of showing them. I guess I'll have to wait and see. Oh internets...I have a job for you...
The actors are just spectacular. I will watch Sir Ian, anywhere, anytime in any roll. Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett, reprising their roles as Elrond and Galladriel, respectively, are two of my favorite actors in two of my favorite roles for them. And Martin Freeman! I've been a fan of his since the Office, and loved him in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Sherlock. Everyone is just fantastic. The only comment I have is that Christopher Lee is giving off the same vibe as Saruman in this film as he did as Count Dooku in Attack of the Clones, that being that he is a frail old man. This doesn't mean that I don't like him or his job here, quite the opposite. It makes me a little melancholy to think about him getting older is all.
Do I need to even mention the special effects and the scenery? I would watch a three hour film of just the scenery for this movie or the Lord of the Rings movies. It's that good.
Bottom line on this film is that I get to have it both ways as a fanboy. I get my Peter Jackson directed Hobbit movie (part 1), but I also get the only good Dungeons and Dragons movie ever made with the Lord of the Rings movies not far behind on representing AD&D. During the battle scenes, I wondered a couple of times if Gary Gygax was going to get mentioned in the credits. I also thought about AD&D when the elves keep referring to Bilbo as a halfling, which is the AD&D term (as opposed ot hobbits which is the Tolkien term.

The Hobbit on IMDb

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Another animated kid's film presents itself to me. While I'm waiting for heavyweights like The Hobbit and Lincoln, I guess this will have to do. Pop in the DVD and am underwhelmed by Disney's announcement that for my convenience, I will have to sit through their ads or go to main menu - no control over skipping a particular trailer or fast-forwarding through a boring part. I really hate it when companies do this with their DVDs. Hate it. This isn't starting well at all.
But. Then the film starts with  Ralph, voiced by John C. Reilly doing a voice over and we're treated to some classic gaming graphics to represent what the humans see, and then suddenly we're in game and seeing everyone in their glorious three-deeness. Then things really get going. In spite of my early misgivings at what I saw in front of me, I'm liking this film.
Now, in all due fairness, I was expecting to like this film. The buzz around it has been that it has something for kids, whom it is aimed at, but also a little something-something for the adults who "have to" sit through it with them. There are lots of classic arcade references, not to mention appearances by some of the classics - Pac Man and the ghosts, the various denizens of the multitude of Mario games, and Q-Bert. For all I know all of the characters are from real games - zombies, fighting games, driving games, dancing games, first-person shooters. Pretty much all the genres that I'm aware of are there except maybe flight simulation games and the old-school side-scroller space shoot-em-ups.
Is this still a kid's movie? Yes. Is the plot predictable? Yes. But is it executed well? With excellent animation and fun characters? Yes and yes. Even thought I didn't get to see the blu-ray3D version - whatever the hell that is - I liked it. Hmm, I'm picturing some kind of crazy disk that doesn't require a mchine to play. You put it on a tabletop or other flat surface and you spin, like you would a coin or a top and a holographic image appears - it's like magic! It's blu-ray3D! Well, I've got news for you people, I have it under good authority from Charleton Heston that this technology is a sure sign that we're on the path to the apes ruling the world.
John C. Reilly doing the voice of Ralph was perfect. I really can't think of anyone better for it. The other voices were good, too, but not necessarily irreplacable. Jane Lynch might have been. Her tough-as-nails space marine reminded me a bit at times of her coach character on Glee (in a good way) and I'm not sure that anyone else could have pulled that off, but I kind of think that Peri Gilpen might have come close. Sarah Silverman was the voice of Vanillope and while she was good, I think any enthusiastic actress could have pulled that off. The same goes for Jack McBayur as the voice of Felix, he's certainly got that "I'm slightly dumb and plenty gullibe, but a helluva nice guy" voice down, but a lot of actors can do that, though maybe not as recognizably so. The one voice that I guess is completely replacable is that of Alan Tudyk as King Candy, but not because he was so-so (he was rather quite good), instead it is due to him doing a voice. I didn't know that was Tudyk until I saw his name in the credits. In some ways, that makes him my favorite voice for a character in the film. I was thinking as I watched the production credits that it's too bad that all of these big time animated films only use big stars in the main roles speaking as themselves. It would be so much more entertaining to not be thinking of all the other roles I have seen them in, and if the animated version onscreen looks anything like them. There are tons of unknown actors that would do a wonderful job and all I would picture would be the character in front of my face. Or even have the big stars try on another voice as if they were actually cast in a film instead of just reading a script in a recording studio somewhere. This is not a complaint about this film really. This is a comment on the nature of the beast.
And in case you were wondering if there were any easter eggs in the credits (which would be appropriate given the time of year) there is, but so minor and not germaine to the story per se. What is totally worth watching for those of you that skip the extras is the short film Paperman. Very sweet.

Wreck-it Ralph on IMDb

Five Minutes of Heaven (2009)

I was handed this video and told it looked like the kind of film that I would watch. It's a BBC production starring Liam Neeson and James Nesbitt. This is exactly the kind of thing I watch. All I knew about this film going in was the cover of the DVD case. Pictures, close-ups of Neeson and Nesbitt not looking too happy, someone in a ski mask, a sepia-toned picture of a 70s car, a hand holding a gun. There was also the line in block capital letters, "TO FACE THE FUTURE, THEY MUST FACE THE PAST". My way of thinking is that whether or not the movie is any good, Neeson and Nesbitt are two men that are always worth watching.
I was not wrong.
There is far less action than the cover implies, so anyone who wants to see an American style action film with Neeson should forget about this and go watch Taken. This is instead a well-told story about two men who are tied together by an event that happened in 1975 that forever changed both of their lives in horrible ways. The film is the story of how they each independently have tried to deal with what happened them and how they let it shape the men they have become. The main focus of the film is an arranged meeting of the men so that they can come to some sort of resolution.
This movie really is all Neeson and Nesbitt. I don't mean that the rest of the actors suck, because they don't, they all seem quite believable in fact. But all the other parts, maybe with the exception of a minor character played wonderfully by Anamaria Marinco, are bit parts. Other than Marinco, everyone else has just a few lines at most. But, when you have two of the finest living actors together in the same film, why would you clutter it up with other people? The way the story unfolds, it makes sense that these two are the focus. Okay, so maybe I'm being a little hyperbolic by adding Nesbitt into the rarified air of "greatest living actors", but I don't think I am with Neeson, and certainly Nesbitt is one of my favorite actors so please excuse my bias.
I can not tell you how great it is to watch a film and not know how it's going to end until it does. Okay, it's this great. You can't see me right now, but I actually stopped typing and held my hands as far apart as they would go. Really. And if you can see me now, well creepy, 'cause it's night time and I'm sitting in my bedroom typing this, but you would know that I'm telling the truth about holding my hands up at arm's length.

Five Minutes of Heaven on IMDb

Oh, and the four stars and exclamation point rating on the front cover must be a four star and not a five star system, right? Or a typo. If it were me, I would just give this film five out of five stars, no punctuation.

First Day of National Poetry Month

It's April, which means that it is National Poetry Month. Long before I became a novelist, I was a poet, and that has never left me. I don't wait for April to roll along to read or write poetry, but this does seem like a good time to write about it.
The best way to start is with my favorite poet. Since I first read the opening lines of Howl, I've been a fan of Allen Ginsberg. It was not my first exposure to the Beat movement, but it was my first exposure to Beat poetry. It was nothing like what I thought poetry was - missing were couplets and iambic pentameter, missing were short simple statements, missing were obvious references to love and/or nature. In their place was this massive, run-on, jumbled up, be-bop rhapsody. Ginsberg had his finger on the pulse of something big and real and most importantly something that other poets never talked about. Long before I ever smoked myself high with marijuana or even drank as a red wine jug-holding bikkhu, Ginsberg blew my mind.
That opening line - "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked," sets quite a bar. My first thought was and still is, 'what is it like to be part of a group that includes the best minds of a generation?'. Now that this has been a part of my life for more than 25 years, I have more thoughts on it, about it, of it. Have I seen any of the best minds of my generation? I certainly have seen good minds destroyed by madness, some which reformed in new and beautiful ways, and some that never came back. Did Ginsberg really think at the time that he was seeing the best minds of a generation, or was he speaking in a more hyperbolic way as I do. If he did mean it as applied to his friends how did he feel about the fact that some of them likely were the best minds of his generation? What does he mean by madness? I've always taken it to be both literal and a metaphor for drug usage gone too far.
A great experience is hearing Allen Ginsberg read Howl. Once he gets worked up to it, his delivery becomes absolutely captivating.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2p_kKhRmRkM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If you haven't read Howl, or would like to read along while listening to the above presentation, you can find the full text of Howl here.