Gladiator

Gladiator, 2000

Directed by Ridley Scott

Nominated for 12 Oscars, Won 5

Up Against: Chocolat, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Erin Brockovich, Traffic 

Gladiator is a movie I've seen several times, and a movie I really do enjoy. It's the story of Maximus, a general in the Roman army, who is very much loved by Marcus  Aurelius. The time is coming for Marcus Aurelius to announce the succession, and in an unseen move, he tells Maximus he would like him to become his heir. Stunned, Maximus takes some time to think about it. But sadly, while he is, Marcus's corrupt son Commodus is let known he will not be Caesar. Upset that he has never been good enough for his father, he embraces him, and then suffocates him, the world never knowing about what was intended for Maximus. Maximus is arrested, and while he escapes being executed, he doesn't make it home in time to save his wife and son. Sleeping at their charred feet, the next morning he is captured as a slave, and is bought as a Gladiator. He rises through the ranks very quickly, spurred on by his master (also an ex-gladiator who was bought his freedom). His only goal now is to become so great that he may be able to find Commodus again, and let him know that he is not finished with him. 

I'm actually a fan of Russell Crowe, and this is one of my favourite films of his. It's a movie, in my mind, that I always sort of associated with Braveheart as being similar, though Gladiator is a much better made film (that and I don't care for Mel Gibson). Usually I don't very much enjoy films with a lot of killing in them, but this movie was not overdone on the gore. 

The music in this film is a particular stand out to me. While the battle scenes frequently sound like a bit of a wonky Pirates of the Caribbean theme, the rest of it is a very fine Zimmer score. The touches from Lisa Gerard make the slower pieces very touching and peaceful. The pieces that Zimmer and Gerrard did together are so beautiful, and rightfully capture the sadness and hopefullness of Maximus. 

Joaquin Phoenix is also a standout in the film. The sneering, corrupt Commodus, he plays the part to a T. It makes me a bit sad that he didn't win that year, but that's that. 

The cinematography, too, was very good and beautiful, as well as the costumes. Overall, the film looked very authentic, and looked beautiful. 

Overall, this is a film I enjoy. It's not my favoruite film, or even close, but is a movie I always enjoy watching when it's on TV or whatever. I can't comment on whether it deserved to win, having not seen any of the other films that were up that year, but I enjoy this movie so I'm not complaining!

Acting- 8/10
Directing- 8/10
Screenplay- 7/10
Music - 9/10
"The look"- 8/10
Entertaining- 7/10
Emotional Connection- 7/10
Rewatchability- 7/10
Did I like It?- 8/10
"Total Package"**- 7.5/10  

 Total: 76.5/100

Les Miserables (2012)

 (Disclaimer so people know where I am coming from with this review: I adore the musical “Les Miserables.” I’ve seen the musical three times on stage.  I love the score and listen to it all time on CD. It’s one of my all-time favorite musicals.

I consider the reading of the original Victor Hugo novel to be one of the most profound reading experiences of my life. I’ve seen most of the movie versions, and especially love the 1935 version with Charles Laughton and Frederic March. A five-hour French version from 1934 recently played by TCM and I was blown away by how gripping it was. I just love this story and its characters.)

 

Based on seeing the movie version of the musical “Les Miserables” (2012), I surmised that director Tom Hooper graduated summa cum laude from the Joshua Logan School of How NOT to Direct a Musical.

You know Joshua Logan. The guy who filmed “South Pacific” (1958) on location and then used colored filters throughout.

The guy who hired non-singers Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave for “Camelot” (1967) and filmed a lot of the numbers in close-up (Tom Hooper must have studied “Camelot” a lot).

Speaking of non-singers, Logan cast those iconic warblers Lee Marvin (!) and Clint Eastwood (!!) in “Paint Your Wagon” (1969).

Musical follies, one and all. Add “Les Miserables” to the list of one of the worst musicals of all time.

“Les Miserables” is the biggest disappointment I’ve had at the movies in years. It’s a soul-crushing disappointment from someone who has waited years for a movie version of this show.

Let’s call “Les Miserables” for what it is – an opera. Not grand opera, of course, but an opera nonetheless. If a story is told entirely in song, then it’s an opera. Sure there are a few scenes of dialogue, but Beethoven’s “Fidelio” is considered an opera, and that has long dialogue passages.  So “Les Miserables” is an opera.

And operas need voices. It helps if they’re good actors, but the first requirement is good voices. No, not good voices, but great voices.

Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway and even Russell Crowe have good singing voices.

But not for this material.

Ten minutes in, with the largely laughably large-scaled CGI opening, and star Hugh Jackman, as Jean Valjean, trying vainly to hit the high notes, I had a sinking feeling I was going to be in for the long haul over the next two and a half hours. And I was.

The cast isn’t really to blame. They try their best. But they can’t sing these songs. It’s beyond their abilities.

 

The show’s two best known songs are “I Dreamed a Dream” and “Bring Him Home.” A lot of people have heaped praise on Anne Hathaway’s singing, and acting of the former, but I’m in the minority. Shot in extreme close-up, I was so distracted by the tears and running snot that it took me out of the scene. I know movies are more intimate than what is on stage, but I’ve always been moved by this song, so I don’t need the extreme close-ups to sell it. The less said about Jackman’s rendition of “Bring Him Home” the better. A tough song to sing, to be sure, but it was embarrassingly bad.

A friend of mine commented afterwards that maybe in the old days, Hollywood knew what they were doing when they dubbed the singing voices of their big stars. Sure no one would rush out to see Marni Nixon in “The King and I” (1956) or “My Fair Lady” (1964) but they would go see Deborah Kerr and Audrey Hepburn, respectively. Are those films really lessened by having the leads dubbed? Is Rita Hayworth any less a screen icon because her voice was dubbed singing “Put the Blame on Mame” in “Gilda” (1946) and in her musicals?

So you have a sung-through musical where the leads can’t properly sing the songs, and a director who doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how to stage a musical. Director Hooper use of extreme close-ups throughout gets tiresome after the fourth or fifth time. For me, these are most effective for key emotional moments, not 2.5 hours worth.

And let me get this off my chest. If I hear any more prattle from the cast and crew about the effectiveness of recording the songs live during the filming, I think I may yawn myself to death. Based on the evidence here, I don’t see what the big deal is.

I may be reading too much into these interviews, but there’s an air of condescension and smugness when the cast and director talk about how much more real it is singing live than to a pre-recorded track. It’s as if they’re brushing aside seven decades worth of musicals.

As one who decries the often rapid cuts of today’s movies, I should be applauding Hooper’s use of minimal cutting. But the camera work is static to the point of inertia and when Hooper does move the camera, it’s often the dreaded shaky cam effect, and tilted camera angles, and the whole thing becomes annoying to watch.

One of the show’s most famous songs is the comic number “Master of the House” and it’s a bit of welcome black comedy levity in the often grim proceedings. But it’s very badly staged here, with dumbfounded literalness played out ad nauseum. There’s no sense of movement and looks like it was staged for a community theater production. Like everything else in the film, it’s cramped and claustrophobic.

Adding blame to this disaster was the very poor musical direction, for which I blame orchestrators Anne Dudley and Stephen Metcalfe and music supervisor Becky Bentham. They do the music no favors. Everything is pitched in the most low-key manner possible. The orchestrations are depressingly small-scaled and the musical accompaniment isn’t allowed to soar. It also sounded to like a very poor sound mix, with the orchestra barely heard in the background. It could be one of the tinniest-sounding musicals I’ve ever heard.

(Despite my snarky comments directed at the top of this review to those three Joshua Logan-directed musicals, the musical direction by Alfred Newman and Ken Darby for “South Pacific” and “Camelot”, and by Nelson Riddle and Roger Wagner for “Paint Your Wagon” are superb and can’t be beat. They are by far the best factors of those movies).

 

I’ve done a lot of complaining. Is there anything good in the movie? I liked Samantha Barks as Eponine. She brings a real humanity to the part, and has a good voice. Playing the role on stage obviously helped. I thought all the guys who played the young revolutionaries had strong voices, well suited to the material. But it’s a sad state of affairs that the secondary and third characters in an opera are the best singers.

And while Russell Crowe has gotten the lion’s share of disdainful reviews, I’m going to cut him slack. True, he has the weakest voice of any of the leads. But for me, he was the only one who realized he was playing to the motion picture camera. I never felt like he was striving to reach for the last row in the highest balcony in the largest auditorium in the world.

 

I must admit to tearing up quite a bit at each of the live performances I’ve seen. There’s a little bit of that here in the final scene – how could there be not be – but I was curiously unmoved. I actually told my friends I didn’t want to see it with them, because it would be too embarrassing for them to see me afterwards. No problem here. I could have just watched “Skyfall” for all the emotion it generated for me

I know a lot of people who have seen this movie and just love it. Good for them. I’m glad. It could be their first introduction to this wonderful story and I’m glad they enjoyed it so much.

But it was such a let down for me. It’s been years since I was looking forward to a movie so much. I love this material. But alas, “Les Miserables” is the biggest disappointment I’ve had at the movies since Daniel Craig’s second 007 outing, the execrable “Quantum of Solace” (2008). “Les Miserables” is one of the worst movies of the year. It’s one of the worst musicals ever made. It’s an ugly film to look at and a painful one to listen to. It kills me to write that.

LES MISERABLES

LES MISERABLES
Written by William Nicholson
Directed by Tom Hooper
Starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway and Eddie Redmayne

Cast: and remember, the truth at once was spoken, to love another person is to see the face of god. 

I would think it would go without saying that a musical that announces itself as an ode to misery in its title, would be a fairly dramatic and depressing affair but apparently this isn't so.  Some of what I'm hearing of Tom Hoopers extravagant restaging of the classic musical, LES MISERABLES, is that it is a relentless, melodramatic onslaught of singing out pain in your face for nearly three hours. Yes, it is most certainly all of this but it was designed to be precisely that. Whether they're forever running from the law or selling their body to feed their child or watching all of their friends die in the French Revolution, these people have every right to be as anguished as they are. And what better way to deal with this pain than sing about it?

LES MISERABLES has a massive following. It has been staged thousands of times and has played to audiences around the world for over thirty years. And yet, this is the first time it has been attempted on film, as a musical anyway. To say that anticipation for the film has been high would also a be a great understatement. Now that it is finally here though, will purists be happy? I suspect not actually. Hooper decided to have his incredibly diverse and talented cast, from Hugh Jackman to Anne Hathaway to newcomer, Samantha Bark, sing this intensely difficult show live on set rather than record first in studio and then lip synch on set. While the effect itself is most often very intimate and emotionally engaging, some of the musical prowess is lost amidst the emoting. While Hathaway's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is deeply moving, I am sure some will wish there was more clarity to her belt and less cracking in her voice from crying. All the same, the film does feel more spontaneous than most film musicals so while the decision will polarize some, it is still brave and commendable.

Many an eye is on Hooper here as LES MISERABLES is the follow-up to his Oscar-winning work on THE KING'S SPEECH. While that story was a grand one, it was still told on a much smaller scale. LES MISERABLES may have been a tad bit much for him to handle. Set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, this is the story of one man's struggle to forge out a life in times of strife and suffering. Jean Valjean (Jackman) once stole a loaf of bread and he has been paying for it ever since. While pretending to be someone he is not, he takes in Cosette, a young girl (played as an adult by Amanda Seyfreid) when her mother (Hathaway, who shines like you would not believe) passes away. When Cosette falls in love with a revolutionary (a dapper and delightful, Eddie Redmayne), Valjean does everything in his power to ensure they are together. While Hooper has a strong handle on his characters, his French Revolution feels slight at times, hardly like the source of all their misery. 

What I love about LES MISERABLES is the inherent sense of hope in the music itself. The poor sing of how the end of the day brings nothing but another day to a close at first and later, albeit still suffering greatly, sing of how they long for one day more. And what with all the political unrest and death and disease in the streets, to speak of things like love seems entirely frivolous at first but eventually love is the only thing that makes any sense. For it is true what they say, to truly know happiness, you must experience LES MISERABLES first.

311. Les Miserables

311. (15 Dec) Les Miserables (2012, Tom Hooper)* 28



Midway through act two, Hugh Jackman and Eddie Redmayne quite literally are up to their necks in fecal matter. That Les Miserables willfully offers that metaphor makes it the ballsiest or most clueless film of the year. Considering how dreadful it is, I'm leaning toward the latter.

There's not an iota of scale in Les Miserables, with roughly four wide shots that so much as hint that this is a historical epic in its entire bloated runtime. Just like in The King's Speech, Tom Hooper's amateurish aesthetic undermines every moment. Here he's as reliant on dutch angles as he is on dopey framing, keeping heads in the corner of a shot while negative space dominates the background. It's one of the worst photographed major studio films I've seen. But there's simply not much to work with since the sets and costumes are decidedly unremarkable. When Les Miz is not irritating to look at, it's boring.

Tom Hooper's direction is astoundingly misguided. Without dialogue, he relies on the score to tell the story. Unfortunately, only five musical numbers are at all good. Most of the talk-singing is instantly forgettable (namely the added and useless tune "Suddenly"). The nasally Hugh Jackman and overly emotive Samantha Barks are shameful standouts in the cast. Russell Crowe channels Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfriend, without a hint of romantic chemistry, are wasted vocal talents. The much discussed Anne Hathaway is the only performer to give emotional impact to the film at all, overplaying her part, but at least not embarrassing herself in an intense close-up during "I Dreamed a Dream."

Hooper has suggested he attempted to emulate West Side Story, at least during "One More Day," which shows how ambitious and incompetent he is. His shoddily edited film not only is totally incoherent, unmoving, and uninteresting, it's laughable. Crowe's biggest dramatic moment is the most obvious joke, but it's impossible to enumerate the goofs in a film where next to nothing works. Empty heads and empty filmmaking.

Marty to Tackle Liz and Dick

Or, rather, according to Deadline New York, Oscar-winning director Martin Scorsese is in talks to helm a film about the love affair between the late Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.  (Just look above, aren't they the cutest couple?)  No casting has been announced, but the rumor mill is atwitter with possibilities, from Charlize Thereon, Angelina Jolie, Anne Hathaway, and even Megan Fox.  I'm personally hoping Russell Crowe is tapped for Burton.

As you can tell from my background both on this blog and my Twitter, I'm a huge Liz and Dick fan, maybe less of their real life relationships and more of their on screen ones.  Together, when they were acting, it was like watching magic on screen.  The work they put together in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is some of the best ever in a film, and how they play off one another is remarkable.  Aside from Bogey/Bacall and Tracey/Hepburn, this is Hollywood's greatest love story.

If you existed, I'd divorce you! 

But this is said to be about their love affair.  So be it.  I won't be judgemental of this project yet, for this is a tale of Old Hollywood and recently is any director has proven himself perfectly able to tackle Old Hollywood it's The Aviator helmer Scorsese.  This type of tale doesn't need just an apt director, it needs someone who loves movies and not just making them.  Scorsese is such a man.

Who do you think should play Hollywood's most heated couple?


.

Black Sheep interviews Paul Haggis

Haggis These Days

An interview with Paul Haggis

Films remade for American audiences are controversial to say the least. “I figured if Scorcese could do it, so could I,” quips Canadian born film director, Paul Haggis, referring to his third directorial effort, THE NEXT THREE DAYS, a remake of the 2008 French film, POUR ELLE. It’s a bold statement to put yourself on the same plain as an American film master like Martin Scorcese, especially when you’re a London, Ontario native who has only been making films for seven years now. When you consider that Haggis has been nominated for five Academy Awards and won two in that little time though, both for his breakout debut, CRASH, it doesn’t seem like such a stretch anymore. Incidentally, that’s one more Oscar than Scorcese has.

“There had to be questions that I wanted to ask on the nature of love and the nature of belief.” These questions would become the justification for the remake and how Haggis would make the film very much his own. They’re not the only reason he wanted to make this movie though. “I had always wanted to do a thriller, always wanted to do a caper movie.” His eyes light up when he says this. Boys will always be boys.

THE NEXT THREE DAYS is based on the central premise of POUR ELLE, where a teacher must take desperate action when his life has reached a seemingly impossible crossroads. His wife is in prison for murder and despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he never falters in his belief of her innocence. When her last appeal fails, he sees her lose interest in living and he sees their son heading down the same path. If he doesn’t do something, he will lose what matters most to him in his life, his family.

The solution is to break his wife out of a maximum-security prison and then disappear. Now, that might not be what you or I would do, but if anyone were going to sell this as the only viable solution, it would be Oscar winner, Russell Crowe. Crowe signed on to the project early on and played a heavy hand in shaping his character, John Brennan, a man who isn’t remarkable for anything other than his conviction and commitment. “As soon as he read the script, he knew what I was going for,” Haggis shares when we meet in Toronto the day before THE NEXT THREE DAYS opens in theatres. Despite Crowe’s reputation for being difficult, Haggis insists they explored the internal and complicated nature of John Brennan at length and openly. “We talked a lot. I like when an actor is secure enough to ask questions and challenge you and the director is secure enough to listen and isn’t threatened by that.”

Not only is Haggis able to foster a healthy relationship with a man reputed for unhealthy working relationships, he also pulls an impressive and unexpected performance from his female lead, Elizabeth Banks. “I like taking actors and putting them in roles that surprise you,” says Haggis. “I think if you see actors playing the same roles over and over again, there is no sense in going to the theatre.” And you’ve never seen Banks like this before. As a convicted but potentially innocent killer, she never lets on whether she did or didn’t do what she’s accused of and she does that with great poise. Haggis definitely thinks people will be surprised to see her. “It’s a great gift for an audience to say, ‘Oh, look at her do that.’”

Of course, beyond its solid performances, including brief appearances by Liam Neeson, RZA, Daniel Stern, Brian Dennehy and Olivia Wilde, THE NEXT THREE DAYS is as sharp and as tense as it is because of Haggis’ incredibly grounded screenplay. Haggis, who writes more often than he directs, took an extreme hands on approach to writing this particular caper. He actually placed himself in the position of a prison escapee to plot just how John Brennan would do it. “I just googled how to break out of prison,” Haggis explains, fully serious. Having access to the Pittsburgh prison that is a central setting in the film, Haggis put his internal con man to work. “I got outside the jail and then said, ‘What if I got out? What do I do now?’ And then, ‘Oh look, a train. Will they be waiting at the next station?’” Whether his plan would actually work or not is not the issue. It’s the geographical and circumstantial reality of his plan that makes it believable. “I guess I’m enough of a con to figure it out myself.”

THE NEXT THREE DAYS is Haggis’ third film as director and his first thriller. His approach to direction is still the same though despite the genre change. “I try not to watch any movies when I’m making my own,” he confides. I understand this approach; I don’t read other reviews until mine is written. Who needs outside influence when you’re trying to create? “I really try to stay in that world and let the film find its own imagery and its own voice.”

The voice found in THE NEXT THREE DAYS is a complex one. It is a particularly adult voice and one that Haggis hopes will be heard. “I believe in this kind of a movie. I think there is an audience for it. I think people like to be challenged and I think they like to be entertained.”

Any audience that sees THE NEXT THREE DAYS will see a thriller that is as taut as they come but that still somehow honours love in its purest form, without ever feeling forced or far fetched. “It’s a love story,” Haggis asserts without hesitation. “There is something transformative about believing in somebody that much, even when they can’t believe in themselves.”

Escape from prison, run from the law, risk your life, I guess none of that matters when the reason you’re doing it is love. And after sitting with Haggis for just a half hour, it is pretty clear that he makes movies for the exact same reason.

Author's Note: Mr. Haggis was an excellent interview. I could have easily gone on about our conversation for another 1000 words. Maybe one day, I will.

I want to give a big thanks to the fantastic team at Maple Pictures for making this interview possible. I genuinely appreciate it.

For further Paul Haggis reading, here are past Black Sheep reviews for his films:

(click to read.)

CRASH

(writer/director)

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH

(writer/director)

CASINO ROYALE

(writer)

QUANTUM OF SOLACE

(writer)

THE LAST KISS

(writer)