JayDee's Movie Musings
→ in Movie Reviews
Reply to Topic
|
|
Year of release
2006
Directed by
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Written by
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Starring
Ulrich Mühe
Sebastian Koch
Martina Gedeck
Ulrich Tukur
Thomas Thieme
The Lives of Others
2006
Directed by
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Written by
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Starring
Ulrich Mühe
Sebastian Koch
Martina Gedeck
Ulrich Tukur
Thomas Thieme
The Lives of Others
Plot – East Berlin, 1984. A Stasi agent is given the assignment of surveying a noted playwright and his actress lover. The agent, Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe), is a staunch believer of the system for which he works and attempts to uphold. The playwright is Georg Dreyman (Koch), a respected writer who conceals his contempt for the fascist regime to such an extent that he is actually held in high esteem by the bureaucrats he loathes. When a minister who is making advances towards his lover (Gedeck) chooses to abuse his power however, Dreyman is put under surveillance. And with the stern, stoic Wiesler on the case things don't look good for him. As time goes on however Wiesler finds himself becoming increasingly absorbed in their lives, so much so that it begins to change his way of thinking about what he is doing.
For nearly six whole years I have hated this film. I'll admit though that it was a fairly irrational hatred when you take into account the fact I had never actually seen the film until just a few days ago. So what then was the reason for my hatred? Well I'll give you a clue; the hatred started on February 25th, 2007. The hatred came about because on that date, this film robbed Pan's Labyrinth of the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar at the 79th Academy Awards. I was fuming! How could some little grey-looking German film about a guy listening to the lives of other people possibly be better than the magical experience that was Del Toro's masterpiece of fantasy cinema? It was one of the great mistakes in the history of the Academy (bearing in mind again that I had not seen The Lives of Others at this point)! Well now that I've seen it I no longer hold that hatred. I personally still think that Pan's Labyrinth should have come out on top, but I no longer believe it to be the great injustice I once did. That's because this also happens to be a fantastic film; a film so much more fascinating and gripping than I could possibly imagined from its premise.
For me personally I was able to get a lot out of the film purely as a history lesson. I knew about the notion of the Stazi and the type of tactics they employed, but I didn't really know about the huge scale of it. At the beginning of the film we are told that at its height the Ministry for State Security had 100,00 employees, and had recruited some 200,000 informants (most by pretty dodgy practices). Those numbers are just ridiculous! It's like an operation whose scale in terms of those involved is like that of a small country. And some of the things they did?! Just unbelievable. I'm always astonished at how things like this were allowed to happen, particularly in a time that isn't exactly a million years ago. How could something like this happen in a country like Germany less than 30 years ago? Speaking of years, surely it's no mere coincidence that the film takes place in the year of 1984. A little reference to George Orwell's classic dystopian novel perhaps?
Against this large expanse of politics the main narrative thread is a much smaller and more personal tale, occupied by a series of complex and deeply flawed individuals. Characters that are brave, but also selfish. Characters that make sacrifices for others but also sell them out to aid their own interests. Boiled down to its most basic attributes they are characters that do both good, and bad. So basically they are just great examples of truly 'human' characters. None more so than Wiesler. At the beginning of the film he is a pretty pathetic individual. He has nothing in his life that makes him passionate, and no one who seems to care for him. The only form of human contact he can get is with a prostitute, and when he does so he pitifully pleads for her to spend time with him. This only seems to come into sharp focus for him when he contrasts it against the lives of the passionate couple he is eavesdropping on. Their lives; so full of passion, pain and joy, just highlight how lonely and sad his existence truly is. He just becomes seduced by the sheer amount of emotion in their lives as he lives vicariously through him. For about the first half hour I just hated him, but then you start to see that he is actually a man of honour, someone who believes what he is doing is right, who just happens to have held a different opinion. And then as he becomes disenchanted with that way of life I found myself cheering on every little small gesture he made. And I think it's wonderful how these characters are so bound together; how they have such an impact on the lives of each other and yet they barely share a scene together, or exchange a single word.
Given what I knew about this film beforehand, I came into it expecting an intellectual, possibly stuffy film set in that tremendously grey world that was communist Germany. So imagine my amazement when I discovered a film that is surprisingly beautiful. This beauty came about both as a result of the journey that the characters embark on, and the sheer craft that was put in to creating this wonderful film. And yes the film does have a very grubby, grey aesthetic so it's perhaps not the nicest film to look at, but it does feel an ideal reflection of communist Berlin and the oppressive mood of the times. Along with a number of other little touches; such as camera work that seemed to have quite a noirish disposition, it helps to create a perfect atmosphere of fear and doubt as individuals attempt to exist under a suffocating, totalitarian regime.
I love how the film portrays the power and beauty of art. As well as showing art's power as a weapon of protest against authority, it shows how the beauty of art is able to give strength to people and how it's able to change the character of Weisler. As well as experiencing the sensation of emotions that fill the lives of Dreyman and Christa-Maria, what really affects him are the artistic exploits they dabble in. It's the words of the books they read, and the notes of the music they play that really begin to tug on his heartstrings and awaken feelings within him. The scene were Dreyman sits at the piano playing a piece of Beethoven music is a beautiful moment, and with Wiesler listening in his eyes begin to tear up a little. And I love how the evolution Wiesler's character undertakes is depicted. There's no huge revelation, no big denouncement where he confides in someone about his change of heart. It is shown purely through a series of small gestures and decisions; the omittance of facts which would crucify Dreyman; his decision not to report a young boy's father as a dissident; the uplifting scene where he talks to Christa-Maria and tells her how much he admires her, giving her the strength to break off a relationship with the minister that she felt trapped in.
For nearly six whole years I have hated this film. I'll admit though that it was a fairly irrational hatred when you take into account the fact I had never actually seen the film until just a few days ago. So what then was the reason for my hatred? Well I'll give you a clue; the hatred started on February 25th, 2007. The hatred came about because on that date, this film robbed Pan's Labyrinth of the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar at the 79th Academy Awards. I was fuming! How could some little grey-looking German film about a guy listening to the lives of other people possibly be better than the magical experience that was Del Toro's masterpiece of fantasy cinema? It was one of the great mistakes in the history of the Academy (bearing in mind again that I had not seen The Lives of Others at this point)! Well now that I've seen it I no longer hold that hatred. I personally still think that Pan's Labyrinth should have come out on top, but I no longer believe it to be the great injustice I once did. That's because this also happens to be a fantastic film; a film so much more fascinating and gripping than I could possibly imagined from its premise.
For me personally I was able to get a lot out of the film purely as a history lesson. I knew about the notion of the Stazi and the type of tactics they employed, but I didn't really know about the huge scale of it. At the beginning of the film we are told that at its height the Ministry for State Security had 100,00 employees, and had recruited some 200,000 informants (most by pretty dodgy practices). Those numbers are just ridiculous! It's like an operation whose scale in terms of those involved is like that of a small country. And some of the things they did?! Just unbelievable. I'm always astonished at how things like this were allowed to happen, particularly in a time that isn't exactly a million years ago. How could something like this happen in a country like Germany less than 30 years ago? Speaking of years, surely it's no mere coincidence that the film takes place in the year of 1984. A little reference to George Orwell's classic dystopian novel perhaps?
Film trivia - All of the listening and recording props that feature in the film are actual examples of Stasi equipment on loan from museums and collectors. The props master had himself spent two years in a Stasi prison, and insisted upon absolute authenticity right down to the machine Wiesler uses at the end of the film to steam-open up to 600 letters per hour.
Given what I knew about this film beforehand, I came into it expecting an intellectual, possibly stuffy film set in that tremendously grey world that was communist Germany. So imagine my amazement when I discovered a film that is surprisingly beautiful. This beauty came about both as a result of the journey that the characters embark on, and the sheer craft that was put in to creating this wonderful film. And yes the film does have a very grubby, grey aesthetic so it's perhaps not the nicest film to look at, but it does feel an ideal reflection of communist Berlin and the oppressive mood of the times. Along with a number of other little touches; such as camera work that seemed to have quite a noirish disposition, it helps to create a perfect atmosphere of fear and doubt as individuals attempt to exist under a suffocating, totalitarian regime.
I love how the film portrays the power and beauty of art. As well as showing art's power as a weapon of protest against authority, it shows how the beauty of art is able to give strength to people and how it's able to change the character of Weisler. As well as experiencing the sensation of emotions that fill the lives of Dreyman and Christa-Maria, what really affects him are the artistic exploits they dabble in. It's the words of the books they read, and the notes of the music they play that really begin to tug on his heartstrings and awaken feelings within him. The scene were Dreyman sits at the piano playing a piece of Beethoven music is a beautiful moment, and with Wiesler listening in his eyes begin to tear up a little. And I love how the evolution Wiesler's character undertakes is depicted. There's no huge revelation, no big denouncement where he confides in someone about his change of heart. It is shown purely through a series of small gestures and decisions; the omittance of facts which would crucify Dreyman; his decision not to report a young boy's father as a dissident; the uplifting scene where he talks to Christa-Maria and tells her how much he admires her, giving her the strength to break off a relationship with the minister that she felt trapped in.
Film trivia - Ulrich Mühe and Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck were both successfully sued for libel by Mühe's ex-wife following an interview Mühe gave in which he claimed his second wife, actress Jenny Gröllmann, informed on him during their marriage while they were East German citizens. Gröllmann denied the claims, although 254 pages worth of government records detailed her activities. However, Jenny Gröllmann's real-life controller later claimed he had made up many of the details in the file and that the actress had been unaware that she was speaking to a Stasi agent.
The performances certainly live up to the rest of the film. As the initially cold and stern Wiesler, Mühe gives a powerful, yet understated performance. Sitting alone in the empty apartment above Dreyman or hiding in the shadows for much of the running time he doesn't have much interaction with other characters or the chance to express himself vocally. Therefore much of his work must come through facial expressions, but even then he does so in a very restrained fashion. He has no need for histrionics or large gestures; he is just able to reveal the growing humanity beneath Wiesler's façade, and gain our favour with a seemingly simple performance which in reality is deceptively skilled. He tells so much of the story merely in his eyes.
After watching the film I came online just to check out some info on it and discovered that this was Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's directorial debut. I find that just astonishing. How could someone create such an accomplished work right off the bat? And not only did he direct the film, he also wrote it! That's not fair; no one should be this good right away! Surely The Lives of Others should join the likes of Citizen Kane (Welles), 12 Angry Men (Lumet) and Reservoir Dogs (Tarantino), and be considered as one of the all time great directorial debuts.
Conclusion – A stunning accomplishment, especially from a first time director. With a sharp and layered script, strong direction and a series of impressive performances it is an elegant piece of film-making which is a beautiful and resonant piece of work.
After watching the film I came online just to check out some info on it and discovered that this was Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's directorial debut. I find that just astonishing. How could someone create such an accomplished work right off the bat? And not only did he direct the film, he also wrote it! That's not fair; no one should be this good right away! Surely The Lives of Others should join the likes of Citizen Kane (Welles), 12 Angry Men (Lumet) and Reservoir Dogs (Tarantino), and be considered as one of the all time great directorial debuts.
Conclusion – A stunning accomplishment, especially from a first time director. With a sharp and layered script, strong direction and a series of impressive performances it is an elegant piece of film-making which is a beautiful and resonant piece of work.
__________________
JayDee's Movie Musings (Reviews - Frailty / Total Recall / Lone Ranger / Nightcrawler / Whiplash / Imitation Game / Birdman / Avengers: Age of Ultron / Mad Max: Fury Road)
X
User Lists
Pleased to see you gained so much from it, JD. I agree it's an astounding piece of work. I had this at #15 on my Millennium list, however, had it been a list of best rather than favourites, it would've been much higher. Possibly #1.
It's a great review, too.
It's a great review, too.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Pleased to see you gained so much from it, JD. I agree it's an astounding piece of work. I had this at #15 on my Millennium list, however, had it been a list of best rather than favourites, it would've been much higher. Possibly #1.
It's a great review, too.
It's a great review, too.
And thank you very much HK. Always appreciate when people think so and take the time to let me know.
X
User Lists
X
User Lists
Great review 
I loved this movie it was very powerful
I loved this movie it was very powerful
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
'Tis a good film. Hard to believe he followed it up with that unbelievable turd The Tourist.
__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."
X
Favorite Movies
Yes, but The Tourist made about 3 times as much, so guess which one will get him more work?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
 |
 |
Year of release
2012
2012
Directed by
Tom Hooper
Tom Hooper
Written by
Alain Boublil / Herbert Kretzmer
William Nicholson / Claude-Michel Schonberg
Alain Boublil / Herbert Kretzmer
William Nicholson / Claude-Michel Schonberg
Starring
Hugh Jackman
Russell Crowe
Anne Hathaway
Eddie Redmayne
Amanda Seyfried
Hugh Jackman
Russell Crowe
Anne Hathaway
Eddie Redmayne
Amanda Seyfried
Les Misérables
+
Plot – 19th century France. Following a nineteen year prison sentence, Jean Valjean (Jackman) is finally released on parole by prison guard Javert (Crowe). While on parole however, he struggles to find a job or anything positive in his life; the stigma of his imprisonment sabotaging his attempts at reintigrating to society. Finally shown some kindness by a priest, Valjean decides to abscond from his parole duties and start a new life. We follow Valjean over the next couple of decades and everything that happens in his life; becoming a mayor, adopting a daughter, continually on the run from his nemesis Javert. And this all unfolds against the larger backdrop of the country's issues and developments, leading up to a student-led revolution.
I think this film, more than any other film I've reviewed since joining this forum, has left me torn on how to rate it and just generally how to think about it. It was a real rollercoaster, with moments that I found just terrific alongside stretches that I found turgid and a real struggle to get through. Much of the opening act I found a chore, as well as the romance between two characters that occurs later on. High points were any moment Anne Hathaway was on screen, the scenes with Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen which provided some much welcome relief and the final act beginning with the opening shots of the revolution.
One of the reasons I struggled so much was its musical foundations. Now in general, musicals aren't a problem for me; there are a number that I really like/love such as Singin' in the Rain, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and numerous Disney animated classics. So the mere prospect of a musical is not something that makes me instantly run for the hills. However what I did not realise ahead of time is that Les Miserables was one of those type of musicals. By 'those type' I mean musicals where just about every damn word is sung. Every conversation and every internal thought is expressed in song and in the most obvious terms. I have really never liked that style of musical and this didn't particularly change my views on that. I think the realisation of what I was in for contributed greatly to my early struggles.
The film does feature a couple of incredible performances. And there is just no way that I couldn't start by talking about Anne Hathaway. She really is just as extraordinary as you've heard. As an actress she has never really caught my attention in any great way. I've found her to be a very pleasant screen presence in a few films but nothing notably special. Here however she has elevated herself to a completely different level in my eyes. She delivers an incredible and heartbreaking performance as the tragic Fatine. The standout moment was definitely her rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream”; a spectacularly powerful and moving moment; one that I don't think is done justice by merely describing it as heartbreaking, I think I'll have to bump it up to heart-wrenching. She emerges from the considerable shadow of Susan Boyle to deliver one of the most striking scenes I've seen in quite a long time. Even the hardiest of individuals may find themselves crumbling as a result. If she were to somehow walk out of the Dolby Theatre on the 24th of February not clasping an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress then I would be absolutely shocked. She is surely one of the surest bets in many a year and rightfully so. As for Hugh Jackman, while Jean Valjean is unlikely to replace Wolverine as his most iconic character, in his eyes I'm sure he sees it as the role of a lifetime. With his background in musical theatre this seems like the role he was born to play, and one that he would probably love to play day after day. In a film encompassing so many characters and taking place over a couple of decades he is the one constant the film has to offer, the character who most carries the film. And he rises superbly to the task. While I struggle to see him pipping Daniel Day Lewis to the Oscar he was very deserving of the nomination he received.
Film trivia – Les Misérables will be hoping for some success at the Academy Awards later this month, but the ceremony has already proved fruitful for the film. Back in 2011 Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway sang together at the Academy Awards, with Hathaway actually singing the Les Mis classic “On My Own.” When he was cast as Valjean, Jackman campaigned for Hathaway to get the role of Fantine on the back of her performance that night. Along with that link Jackman and Hathaway are also joined together through the extreme weight loss both went through. Hathaway lost 25 pounds to play Fantine, with Jackman losing 30 pounds to portray Valjean at the start of the film when he was a prisoner.
The opening scene of Les Mis most certainly sets the scene for what is to come. It sees Jean Valjean and dozens of fellow slaves undertaking the mammoth task of hauling a large ship into dock; these men so battered and beaten singing a guttural, brooding song while the nefarious Javert watches from above. It's an incredible sequence, one that lets you know that you're certainly not in for a toe-tapping, feel good experience. But it also shows that its going to be told on a very grand scale. Tom Hooper presents a very epic and lush production, brought to life by some highly impressive costume, make-up and set decoration work. Though in contrast the interior scenes do tend to have a more claustraphobic, stagey feel to them. Hooper's potentially risky decision to have the performers sing live does prove to be quite an inspired decision, giving the film an extra dose of raw and vibrant energy. And it allows for little moments where the actors choke up or crack just a touch, and these imperfections just add so much power and passion to proceedings.
Film trivia – It's incredible how many of the cast have had previous experience of Les Mis, almost as if they were destined for their specific roles. Amanda Seyfried, who plays the adult Cosette here, actually played the part of Cosette as a child on stage when she was just seven years old. Eddie Redmayne had previously played the role of Marius, the same character he portrays here. Samantha Barks revives her role as Eponine having played it in the 25th anniversary performance last year. And while Anne Hathaway herself didn't play the part of Fantine previously; rather incredibly her mother, Kate McCauley Hathaway, played the role of Fantine back in 1987 on the show's first ever US tour.
Were I a reviewer for a magazine or newspaper I would probably feel obligated to rate the film closer to a 4/5, because as a piece of art rated on its technical achievements I do think it's a very good film. As I continue to retain my freelance status however 
I am not constrained by such requirements and am able to score on a much more personal level. And as such I think my score is just about right as an overall rating of how I enjoyed it as a whole. There were scenes that warranted a 4/5 score but otheres were I would have struggled to go anything above a 2. While I would have liked the film to have taken a more traditional narrative and dialogue approach for purely selfish reasons, I also think it may have benefitted the film. The film's showcase songs; the likes of I Dreamed a Dream, Bring Him Home and Do You Hear the People Sing? are absolutely wonderful. And I think by removing the 'filler' songs (so to speak) those songs would have proved even more rousing than they already are.
I am not constrained by such requirements and am able to score on a much more personal level. And as such I think my score is just about right as an overall rating of how I enjoyed it as a whole. There were scenes that warranted a 4/5 score but otheres were I would have struggled to go anything above a 2. While I would have liked the film to have taken a more traditional narrative and dialogue approach for purely selfish reasons, I also think it may have benefitted the film. The film's showcase songs; the likes of I Dreamed a Dream, Bring Him Home and Do You Hear the People Sing? are absolutely wonderful. And I think by removing the 'filler' songs (so to speak) those songs would have proved even more rousing than they already are. Oh and lastly there was one final problem for me personally. Throughout the film I was occasionally reminded of South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, particularly when it came to the big medley 'One Day More' which South Park pays wonderful homage to (posted below). It just made me think how much more I'd rather be watching that!
Conclusion - When it comes to people who truly love musicals, I imagine most will just adore this. Those who don't have a concrete affinity for them may well find themselves in the same boat as I did; thrilled by the moments where the film soars but struggling with the stretches in between. Unless you absolutely loathe the genre however I would definitely say it's worth a watch, even if it's just to see the tremendous Hathaway. While you're at it you may well be impressed by some of the other performers and the film's production values. Though if you're prone to tears I suggest taking a deluxe box of tissues with you. It's certainly a film I want to watch again at some point to cement my opinion. If I could get over my problems and just enjoy the high points then my opinion on it could soar.
Last edited by JayDee; 02-09-13 at 10:13 PM.
X
User Lists
Before I watch a film in my head I normally have a rough idea of what I will think of it, and most of the time I'm correct, but with Les Mes I was definitely wrong. Didn't expect this to be my type of film at all, and I thought I would find the constant singing annoying as it went on, but instead I have to admit I thought the film was really really good and I'm not ashamed to admit that I enjoyed it immensely, Hathaway is great yes, but for me Jackman and Redmayne are just as good and deserving of praise, the former I found myself respecting a lot more after this film, a great performance at the heart of the film.
Good review, even though I'd rate it higher. Everything about the film just made it feel epic for me in terms of scope, the sets, the costumes, the singing etc. it had really good energy and had me hooked all the way through.
Good review, even though I'd rate it higher. Everything about the film just made it feel epic for me in terms of scope, the sets, the costumes, the singing etc. it had really good energy and had me hooked all the way through.
X
Favorite Movies
I haven't seen the movie but I did see the play on my honeymoon on Broadway in October 1987. It seems a thorough review but you mention "revolution" more than once, and it takes place after The French Revolution. It does end at about the time of the June Rebellion of 1832.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I really, really liked Les Mes, but I wasn't blown away in love with it like I expected to be. But, yeah, like you said Anne Hathaway was amazing. Watching her sing " I Dreamed a Dream" was literally phyically painful because I was clenching my jaws so tight trying not to cry any harder than I already was.
The first time I took notice of her was in Rachel Getting Married in which she was also excellent.
The first time I took notice of her was in Rachel Getting Married in which she was also excellent.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I saw Les Mis on Friday, I loved every minute of it I was glad I had tissues with me 
Great review Thanks
I loved Hugh Jackman
I certainly will buy it when it comes out on DVD
I was glad I had tissues with me Great review
Thanks I loved Hugh Jackman
I certainly will buy it when it comes out on DVD
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I have no interest in the book, the stage show or the film, but it's a good review, JD.
One of my friends loves musicals and, while she's never been much of a fan of Les Mis, she adored this. Like you, she didn't think Russell Crowe was anything like as bad as he's been reviewed by many of the critics. She mentioned his rock background and thought that, sometimes, that genre came through in his performance more than it should. She also mentioned that HB-C didn't annoy her, which, believe me, is a massive compliment from her. Maybe akin to me not being annoyed by Nic Cage or something like that. In fact, about the only real complaint she had about any of it was Amanda Seyfried's performance.
One of my friends loves musicals and, while she's never been much of a fan of Les Mis, she adored this. Like you, she didn't think Russell Crowe was anything like as bad as he's been reviewed by many of the critics. She mentioned his rock background and thought that, sometimes, that genre came through in his performance more than it should. She also mentioned that HB-C didn't annoy her, which, believe me, is a massive compliment from her. Maybe akin to me not being annoyed by Nic Cage or something like that. In fact, about the only real complaint she had about any of it was Amanda Seyfried's performance.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Good review, even though I'd rate it higher. Everything about the film just made it feel epic for me in terms of scope, the sets, the costumes, the singing etc. it had really good energy and had me hooked all the way through.
I haven't seen the movie but I did see the play on my honeymoon on Broadway in October 1987. It seems a thorough review but you mention "revolution" more than once, and it takes place after The French Revolution. It does end at about the time of the June Rebellion of 1832.
It was one of those reviews were I felt I kind of got bogged down in it, and even though I kept writing I wasn't sure how much I really got into the film. Glad to see so many people appear to have enjoyed it however. Oh and when I was talking about revolution I just meant in the general sense of a country heading in a different direction, as opposed to the revolution.
I really, really liked Les Mes, but I wasn't blown away in love with it like I expected to be. But, yeah, like you said Anne Hathaway was amazing. Watching her sing " I Dreamed a Dream" was literally phyically painful because I was clenching my jaws so tight trying not to cry any harder than I already was.
The first time I took notice of her was in Rachel Getting Married in which she was also excellent.
The first time I took notice of her was in Rachel Getting Married in which she was also excellent.
Oh that's right, I picked up a DVD of Rachel Getting Married cheap as I fancied it but not got round to it yet. Thanks for reminding me of it, may look it out quite soon.
I saw Les Mis on Friday, I loved every minute of it I was glad I had tissues with me
Great review Thanks
I was glad I had tissues with me Great review
Thanks Thanks nebbs!
I have no interest in the book, the stage show or the film, but it's a good review, JD.
One of my friends loves musicals and, while she's never been much of a fan of Les Mis, she adored this. Like you, she didn't think Russell Crowe was anything like as bad as he's been reviewed by many of the critics. She mentioned his rock background and thought that, sometimes, that genre came through in his performance more than it should. She also mentioned that HB-C didn't annoy her, which, believe me, is a massive compliment from her. Maybe akin to me not being annoyed by Nic Cage or something like that. In fact, about the only real complaint she had about any of it was Amanda Seyfried's performance.
One of my friends loves musicals and, while she's never been much of a fan of Les Mis, she adored this. Like you, she didn't think Russell Crowe was anything like as bad as he's been reviewed by many of the critics. She mentioned his rock background and thought that, sometimes, that genre came through in his performance more than it should. She also mentioned that HB-C didn't annoy her, which, believe me, is a massive compliment from her. Maybe akin to me not being annoyed by Nic Cage or something like that. In fact, about the only real complaint she had about any of it was Amanda Seyfried's performance.
Well that's pretty definitive! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised but I wasn't sure whether you'd fancy it or not. I could be wrong but feel you quite like a period costume drama but assumed that would be beaten out by your apathy for musicals. Yeah I actually meant to make a comment along the lines but forgot. There were a couple of instances where he sounded a bit more rockabilly than you'd expect, as if he would have been more at home in Rock of Ages or something. Sounds like your friend and I felt the same way about quite a bit of it.
X
User Lists
|
|
Year of release
2012
2012
Directed by
Simon West
Simon West
Written by
Richard Wenk
Sylvester Stallone
Richard Wenk
Sylvester Stallone
Starring
Sylvester Stallone
Jason Statham
Dolph Lundgren
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Terry Crews
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Bruce Willis
Sylvester Stallone
Jason Statham
Dolph Lundgren
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Terry Crews
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Bruce Willis
The Expendables 2
+
Plot – The Expendables are still in business and going strong. With a new addition in the shape of young sniper Billy the Kid (Liam Hemsworth), things are running smoothly for Barney Ross (Stallone) and company. That is until Mr Church (Willis) once again tracks them down and forces them to take on a job to clear their debt to him. What should apparently be an easy day at the office turns disastrous when they are accosted by a group of thugs led by Jean Vilain (Van Damme). After a tragic turn of events that leaves one of their team dead, the Expendables are now out for revenge. And trust me, the team of Barney Ross, Lee Christmas (Statham), Gunnar Jensen (Lundgren), Hale Caesar (Crews) and Toll Road (Couture) are not individuals you want to anger. Especially with occasional backup in the form of Booker (Chuck Norris), Trench (Schwarzenegger) and Mr Church.
While the first Expendables film worked as a fun nostalgia fest, I couldn't help but be a little disappointed with it. Sylvester Stallone himself admitted that he struggled with the tone on the first film and it did feel rather uneven. This sequel however is a much leaner, meaner and more focused beast; pretty much an improvement in every department. A large aspect of that is likely down to Sylvester Stallone relinquishing the director's chair this time out. His ordeal on the first film appeared to be absolutely brutal; he would take an absolute beating in front of the camera before immediately getting behind it. By freeing himself from such a task he allowed himself to concentrate purely on his own performance, and capturing the tone and characterisation of his fellow expendables. The first Expendables was a bit of a darker, grittier proposition both in terms of tone and appearance. This time out however it is much funnier, has a brighter colour palette and just generally seems to be told on a bigger scope.
The film opens very strongly with a terrifically chaotic 15 minute sequence which sees our bad ass heroes ride into an enemy encampment in a series of Mad Max style vehicles. What follows is just a hail of blood, bullets and explosions that really gets the film off to a flying start. And the film closes with a brutal smackdown between Stallone and Jean-Claude Van Damme's nefarious evildoer. When it comes to the action in the Expendables films it's pretty much all about excess, with some ridiculous weaponry on show. This breaks from that however in that it's not a showy or stunt-heavy confrontation. It's a much more scaled down, personal battle that is quick and raw and fuelled by the rage and hatred within Stallone's character. In between these two action highpoints, Simon West keeps the action coming at quite a pace, staging the sequences well and ensuring that it keeps your adrenaline flowing and your pulse racing as the film racks up an preposterously astronomical body count.
The main focus is still very much on the camaraderie between Stallone's Barney Ross and Statham's Lee Christmas, and they continue to create a fun buddy bromance. Randy Couture remains firmly in the background (rightly so) but I imagine that Dolph Lundgren and Terry Crews are given more prominence this time out, with Lundgren displaying some nice comic timing on occasion. Chuck Norris' appearance is limited to a mere cameo but is pretty awesome all the same. He is allowed to look like a very mythical, kick-ass presence and even takes the chance to poke some fun at himself with a reference to the series of Chuck Norris facts that became such a phenomenon. As the nemesis of our loveable renegades, Jean Claude Van Damme proves a very colourful addition to the cast as the ludicrously (but wonderfully) named Jean Vilain. He hams it up in fine style and it's just a real shame that he is not afforded more screen time. Bruce Willis and Arnold's involvement could perhaps still be classed as glorified cameos but their involvement is certainly much expanded this time out. The first film had them meeting up with Stallone in a church, and while it was great to see them on screen together they weren't able to get in on the action. This time however both men are given the opportunity to hold a gun in their hand and blow away the villainous trash, all the while throwing out one quip after another.
The script is unlikely to be studied by academics as a fine example of the screenwriting craft, but it accomplishes the required job pretty much perfectly and is able to capture the 80s action film spirit that it attempts to harken back to. It presents us with a fairly basic plot which is strong enough to hold our interest but easy to follow. It is just about able to divvy up the standout moments between the cast so that just about everyone is given their chance to shine. And it is actually able to generate quite a consistent stream of laughs; creating the fun group dynamic of the characters ribbing each other and providing a bountiful amount of one-liners and puns. A few times throughout the film the cast, particularly Schwarzenegger and Willis, engage in some especially cheesy in-jokes and references to their past body of work. Amongst other instances Arnie talks about 'being back' before stealing Willis' 'yippie kay yay' line. These moments come so close to being cringeworthy but remain just the right side of the line that they work in the same way as a Christmas cracker joke may – it makes you chuckle even if you're shaking your head at it.
While the script spends a good deal of time just trying to make these guys look as bad-ass as possible, it is done with a streak of self-awareness and introspection throughout both in terms of the characters and the actors themselves. They frequently acknowledge their faults (such as relationship issues) and in particular their age, joking that they all belong in a museum. The younger additions to the cast (Liam Hemsworth and Nan Yu) are employed to good use as a means of highlighting these issues.
Oh and while other people may have got their fill in the first film, for me just the opportunity to see all these action legends together is still a treat. And that is especially true when it comes to the Planet Hollywood trio of Stallone, Willis and Schwarzenegger. Being able to see them side by side in the same frame, guns in hand, is just such an awesome moment.
And all of this positivity leaves me with just one thing to say – roll on The Expendables 3! With the rumoured additions of Nicholas Cage, Wesley Snipes and Jackie Chan it appears that the Expendables flicks will continue to get bigger; let's just hope they also continue to get better. Oh and in the extremely rare case that Sylvester Stallone may be reading this I've got a suggestion for you Sly. Jean-Claude Van Damme had an incredible knack for playing multiple characters in his films (The Replicant, Maximum Risk, Timecop, Double Impact etc) so you should play into that. Here he played Jean Vilain, well in the third instalment bring him back as Jean's twin Claude Vilain! He could either be the bad guy out to avenge his brother, or make him a good guy and part of the expendables.
I've got a suggestion for you Sly. Jean-Claude Van Damme had an incredible knack for playing multiple characters in his films (The Replicant, Maximum Risk, Timecop, Double Impact etc) so you should play into that. Here he played Jean Vilain, well in the third instalment bring him back as Jean's twin Claude Vilain! He could either be the bad guy out to avenge his brother, or make him a good guy and part of the expendables. Conclusion - The first film had the whiff of a museum piece about it, as if it existed purely as a means to gather together all these guys in one place. This sequel however, is just a damn fun film in its own right and makes use of the talent at its disposal. All those involved just seem to be having a great time, and this time round the feeling was certainly mutual for this viewer. Indeed were it not for the increased amount of wrinkles on their faces, you could almost mistake this for one of their classics from their 80s/early 90s heydays.
X
User Lists
Glad you liked Ex2... It made my Top 100... great film...
__________________
Rodent's Reviews: Delivering The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly In Film
Rodent's Reviews: PART DEUX!
Rodent's 1950-Present Sci-Fi And Futuristic Fantasy Movies
Rodent's Reviews: PART DEUX!
Rodent's 1950-Present Sci-Fi And Futuristic Fantasy Movies
Resident Evil: Retribution was my one-pointer
X
Favorite Movies
Thanks Rodent. 
Where did it place on your top 100? (too lazy to check myself! ) And who would you like to see for the third Expendables?
Where did it place on your top 100? (too lazy to check myself! ) And who would you like to see for the third Expendables?
X
User Lists
Great review again. The Expendables 2 was a pleasant surprise for me, I found myself enjoying it a lot more than the first which I really didn't like - for me
X
Favorite Movies
And all of this positivity leaves me with just one thing to say – roll on The Expendables 3! With the rumoured additions of Nicholas Cage, Wesley Snipes and Jackie Chan it appears that the Expendables flicks will continue to get bigger; let's just hope they also continue to get better. Oh and in the extremely rare case that Sylvester Stallone may be reading this I've got a suggestion for you Sly. Jean-Claude Van Damme had an incredible knack for playing multiple characters in his films (The Replicant, Maximum Risk, Timecop, Double Impact etc) so you should play into that. Here he played Jean Vilain, well in the third instalment bring him back as Jean's twin Claude Vilain! He could either be the bad guy out to avenge his brother, or make him a good guy and part of the expendables.
I've got a suggestion for you Sly. Jean-Claude Van Damme had an incredible knack for playing multiple characters in his films (The Replicant, Maximum Risk, Timecop, Double Impact etc) so you should play into that. Here he played Jean Vilain, well in the third instalment bring him back as Jean's twin Claude Vilain! He could either be the bad guy out to avenge his brother, or make him a good guy and part of the expendables. Glad you enjoyed The Expedables 2. Definitely my favourite film of 2012 and while it doesn't come close, Les Miserables was also quite good, Russell Crowe, in particular, was a real surprise.
X
Favorite Movies
|
|