It's a film that is full of melodrama, and whilst there's a tendency in these types of films for performances to be overacted and the film to become schmaltzy; the entire cast manage to underplay it so it remains for the most part grounded. This is probably also helped by the good direction and guidance of Fred Zinnemann. Though there are a few parts in the script that are overplayed in order to justify the moral ambiguity of some of the characters, especially when Deborah Kerr justifies her numerous affairs. In that sense the film does at times come off as a little dated. Regardless of this the performances from the now legendary cast are worth the price of admission alone. Montgomery Clift is in fine form, and it seems that Clift manages to achieve more in one frame of film, than most actors produce in a lifetime. Frank Sinatra won an Oscar for his supporting role, which helped rejuvenate his career; but the performances from a young Ernest Borgnine and a promiscuous Donna Reed that are just as notable and perhaps more powerful. I'm not the biggest Burt Lancaster fan, but it's hard not to connect with his character, and his scene with Clift are amongst some of the most potent in the film. (Lancaster said that he was so nervous about working with Clift that he was visibly shaking in their first scene together.)
Overall it's easy to see why this film garnered such praise; it is a times riveting and compulsive viewing, and it is helped by an enjoyable closing action sequence of the Japanese attack. It's not quite as timeless as other films from this period, but it's certainly one worth viewing on repeated occasions.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame was one of the myriad of classic horror novels adapted for film in the early 20's and 30's. It feature the legendary Charles Laughton as the titular character, and a young Maureen O'Hara in one of her first film roles (at Laughton's insistence). There is also support from the usual range of character actors such a Thomas Mitchell, Cedric Hardwicke and a young Edmond O'Brien.
It is for the most part an entertaining adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel, that does deviate from it's source in parts. Most impressive in the film are the huge set pieces, and of course Charles Laughton''s tour de force as Quasimodo. In one scene after Quasimodo has saved Esmerelda from being hanged, he gives a lucid and moving self assessment of his deformities, even by today's standard it is one of the most powerful pieces of on screen acting ever performed. Cedric Hardwicke is also very disturbing as the corrupt Notre Dame priest. Despite all the great things about the film, I was a bit disappointed with the ending, as it seemed to be more an oversimplistic commentary on society, and didn't quite make for a believable conclusion. However there was a great closing scene with Laughton on the cathedral roof.
It's a film that is certainly worth watching, as it gives credence to Laughton's reputation as one of the 20th century's finest film artists. I will be interested to see master of disguise Lon Chaney's 1923 adaptation of the story, to see how it compares.
Sometimes I have to just hold my hands up and say I was wrong. In this case I had speculated that the film adaptation of Les Miserables the musical would fail to succeed and fall short of recreating the magic of the stage version. I can now concede that I was wrong.
It is a film that manages to recreate everything that is good about the musical, and it finally delivers a worthy big screen version for fans and newcomers a like. I saw Les Miserables numerous times growing up, and even managed to see the universally acclaimed cast version (including Colm Wilkinson, Michael Ball, Alun Armstrong, Ruthie Henshall and Lea Salonga); so it's fair to say I'm a fan myself. The film version follows the stage musical to a tee in terms of plot and storyline. Where it differs though, is in some of the musical arrangements and the style of singing. It comes across as more raw and therefore packs more of an emotional punch. Russell Crowe particularly excels from this, as whilst he doesn't have the greatest singing voice, the vulnerability of his voice shines through and works perfectly with his tortured character Javert. Hugh Jackman's natural likeability factor, and his obvious experience in musical theatre made him the ideal choice for the main protagonist Jean Valjean. Somehow he manages to encapsulate everything that was great about Colm Wilkinson's version, and improve it by adding a more rounded characterisation of Valjean, that in my opinion is more reflective of Victor Hugo's Valjean. Anne Hathaway as the tragic Fantine performs aptly, but it is unfortunate for her that she shares the majority of her scenes with Crowe and Jackman, who are quite simply, the better actors. Her singing however more than makes up for any traces of overacting that she succumbs to.
Now to the weak points in both the cast list and the film it self: The Thenardiers. Probably the most obvious cast choice on paper with Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter taking up the cudgels. For me though, they just don't quite work, whilst relatively amusing, their tone is just too light hearted in contrast to the rest of the movie. I suppose it's a problem with the musical itself, as the Thenardiers have always been the comic relief of the piece. For the song 'Master of the House', I suppose visually it's always how imagined it would appear on screen, but for whatever reason it just doesn't quite work. It seems to be a little too slapstick, and doesn't maintain enough darkness of the characters how they appear in the novel. Sacha Baron Cohen is also guilty at times of over playing it for the laughs, whereas maybe a bit more subtlety was in order for this role. An even bigger problem for me, was Amanda Seyfreid. It seems like they forced her into this film on the back of Mama Mia!, unfortunately for her and us she just a). is no Cossette and b). simply not good enough. Her singing at times is just too weak for my ears, and her acting is so hollow. Her relationship with her adoptive father seems to unnatural for me. I understand that Valjean is distant to protect her from his past, but there seems to be no love there, which is the whole essence of their relationship and in truth the story. Finally, I can't not mention Eddie Redmayne, who was undoubtedly the one slightly obscure casting choice. His character boyish innocence, yet quite determination and will of revolution is well portrayed; and for me, one of the most striking moments of the whole production is his version of 'Empty Chairs and Empty Tables'.
Technically the film is at times spectacular, though the opening CGI shot's are a bit too much for me to stomach, from that point on, most of the action takes place using sets and props. Tom Hooper uses the wide pan shots well, especially as the revolution begins after General Lamarque's death. The showstopping song 'One Day More' was captured well, though it is such a great ensemble piece that I feel no big screen adaptation could ever do it justice. I also felt that at times the film could have expanded on areas, but this is a problem with the stage production too. It omits too much of the backstories of some of the characters, especially Fantine and the Thenardiers; some of Hugo's greatest passages in the book are his description of how Fantine's liaisons when she was a teenager led to her demise. Indeed important plot points such as how Valjean came to break his parole and his saving of his doppleganger's condemnation is simplified. Other areas are simply alluded to, such as Javert's background in the song 'The Confrontation'. However, I must say that many of the Boubil/ Schonberg songs do manage to add ample character developments, as well as included lyrics at times directly lifted from the source material.
For the most part though, Hooper's direction wholly captures the essence of the musical and despite personal preferences here and there, it's hard to really fault his effort. It is without doubt one of the finest musical adaptations of all time, and one that I will no doubt watch numerous times again. I can't however shake this nagging feeling that it could have been ever better.
Before reviewing my next film I'm going to have a rant at Warner Home Videos. In future if you are going to release a film on DVD, I'm not too bothered about a complete film restoration, but it would be nice to have a studio recorded score added to the film. It doesn't necessarily have to be composed by Carl Davis, a young up and comer would suffice. What the viewing public do not want is a live theatre recording, where you can here the audience laugh and cough throughout the entire film. This lack of care and attention was given to their release of the 1927 Garbo/Gilbert silent Love. It was made worse by laughter at the most inappropriate moments; silent movies are different entities and the audience didn't seem to understand the overly expressive nature of the actors. I wonder if this same audience laughed whilst reading the source material Anna Karenina.
Having somehow endured the film with the sound on, I can say that overall it was a decent film, although maybe lacked the integrity of the Tolstoy novel it was based on. The contemporary low cut dresses were not befitting the Czarist Russia the film was set in, plus the ending was completely different to that of the novel. Though I understand that an alternate ending was made and also distributed worldwide upon the film's release. Again Warner Home Video decided to omit this from their version, which seemed to act more as a quick way to make a buck, rather than put any graft into releasing a version that would befit the film itself.
The film holds a certain interest for both Garbo fans and film historians alike as she went onto make a talkie version of the film 8 years later. The latter version did come closer to the novel itself, and a more mature Garbo seems like a better match for the role of Karenina. In this version she was only 21 years old when making the film, and was far to young to be this mother of a pre-pubescent boy. However, John Gilbert is far and away the superior Vronsky to that of Frederic March's character in the remake. Gilbert just looks more the part, and for me gives a far more accomplished performance. March I think struggled by being overawed by Garbo, and was dominated. Whilst the husband Karenin is played amicably in this silent version by Brandon Hurst, he is no match for Basil Rathbone's even more manipulative interpretation later on.
I feel that this version is let down quite a bit by the story not being fleshed out enough, and in the end it's a very loose adaptation of the book. However it's great to see one of the greatest ever film partnerships onscreen together again, and whilst their chemistry isn't as electric as their first film The Flesh and the Devil; they still work so well together. Gilbert was one of Garbo's few leading co-stars who was able to compete with her on screen, and though she has a tendency to overact in places here she still manages to convey so much when the cameras focus on her eyes. Next time though, I will have to watch this on mute.
The Last Stand marked Arnold Schwarzernegger's return to the big screen, in his first major role since he became governor of California. It's easy to dismiss Arnold Schwarzenneger and his films as being mindless action; but to be honest, the world needs them, especially in this day and age where film's tend to try too hard to be some kind of cerebral, intellegentsia masterpiece, and ends up falling flat (*cough Looper).
Yes The Last Stand isn't going to win any Oscars, but to be honest there are things about it that aren't too far off Oscar material. For instance some of the direction and camera work is incredible slick and well captured, especially with the main antagonist's early escape from custody and the subsequent car chases. This was director's Jee-woon Kim's first Hollywood film, and it seems like a great choice for both the director and stars alike, and one that should benefit both parties based on the resulting output. The film also has a talented support cast including Oscar winner Forest Whitaker, Peter Stormare and a brief cameo from Harry Dean Stanton; as well as the likes of lesser knowns Eduardo Noriega. Luis Guzman and Jaime Alexander. Though Johnny Knoxville plays his usually idiotic character, he has limited screen time, so doesn't grate too much and does at least a few funny moments. In terms of action the film is pretty relentless, and some of the violence isn't for the squeamish, and whilst over-the-top it really is quite exhilarating to watch.
The film does lose it's way at the end a bit, and verges on dragging out; but for the most part this film is a refreshing return to the simplistic action films, that Arnie made so popular. Whilst he looks a lot older now, and the one liners didn't quite flow as memorably as before, it's hard not to immerse yourself into his films, as they are what they are, and they certainly provide a fun and enjoyable cinema-going experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment