My apologies.
Instead, I'm going to post this short-ish piece on the last few movies I've seen at the theaters. All were quite good, well, more than good actually.
Skyfall
I'm a James Bond fan. Not so great of a fan that I've seen every single Bond movie, but I've seen enough to recognize the formula and to have a favorite Bond actor. To be honest, I believe the first Bond you see will always hold a special place in your heart, and for me that actor is Roger Moore. I remember the excitement, the fun, I had watching my first Bond film, For Your Eyes Only. From the opening scene that led into Sheena Easton's titular song, I loved it.
However, I think Roger Moore has been replaced by Daniel Craig, especially with the glorious film that is Skyfall. While I do enjoy the Bond movies, I don't go into them expecting "great" filmmaking. Quality filmmaking, yes. A good time, usually, even with the subpar Bond movies. But I definitely don't expect great filmmaking. Skyfall is great filmmaking.
Sam Mendes has made some wonderful films: American Beauty, Road to Perdition (a film I absolutely love), and Revolutionary Road (a devastating look into a failing marriage and failing lives). He has elevated the Bond series; he has raised the possibilities of a Bond film. Like with The Dark Knight, after Skyfall, I'm not sure I'll be able to go into another Bond film without comparing it to Mendes' film.
The script is tense and fun without forgetting to pay homage to the Bond legacy. The performances, especially Judi Dench and Javier Bardem, transcend the usual caricatures. And the cinematography, by Roger Deakins, is truly beautiful. Watching the film in IMAX only served to highlight the qualities of the film.
In a couple of weeks, Skyfall comes out in Blu-ray, and I can't wait.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The moment I heard Peter Jackson had committed to filming The Hobbit, I was very excited. After Lord of the Rings, how could I not be. And then came the delays, the drama, and the news that the short novel was going to be, somehow, split in two and then three films. Needless to say, I was getting frustrated and worried.
Thankfully, my worries were groundless. The Hobbit is a wonderful addition to the Lord of the Rings films. It even spends a bit more time on character development than any of its predecessors, especially in regard to Bilbo (played by Martin Freeman) and Thorin (played by Richard Armitage).
The opening of The Hobbit starts slow, but it's the good kind of slow. Jackson takes him time, allowing the audience to enjoy the return to Middle Earth, and allowing for the humor of Tolkien's work to build naturally into the story.
And when the action sequences come, they come in droves. From the moment Bilbo decides to accompany the dwarves on their journey, the action hardly lets up. One of the best action sequences occurs as the company tries to make their way through the Misty Mountains east of Rivendell and are captured by the orcs that have made the mountains their home.
Of course, the best scene of the film doesn't involve much action at all, just Bilbo and Gollum discussing the former's fate. Unlike when Tolkien first wrote the scene, Jackson knows the importance of this particular meeting and so does the audience. That he was able to capture the importance of the scene is a testament to Jackson's uncanny handle of the material.
A personal favorite scene is the meeting between Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, and Saruman. As a Lord of the Rings fan, I'm happy to see the parts of the story Tolkien saved for the appendices. Instead of being time-fillers, they work with the narrative Jackson is attempting to build.
For now, I've been satiated, and while I'm still wondering just how Jackson can fill out two more films, there's just a little less worry.
Les Miserables
The first time I remember listening to the soundtrack to the original Broadway cast recording, I was sitting in my junior Chemistry class--having finished my work, of course, and free to spend my time however I saw fit. Les Miserables moved me to tears, and only one other musical had done that before: Rent.
Now, all these years later, I was very excited to finally SEE a version of the musical. Despite my disappointment with the film version of Rent, the trailers and the people behind the film version of Les Miserables raised my hopes. I walked into the film with high expectations.
Unfortunately, Tim and were a little late getting to the theater--at least later than we usually like to arrive--and so we were forced to get a couple of less-than-stellar seats: right next to the entrance to the theater. We watched as people poured into the theater, filling up most the seats. The talking seemed louder than when we normally go to the movies.
I was starting to worry that the audience was going to ruin my own experience. However, this proved unfounded. The moment the film started we were all transported by the opening chords and the opening visuals to a post-revolutionary France.
Tom Hooper, who made the brilliant The King's Speech, directed the film in a style that was, for some reason, surprising. The film looked like how I imagine France of that time period, but it still looked a bit stylized. It was simultaneously real and fake. Right now, I can't describe it in any other way than as a stylized representation of reality. Weird as that sounds.
The opening shots seemed to travel by far faster than I would like, especially during "Lovely Ladies." Here was a song where you'd want to see all those lovely women, but the shots just flew by in a distracting whirlwind.
And then the film settled into Fantine's lamentation, "I Dreamed a Dream," where the camera drew in close to Anne Hathaway's face for an almost unbearable, single-shot, performance. Now, I don't mean Hathaway did a terrible job. No, when I say unbearable, I mean that the performance was so good, I felt guilty watching Fantine's descent into prostitution and loneliness. It was quite nearly unbearably sad. And from that moment on my eyes were filled with tears. Twice, after that, those tears fell from my eyes, unabashed and unashamed, for there were quite a few other people around us sniffling, and not just women either.
One of those moments caught me off guard. The first occurred during what has to be the saddest moment of the musical. The second was a moment I was not aware of; I'm not even sure it happened in the musical. It involved Javert (played by Russell Crowe) and Gavroche (played by Daniel Huttleston), and I'll say no more.
I haven't cried like that since I was surprised, once again, by Bridge to Terabithia--and I blame the misleading trailers for that one.
Anyway, I have focused on my emotional response to the film because that's what I remember most. Yes, the performances were topnotch--although Crowe doesn't exactly fail at singing, he does not do a swell job, but his acting fits the character. The production design was outstanding. My only critique is that the early scenes were editing at a pace that didn't fit the style of the film. It was a pacing more fitting for a Michael Bay film.
Other than that, I absolutely loved it.
Django Unchained
And finally, we've come to Tarantino's latest film. This was a surprise, too. A surprise because it happens to be Tarantino's most straight-forward narrative. The story is told from beginning to end without very many flashbacks or loops in storytelling. Django Unchained is almost like Tarantino wanted to prove he could tell a straight-forward story. It must have been a strain on the poor guy. And I keep hearing about a five hour edit he may or may not release.
Goodness... I'm not sure I want to see a five hour version of Django. The nearly three hours was plenty, just right in fact.
Even now, I'm not sure where I'd place Django against Tarantino's other films. While it does pack an emotional whollop, and the characters are fascinating; Django seems to be missing something although I'm not entirely sure what.
Maybe it has something to do with the uncomfortable subject matter. After all, culturally speaking, slavery is not something many Americans are proud of. I read an article that Americans are having the same reactions to Django that Germans had to Inglourious Basterds. I can now imagine how a revisionist film about WWII could make almost anyone whose cultural history encompasses that period might not embrace the film with overt enthusiasm.
Yes, even today, I'm not sure how I feel about Django. It's a good film, a wonderful example of a heroic journey. Think Odysseus, but instead of Sirens, Cyclopses, pig-soldiers, and many other terrors of the ancient Greek world, you have slaves, slave-holders, abolitionists, and every other unsavory aspect of slavery.
The story follows the format of a traditional heroic journey. The hero is freed, trained, and has to overcome some serious obstacles to achieve his goal, in this instance, the freeing of his wife, Broomhilda (played by Kerry Washington.
Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, and Leonardo DiCaprio give stellar performances, but I think my favorite performance--the one that's the most memorable--has to go to Samuel Jackson. He plays Stephen, the devoted head servant for DiCaprio's Calvin Candie. Jackson has the hardest job of the entire cast: a black man who is terrifying and yet willing to do his master's bidding, no matter what happens to the black people around him. For Jackson, it's a performance rivaling the best of his career. Indeed, I'm disappointed he wasn't nominated for an Academy Award. He certainly deserves it.
Like with most of Tarantino's film, I'm unsure of how to approach the film, from a critical perspective, that is. It will definitely take time to process, again, like his other films. Truthfully, I may never find a way to approach his films other than to just sit back and enjoy the right. And Django Unchained is a swell ride.
