Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

In 1998, director Shekhar Kapur released Elizabeth, a depiction of the early years of England's Queen Elizabeth I.  The film was a critical darling, was nominated for seven Oscars, and made a star out of Cate Blanchett.  With so much good historical material at their disposal, I'm not sure why it took so long to make a sequel, but finally in 2007, Elizabeth: The Golden Age was released. 

Unfortunately, this time around, it's a bit of a whiff.  Oh, the movie isn't all bad.  It looks terrific, with superb costume and set design.  And once again, Kapur assembles a stellar cast of pros, including returning stars Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush, and newcomers Clive Owen (The International), Abbie Cornish (Sucker Punch), Rhys Ifans (The Replacements), Eddie Redmayne (Les Miserables), and Samantha Morton (Minority Report).  But the biggest plus is that source material/storyline is even more compelling than in the first movie.  We're dealing with the increasingly deteriorating relations with Spain, which will lead to war and the battle with the Spanish Armada, one of the most famous sea battles in history.  Meawhile, Elizabeth, who should be preparing herself for war, is distracted by the weight of being a Queen and the loneliness that entails, and the temptation brought to court by dashing explorer, Sir Walter Raleigh (Owen). 

But the whole thing never really gels together.  The depiction of political intrigue is interesting enough, but nowhere near as cool as it could have been.  And they really missed the ball with Elizabeth's personal problems, despite Blanchett's best efforts.  Her mood swings are just crazy - and instead of acting as an example of a strong monarch buckling under the pressure of being Queen (as was intended), they make her seem like she is schizophrenic.  So that doesn't work so well. 

The much touted battle with the Spanish Armada is also a big disappointment, with much of the battle happening off screen.  I understand they had budget constraints, but you can't tell me that they couldn't have done more with their funds.  Just look at what Game of Thrones did with a limited budget in the Battle of Blackwater episode - definitely the HBO show's Spanish Armada moment that was way cooler and more epic than anything we get in Elizabeth: The Golden Age.  I was also disappointed by the historical revisions in the battle.  I don't need a movie to be 100% historically accurate.  I don't mind changes if they service the story (such as the relationship between Raleigh and Bess, which in real life happened much later).  But the changes to the battle irked me. The English are close to panic and keep referencing English ships being destroyed when in reality, they lost not one ship.  Not one.  The movie makes it seem as if luck or divine intervention alone destroyed the Spanish fleet (and yes, I recognize that the convenient arrival of the storm in real life was a huge stroke of good fortune), but this ignores the fact that the British ships were faster, more agile, and manned by professional crews with more experience in the choppy waters of the English Channel.  English skill did play a big part in the victory, but Elizabeth: the Golden Age mostly ignores that.  Maybe I shouldn't make a big deal of that, but it annoyed me.  And if I were English, I would probably be insulted.

Anyways, just to sum up, Elizabeth: The Golden Age isn't terrible.  With a movie this good looking and a cast this solid, it would be difficult for the film to be truly horrible.  But it is definitely a disappointment and represents a huge missed opportunity.

BEST LINE:

John Dee: The forces that shape the world are greater than all of us, Majesty.  How can I promise that they will conspire in your favor even though you're the Queen?  This much I know.  When the storm breaks, some are dumb with terror and some spread their wings like eagles and soar.

TRIVIA:

To save money, the crew only build one period ship.  One half of the ship was built to resemble a Spanish galleon, the other side was designed to resemble Sir Walter Raleigh's English vessel.  Whenever they needed a wider shot in the scene, the crew used smoke machines to obscure the other half of the ship.

MVP:
This one is easy.  I'm going with the composer Craig Armstrong.  The score was co-written by Armstrong and AR Rahman, who won the Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire.  Overall, the score is a terrific work of art, full of passion and beauty.  The one strike against the composers is their music for the climactic battle with the Spanish Armada.  They seem to have forgotten that fast music doesn't necessarily equal exciting music, and overall it just sounds uninspired and even a bit lazy.  But other than that one disappointing track, the score is the highlight of Elizabeth: The Golden Age.  A track I particularly like is the "Divinity Theme," written by AR Rahman.  This theme is supposed to represent Elizabeth as Queen, and it captures all the power, glory and loneliness that the royal role entails.  So why am I picking Armstrong and not Rahman as my MVP?  Because of "The Storm," the epic track that accompanies the burning of the Spanish Armada.  Armstrong doesn't break out the full power of the choir often, but when he does, such as in Plunkett and MacLeane or Romeo and Juliet, it truly is something special.  "The Storm" lives up to that reputation.  This is one massive, epic track - one that rises above the so so movie that it was written for, and a track that (to follow my line of the movie) truly spreads it winds and soars.  

But maybe its just me...I'm biased when it comes to big choral pieces...

Hey, I found the track on YouTube!  Here it is if you want to listen to it.  You might also recognize this from the official Man of Steel trailer...

Les Miserables

Les Miserables 

Look, I'm not gonna lie.  I usually don't like musicals.   I respect them, and I appreciate the power of music to evoke emotion, but all too often I find the singing actually takes me out of the movie as opposed to emotionally connecting me.  There are exceptions, of course.  Singing in the Rain is a classic.  I really enjoyed both Chicago and Dreamgirls.  So what about Les Miserables?  Would this all-star film based on one of Broadway's most beloved shows be one of the few musicals that crosses over?

Les Miserables is based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo. I'll keep the synopsis vague as to not ruin anything for those who don't know the story.  Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) has just been released from 19-years imprisonment and decides to break parole in order to rebuild his life as a better man.  Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) is a tough-as-nails soldier who devotes his life to catching the convict, ignoring all the visible signs of how Valjean's newfound compassion affects everyone around them.  It's an epic story, spanning decades, and even includes a climactic battle set during the Paris Uprising in 1832.

The story sounded interesting so I was definitely curious, especially with this superb cast: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bodham Carter...this is quite a cast.  And I was a big fan of director Tom Hooper's last movie, The King's Speech.  But unfortunately, Les Miserables did not totally win me over. 

First of all, there is a lot to like in this movie, starting with the cast.  Everyone is absolutely superb, both in the acting and singing department.  Hooper made a brave choice with the film by recording the songs live instead of recording them in the studio, which is the common practice with musicals.  This experiment pays off in spades, giving the music an immediacy and raw emotional power that is missing when the songs are "produced" in a studio booth.  Nowhere is this more evident than in Anne Hathaway's show-stopping "I Dreamed a Dream," which is about as raw as you can get.

I was also very impressed with the art direction and the overall look of the film.  It's a superb looking film, and I wouldn't be surprised if it scooped up most of the Costume and Art Direction Awards.

What I liked most about Les Miserables was the epicness of it all.  I truly felt like this movie was a massive journey and I had gotten to know these characters over two decades.  When the movie ends, you do not feel like you've watched a movie; instead, you've experienced something.  And that is kinda special.  Ironically, this epic length is also the movie's greatest weakness.  When the movie is not working, it just grinds to a halt...and it is those moments where I literally feel like I am spending twenty years with these people.  There were a few times where I thought, "oh, please, Jean Valjean, if you have any real compassion, you would just stop singing and get on with it!"

There are a few other things I don't like.  I had never seen the stage musical so a lot of this was fresh for me.  And the songs are all quite good and memorable.  But most musicals have dialogue between the songs.  Not Les Miserables.  This movie is all song. There might be all of six lines of non-singing dialogue in the whole film. I wouldn't mind this so much if the music were good, but I actually found much of the this 'inbetween' singing to be tuneless and meandering.  I know many of you are screaming and smashing at your keyboards: BLASPHEMY!!!  Look, I'm not badmouthing the music as a whole.  The major songs are all pretty good, some of them superb, but the music inbetween the big numbers is just kind of painful.

So there you go: Les Miserables in the end is a mixed bag.  When it is firing on all cylinders, it really is terrific.  Usually this is when the show's major numbers are featured: "I Dreamed a Dream," "On My Own," and "One Day More" are stirring and wonderfully performed, and showcase the raw power that musicals can have when done well.  But it just drags in a lot of other places, sometimes painfully so.  But like I said in the beginning of the review, take my opinion with a grain of salt because musicals just aren't my thing!

But all that said, I do want to address a few points in SPOILER territory.  For those who have seen the movie or know the play really well, here are the moments I liked and disliked.

Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bodham Carter stage the film's funniest scene when they perform "Master of the House," but with every subsequent scene they appear in, they become less and less amusing and more and more annoying.  Until by the end, they were just tedious.

Damn.  Hugh Jackman can sing.  And I was a bit terrified by his chest hair.  To be honest, I was surprised by most of the cast.  They all have pretty terrific voices.

Anne Hathaway just won her Oscar.  I am sure of it.  She isn't in the film for very long, but she is so heart achingly good in "I Dreamed a Dream."  It's downright haunting.

Almost as good is the relatively unknown (but not for long) member of the cast, Samantha Barks, as Eponine.  She knocks "On My Own" out of the park!

I do want to defend Russell Crowe for a second. He seems to be catching some heat as Javert.  I actually thought he was fine.  It's a different role for him, and while his voice doesn't necessarily sound Broadway to me, I thought his singing got the job done.  I think people are not responding well to him for a few reasons.  His introduction is handled clumsily, with his singing literally coming out of nowhere, causing some snickering in the audience.  And the director does not do Crowe any favors by staging his solo numbers in really goofy ways (i.e. always balancing on railings and silly blocking like that).  In fact, while most of the camera work is fine, I was distracted by the horribly quick pullbacks that seemed to happen whenever the actors hit a big note.  This was just awkward and clumsy and he does it to poor Russell Crowe constantly.  It just seems like they are setting him up to fail.

Speaking of Crowe, I really like the confrontation in the hospital when Javert explains why he refuses to believe in Valjean's reformation.  That Javert came from the same lowly background as Valjean, picked himself out of the muck, and transformed himself into a symbol of law and order...that explains a lot about his character and I think Crowe nails this moment.

Not meaning to go back to this, but those zoom outs really annoyed me!

And why the horribly gruesome bone-breaking sound effect when Javert dies.  It was so loud, it was almost comical.  And why do that to a poor character who just seemed to see the error of his ways??

I also have a problem with the very end when the whole cast appears on a super huge barricade, singing the People's song.  I feel the movie gets its themes mixed up.  Onstage, I'm sure this makes sense because it is a chance for the whole cast to come out and sing one more time. But in the film, it just muddies the waters.  It makes it seem like this whole movie was about The People, the need for Revolution, and the Paris Uprising.  Really, the uprising is just a plot device - and it only really matters to Marius.  And actually, even then, it doesn't seem like it really means that much to him since he is about to abandon the revolution in order to chase after Cosette.  Cutting back to the barricade at the finale, and including Fantine, Cosette and Valjean with the group just doesn't make much sense to me.

Okay, SPOILER OVER.

MVP:
Well, I think I've already made it clear that my MVP is Anne Hathaway.  "I Dreamed a Dream" is usually belted out by powerhouse singers.  Every time I've heard it, it's produced as a big, huge number for a singer with a powerhouse voice.  That doesn't make much sense in the movie, since Fantine is weak, desperate, and dying of tuberculous.  Kinda hard to hit the big notes when you have tuberculous. So she takes the opposite approach.  She doesn't push the song out, she pulls it in, makes it personal, ignores the power and just focused on the anguish and emotion.  It's a remarkable performance.  And yes, she is good in her other scenes, as well.  But it is this performance that wins her my MVP (and probably the Oscar, too).


TRIVIA: 
A lot of actresses auditioned to be in this movie.  For Eponine, you had the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Hayden Panettierre, and Rachel Evan Wood.  Supposedly, Taylor Swift was really close to getting the part.  No offense to any of these ladies, but I think they cast this role perfectly.  Samantha Barks, who had already played the part on stage, was perfect.

Black Death

Black Death

Well, it is October again, which means I am returning to the wonderful world of horror films for a few weeks!  First on the list is the recent Black Death, a low budget horror film that came out of England last year.  The film never really found an audience here in the United States, though I am willing to bet that a wide theatrical release with a real marketing campaign would have helped.  It is a pity no studio got behind Black Death, but it is actually really quite good.

In the 1340s, the plague has descended over England, sweeping across the countryside and eventually killing 1/3 to 1/2 of the total population.  But there is one village out in the marshes that is unaffected by the plague.  No one knows why the village has been spared, but there are rumors of witchcraft and devil worship.  A group of religious warriors led by Ulric (Sean Bean, Lord of the Rings) is sent by the local bishop to investigate, guided by a young monk named Osmond (Eddie Redmayne, The Other Boleyn Girl).

First, let's talk about what's good.  I love the look of this movie.  I don't think I have seen the Middles Ages look quite so bleak and real.  Black Death does a fantastic job of depicting the bubonic plague, really showing how desperate and horrifying it was, and how it drove much of the country into paranoia and savagery.  I was impressed with this bleak setting, and would have liked to have seen even more of it.  I also really like the cast, which is uniformly great, and also includes Carice van Houten (Black Book) as Langiva, the leader of the village (and possibly a witch), Tim McInnerny (Black Adder), and a nice cameo from David Warner (Tron).

What I also like about the film is that while it is simple in story structure, there is actually a lot happening under the surface.  Now in the 21st Century, I don't think we can comprehend something as devastating as the Black Death.  Think about this - literally half the people you know dead all within the last year.  How would you react?  What would you think?  How paranoid would you be?  What if you're next?  Would such devastation drive you to religion or away from it?  These are questions that this movie asks by showing us how the warriors and the villagers react to the trying times.  Sometimes we feel like the villagers are right, sometimes we find ourselves agreeing with the warriors.  And this is probably the film's greatest strength, how it is adeptly shifts our sympathies from one side to the other, leaving us unsure of who to trust and who to root for.  It is a cleverly conceived by director Christopher Jones and writer Dario Poloni.

And I will be honest, I always preferred this style of horror film, which is more about atmosphere and the slow build, to the hack and slasher genres that most people watch today.  I would take a good Hammer Film over a Friday 13th movie any day of the week.  Black Death isn't even really scary at all, but it is eerie and unsettling, and probably has more of an impact as a result.

There are a few problems with the film, the biggest of which is an over-reliance on shaky cam.  I am tired of directors thinking that handheld cameras means the film will be more artsy.  Just hold the camera steady so I can see what's happening!!! The shaky cam (or what I call earthquake cam) gets annoying in the first third and then all but ruins the one major battle scene in the movie.  Thankfully, once Ulric and company arrive at the village, the camera work settles down a bit.

I also have some problems with the ending.  The climax bounces from some brilliant moments (most involving the kickass Sean Bean) and some highly questionable moments.  Then we are left with a coda, which while thematically is related, just seems tacked on for no other reason than to depress us.

But overall, this is a rock solid film with some great performances and atmosphere.  You should check it out!

BEST LINE:  
It's all in his delivery, but I like it when Wulfstan explains to the naive Osmond that: "A necromancer...is one who plucks the dead from the cold earth...and breaths new life into them."

MVP:
As much as I like Sean Bean, (and he does deliver the single coolest moment of the movie), I have to give the MVP to John Lynch, who plays the warrior Wulfstan.  Wulfstan was easily my favorite character.  Everyone else in the motley crew of warriors are either greedy, bloodthirsty, way too fanatical or full of wimpy angst. Wulfstan is a fighter, but he is a good man, probably the best man in the movie.  And as the crew traveled through the plague ravaged countryside and the bandit riddled forest, it was his fate that I was most concerned about.  Maybe that is a failing of the movie since I should have been more worried about Osmond and Ulric, but I prefer to view it as a testament to John Lynch's accessible performance.  Plus, he looks a bit like Scott Bakula in battle armor.  And that's kinda cool.

TRIVIA: 
Lena Headey (who also played Sean Bean's nemesis on Game of Thrones) was set to play Langiva, but was replaced by van Houten.