"Les Miserables" Review

Translating a musical to the screen is a more difficult task than you might think. You can accuse them of whatever you like, but the simple fact is that film audiences are far less accepting of actors breaking into song than stage audiences are. Unless the director is very careful - or takes the easy way, and makes it animated & accompanied by singing fawns and bluebirds - a musical movie may result more in jeers than cheers.

Thankfully, Tom Hooper knows how to handle musicals. And good thing, too, since the musical in question is the most famous of the modern age: Les Misérables. He proves that he earned his Oscar (in 2010, for The King's Speech), and by assembling a phenomenal all-star cast to sing Victor Hugo's immortal story, he creates something truly epic.

"Les Miz" is about many things and many people, so the most basic plot summary I could give is: Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is a recently freed convict, whose only wrongdoings were (A) stealing a loaf of bread and (B) trying to escape prison, who has decided to create a better, more respectable life for himself. Under an assumed name, he becomes the mayor of a town, and witnesses a conflict inside a factory that results in a worker, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), being fired and thrown out. Fantine has an illegitimate daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen and Amanda Seyfried), whom she has been sending money to. In a desperate attempt to continue supporting Cosette, Fantine sells the few meager items she has and becomes a prostitute. She is eventually arrested, but is saved by Valjean- who realizes that the policeman arresting her is Javert (Russel Crowe), a former guard of Valjean's former prison. When Fantine dies in the hospital, Valjean becomes Cosette's caretaker, but throughout the years, he must constantly evade the pursuit of Valjean, as well as survive the June Rebellion- the infamous night in 1832, when Paris becomes aflood with insurgents against the king... one of whom has fallen in love with Cosette.

Like any narrative work, the story of a musical is important, but its true appeal lies in its music. How well the songs fit the mood, how they move the plot along, how memorable they are, and how well the actors sing them. It's no secret that Les Misérables is a good musical on the page, but even the greatest works of art require the proper treatment if one wants to translate them to the screen. If there's one surefire way to do it, it's the way Hooper has- by having the cast sing all of the songs live, as the scenes are being filmed. Usually, in a movie musical, actors record their songs before hand, and lip sync to them during filming. This does have its advantages. If the song's not being performed live, this allows the cinematographer to create many cuts and framings that can enhance the mood of the songs. But the real wonder of Les Misérables is that, by doing the opposite, the simple filming style increases the emotion of every song. If Hooper had gone for the standard movie-musical format... well, I don't think the film would have worked at all.

I don't want to buy the soundtrack album of this movie. Partly because I already have Les Miz's West End recording (and the original French concept album), but also because, without the visual component, the adaptation's music doesn't sound right. The notes are off, and the actors sometimes muffle or mumble their words in ways that don't make sense on an album. But when you see them as they sing, nothing sounds wrong. Although all of the actors have musical experience of some sort, some more so than others, the majority of them are primarily known more for their screen work. This is key. When the actors are free from both the expectations of a stage audience - the expectations of a passionate, technically perfect performance - and the comforting safety net of recording in a studio, they are suddenly required to not only sing, but act. Just singing about how you feel won't cut it in the up-close-and-personal world of movies; you've gotta sell it. And the whole cast isn't getting Oscar buzz for nothing.

Are you sick of hearing about how great Anne Hathaway is? Too bad! Because good lord is she amazing in Les Misérables. If her preparation for the role (she lost over 25 pounds so as to appear sickly and near death) wasn't enough evidence, her performance shows us that she has essentially become Fantine. I sobbed right along with her- she doesn't do much else, but given her horrific circumstances, you can't blame her. We've already seen it in the advertising, but her performance of "I Dreamed a Dream", the beloved Susan Boyle anthem, can't be spoken highly of enough. Through a single, static shot of her face, Hathaway weeps through the song while still miraculously maintaining her vocal range, and more than any other singer before her, embodies every word of the song in voice and image. Fantine dies within the first 1/4th of the movie, but you never forget her.

Not to say that the rest of the cast isn't fantastic. You'd expect nothing less but perfection from Hugh Jackman, and perfection is what you get- his Valjean may, as with Hathaway's, become the definitive performance. Russell Crowe has been criticized in some circles for having a rougher, less clean voice than his castmates, but I think it suits Javert's calm yet ruthless character- and of course, being Russell G. D. Crowe, he still acts the hell out of it. Cosette is, unfortunately, not an especially defined character, but Amanda Seyfried has a natural charm about her that gives her a little bit more weight. And as for her younger counterpart, Isabelle Allen, I must say that she amazes me. Not only is she a good singer, but she also has an uncanny resemblance to that famous engraving of Cosette, so prominently featured on the Les Miz musical's advertisements (and replicated impeccably by Allen for the film's, as seen above). So excellent is she that, after filming wrapped, the West End production actually cast her in the exact same role! Congrats to her, and I hope she has a future in performing.

Quite possibly the sole complaint I could make about the entire production is the relationship between Cosette and Marius. Even then, it's a small complaint: it's the way they meet. That is, if you could call it a "meeting". The two casually spot each other on the street, without even a word from each other, and yet in the next scene, each sings about how they are awed by, and in love with, the other. Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne are good enough actors that they sell the ensuing relationship (their duet, "A Heart Full of Love", is lovely), but I never really got over how strangely obsessed they became after a single glance. Love At First Sight is a cliché that's fairly common, especially in Victor Hugo's day, but you'd think an author of his stature would be above such melodrama. And in any case, it simply makes no sense when viewed in the modern day.

For being a novel that's 1400 pages long, Les Misérables is remarkably well-suited to being adapted into a 165-minute movie. Most of the plot doesn't feel condensed or abrupt; in fact, it feels like there's plenty of breathing room to spare, to fill up with pretty camerawork and deliberate pacing. The emotional impact of the story is squeezed out of every inch of the movie- one of the most beautiful shots is the very first, that of a tattered French flag floating in the ocean. Given how often a nation's flag is used for symbolic reasons, the metaphor is pretty obvious, but that doesn't make it any less cool.

Go see Les Misérables. You probably already did, but it never hurts to see something twice. Assuming you haven't seen it twice already... Or three times... or four...

Stars: *****
Awesome

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" Review

Everyone else and their mother has already said it at this point, but it's still true: J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit did not have to be split into three movies. It didn't even really have to be split into two movies. The story is big in scope, to be sure, but the book was able to cover it all in 300 pages; a movie would easily be able to do so in 3 hours or less.

But this dumb idea just may have worked out after all. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey may be only the first third of a single story, but it doesn't actually feel that way. Instead, it stands on its own. It really is the first movie in a trilogy, not the first incomplete fragment of a single film.

Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit of the title, lives a peaceful, quiet life in the rather small hobbit community of the Shire. He's fond of food, relaxation, and visitors- but not adventure. Oh, certainly not adventure! Alas, adventure finds him, in the form of a wise old wizard named Gandalf and a band of 13 dwarves. The dwarves, led by one Thorin Oakenshield, are out to reclaim their gold and land from Smaug, a nasty dragon that stole it from them many years prior. Hobbits are naturally small and quick creatures, so Gandalf is convinced that Bilbo would make the perfect "burglar" to help them steal back the riches. At first, Bilbo balks... but the lure of a new experience wins him over, and he finds himself running off to join the quest.

The real heart of Tolkien's universe isn't the beautiful locales or the exotic creatures, though those certainly are cool- it's the many (many, many, many...) distinct characters, with their own detailed journeys, quirks, and depths. The Lord of the Rings films did a wonderful job of portraying a variety of interesting people, and so does The Hobbit. Martin Freeman, best known as Watson in The BBC's Sherlock, was perfectly cast for the role of Bilbo, especially the Bilbo that we see in the film. In Tolkien's novel, Bilbo felt like a crotchety old man with all his griping and grouching, and was a real load. Until he found the ring, he was of no use at all to the dwarves. The movies, by contrast, portray him more like an awkward twentysomething- he rarely knows just what he's supposed to be doing or saying, and handles himself poorly along the way. Freeman has portrayed this sort of character in the past, and does it well here - the initial scene, where Bilbo stands frozen in disbelief as a dozen strangers trash his house, is especially hilarious - but the really interesting part is how we see Bilbo mature and evolve into something more. He's barely able to ride his pony at the beginning, but by the end, we've seen him outsmart dangerous monsters, traverse hundreds of miles with nary a scratch on him, and leap into the field of battle to protect his comrades. It's a side of the character you don't expect to see, but once you do, it's greatly satisfying.

Ian Holm, who portrayed Bilbo in the Rings trilogy, also appears, as a 60-years-older version of the hobbit that narrates the story. Holm has a great voice, like an old Oxford scholar, and he's the perfect choice for the narrator of a fairy tale like this one. Holm isn't the only Ian to reprise his role from the last trilogy. There's also Sir Ian - Sir Ian McKellen - as Gandalf, who still has all of the charm and wittiness that we saw of him in Lord of the Rings.  Unfortunately, he really doesn't have much to do in this one. For the most part, Gandalf stands around, looking wise, occasionally saying smart things, and disappearing for long stretches, only to return just in time to get the cast out of a bad scrape. Granted, that's the same way that he was portrayed in the book- but that was one of the book's bigger flaws! And it doesn't help that McKellen seems distressingly old in An Unexpected Journey- his voice is scratchy and occasionally mumbling, and he moves a lot slower than he did only a decade prior. It's still a pretty good performance, but it also served to remind me of the mortality of a really great actor- and it makes me sad.

Despite the greatly-expanded length of the story, Jackson and co. apparently didn't think to give any more development to the company of dwarves, who are all completely indistinct and mostly unmemorable. I honestly can't remember most of their names (it doesn't help that many of them are very similar- there's a Nori, a Dori, AND an Ori), and the attempts to give them any sort of distinct personality traits are quite weak. It'd have been nice to see more of them. The only real exception is the leader, Thorin, played by Richard Armitage. Thorin is the grandson of a dwarf king, and he defeated the great Orc leader Azog in a massive battle to reclaim the dwarves' gold. Obviously, the quest failed, but it made for a great battle scene that showed off Thorin's deterministic spirit and status as an excellent fighter. I really felt for Thorin and his cause throughout the film, and he's practically the second protagonist next to Bilbo. And what a great co-protagonist he is!

But yet again, the guy who really steals the show is that good old skinny freak, Gollum. Andy Serkis returns to voice and motion-capture him (in, sadly, only one scene), and it's awesome to just see him again. Gollum's game of riddles with Bilbo is fun to watch, for the thrill of watching the two characters bounce off of each other for a while- and you're given enough time to try and solve the riddles yourself, which is a nice bonus. Serkis is a remarkable actor, and he gives Gollum an impressive amount of character and personality in his limited screen time. When Gollum suddenly goes from scowling anger to cheerily announcing that, if Bilbo doesn't win their game, then "we eats it whole!", it's really funny. Serkis has already won a sizable amount of awards for his work- which is a real testament to his enormous talent, considering how rarely voice and mo-cap actors are given any respect at all.

While Gollum's cameo is welcome (and necessary), others are... not so much. See, in expanding The Hobbit and turning it into a trilogy prequel to Lord of the Rings, Jackson decided to bring back classic characters from that trilogy, such as Christopher Lee's Saruman and Cate Blanchett's Galadriel. I suppose it's neat to see them again, but their jarringly brief appearances are superflous, existing only to forward a subplot foreshadowing the return of Sauron- which is also superflous! It's exciting, I suppose, to witness the first rumblings of Rings' story, but it's also unnecessary. The Hobbit is about the hobbit! Not the adventures that come after his!

One thing that has been buzzed about regarding The Hobbit is its use of 48 Frames Per Second. This means that it's been filmed at twice the frame rate that the majority of movies are shot in (24 Frames Per Second). It allows for a heavy amount of detail, and for a visual look that closer resembles real life- or, as some other critics have criticized, a TLC reality show. I saw An Unexpected Journey in 2D and in 24 Frames Per Second, so I can't comment on those elements- but I can certainly say that it's quite obvious that it was meant to be seen that way. The battle scenes, when shown at 24 FPS, look a bit jerky and unnatural, as if it's been sped up. The 2D conversion really doesn't work either. Many foreground or background elements seem unusually flat, and it feels like you're watching a 3D movie with one eye closed. It's quite a shame, because for the most part, the special effects are spectacular.

The first part of The Hobbit has some problems, relating mostly to extraneous technical or storyline additions. But it's also a very fun movie, and one you won't regret seeing. Bring on Part 2!

Stars: ****
Awesome

"Rise of the Guardians" Review

Every time you see a poster or watch a trailer for Rise of the Guardians, listen closely. If you listen hard enough, you can hear the regretful moans of countless movie studio executives, tearfully crying out, "Why didn't I think of this?!"

Yes, the central concept of Rise of the Guardians - that of a superhero team consisting of various childhood fables - is so brilliant and full of potential that it's really astounding that no one has tried it before. And with an artist like William Joyce involved (the film is based on his Guardians of Childhood book series), you'd have every reason to expect great things. Well, we've received good things, certainly good things, but a fair share of bad things, too. Rise is good enough for me- but with all the potential it has, it's a bit of a disappointment.

The Guardians of Childhood are a group of world-renowned folk heroes who have been chosen by the Man in the Moon to protect the sanctity and purity of children. The team, for hundreds of years, has consisted of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Sandman - the "Big Four" - but the Man has finally decided on a fifth: Jack Frost. Frost and the Guardians aren't the only mythological creatures out there, but to have the powers of a Guardian requires children to believe in you. If kids don't believe, you have no such power. This is bad news for Jack, who's long been forgotten by the world. And the world is about to get much worse- a sinister, feared presence, also long forgotten, has appeared to make his mark, and he aims to destroy the Guardians and all that they have worked for.

Rise of the Guardians is a winner based on the art alone. So much imagination went into every single scrap of the Guardians, and it's a sight to behold. Santa's Workshop is filled with toys, elves, and Yetis bustling around and mingling in fun and amusing ways; the Tooth Fairy's castle is run like a bustling business, with little helper-fairies scrambling all across the world to obtain lost teeth; and the Easter Bunny's warren is covered in beautiful and vibrant colors, where Easter eggs grow from flowers (!) and the rivers run in every hue of the rainbow. The Sandman doesn't have a domain, but he does have sand, and what incredible sand! Anyone who knows much about animation understands how incredibly difficult it is to even draw sand on a computer, but Dreamworks has created sand that dances, floats, and flies about in all directions, and it's gorgeous. Jack Frost, similarly, is a wanderer, and he controls snow and ice. Both of these are just as hard to animate, but once again, it's achieved with flying colors. Jack performs some impressive feats with the ice, molding it, controlling it, and drawing on it, but it never stops looking real. At the film's very beginning, where Jack breaks through a frozen lake and it crumbles into fragments around him, it looked so real and so beautiful that I teared up. I really did! And that wasn't even the only time the gorgeous animation moved me so.

Now, with a hero team made up of folk icons like these, there's only one possible choice for their arch-nemesis: the Boogeyman! And, yes, our villain in the film is indeed the Boogeyman... or as they inexplicably insist on calling him most of the time, "Pitch Black". Unfortunately, the otherwise limitless imagination of the film's art design staggers to a complete standstill when it comes to him. While the Guardians have beautifully designed homes and abilities, Pitch is depressingly simple, just a tall man with grey skin and a black coat. His lair is similarly bland- it's just a dark basement with a bunch of cages. The really sad thing is, the Boogeyman is quite possibly the only character of the group that allows complete artistic freedom. While the Guardians each have common depictions or simple requirements that limit the ways they can be designed (Tooth Fairy has to be winged and colorful, Santa has to be a fat old man in red, Easter Bunny has to be a rabbit, etc.), there is absolutely no limitations on what the Boogeyman could look like. I mean, go ahead- name me a physical trait of the Boogeyman! You can't! There was so much they could go with here, especially since Pitch is supposed to be the very embodiment of a child's fears. Is a middle-aged Edward Cullen lookalike really the best they could come up with?

Oh, and his minions are just a limitless horde of black horses made of dream dust. "Night Mares", see? Har dee har har.

Easily the weakest part of Rise is its screenplay. Taken on its own merits, it's junk! Most attempts at comedic dialogue fall flat, there's an abundance of cliché lines, and the story structure is sophomoric. I was able to accurately quote entire lines of dialogue, despite having never seen the film before (the villain's annoyingly standard "join me, hero!" scene happens, in the most predictable way possible. And guess how the hero responds!). The plot feels unfocused, and sometimes seems to be structured more like a miniseries than a movie. One 10-minute plot thread has the Guardians helping the Tooth Fairy to help her with her job, and it all goes swimmingly. The next 10 minutes have them trying to save Easter. The next 10, Jack's trying to discover his past. There is no real overarching journey of any kind- or at least, not a physical journey. The intended storyline is basically your standard "Hero's Journey" for Jack, where we're supposed to see him move past his own doubts in himself and become a real hero. The only problem is, this is rather botched. It's not made clear that Jack is insecure about himself, only that he isn't interested in joining a group. This fits his established status as a drifter, and the concept that he's looking for answers in life is only directly informed to us by other characters as they speak to him. The film's climax is disappointing, as despite the global consequences at stake, the final battle is confined to a single small area, and it's over in quite a short period of time.

Rise's is saved, partially by the animation, and partially by the spirit and drive of the cast. Some surprising choices are made, but they all work amazingly. Alec Baldwin is Santa, who has a Russian accent, and yet after the initial surprise wears off, this fits him perfectly. Hugh Jackman is the Easter Bunny, and while his accent is unexpectedly based on a stereotypical Australian (Jack even calls him the "Easter Kangaroo"), it actually fits with his rugged-adventurer personality. Isla Fisher's cute and friendly voice sounds perfect for a fairy, and Chris Pine gives Jack a young, roguish tone that's befitting of Captain Kirk himself. Even Pitch, a bland character as far as design goes, is made at least somewhat interesting by Jude Law's dark, imposing interpretation.

Rise of the Guardians, if nothing else, may go down in my mental history books as the only mediocre movie I've ever actually cried at. If you're like me, and are a fan of animation or appreciate art and character design a great deal, then this is one movie you definitely should see. If you prefer plot, then there's not much to recommend.

Stars: ***
All Right

"Skyfall" Review

There's been a host of production problems and setbacks, but in the end, it's just as it's always been foretold: James Bond has returned. And boy howdy, is his return glorious. If you'll forgive my relative inexperience - I've only seen 7 of his 23 adventures - Skyfall may be Bond's absolute best.

After the confusing world-saving/personal-revenge conundrum that was the plot of 2008's Quantum of Solace, this new film wisely dials back on the scale. This time around, it's not the entire world that's threatened, but MI6, Bond's employer. Many in England's government are now beginning to believe that MI6 is incompetent, outdated, and no longer necessary- and it doesn't help that 007, by far their best agent, is believed to be dead after a mishap during his last assignment. Things get worse when Silva, a former agent of MI6, begins blackmailing, exposing, and killing other operatives in a personal attempt to humiliate M, the head of the operation. But, of course, James Bond is alive and well, and he returns just in time- but Silva is a manipulative villain, and to stop him, Bond will have to confront his own past in addition to M's.

A common complaint of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig's first two outings as Bond, was that their gritty tone and emphasis on realism & character development clashed badly with the fun-filled formulaic stories of their predecessors. Well, I believe those critics have now been satisfied. Though Skyfall still has the successful tone, style, and personality of the prior films, it also brings back a lot of the fun, and resurrects some the Bond franchise's clichés with fresh twists that work very well with the Craig films' style. Silva is very much the wisecracking supervillain that we expect from a Bond bad guy, but he's got some depth to him: his backstory, where he was abandoned by MI6 and tortured to the point of attempted suicide, is incredibly tragic; and he has the deformity that's required of most Bond villains, but it's far more hidden, and far more horrific, than anyone who's come before him. As for other classic tropes, like Q, Moneypenny, shaken (not stirred) martinis, "Bond... James Bond", the Aston Martin, the distinctive MI6 headquarters, that iconic inside-the-gunbarrel shot... well, without spoiling too much, I can definitely tell you that you'll have seen them all return by the end credits.

The cast of Skyfall is made up entirely of pure talent. At this point, we all know that Daniel Craig is a great Bond and Judi Dench is a great M, but this film is the first to show the true depths of the characters and, by extension, the way their actors portray them. Bond is noticeably warmer in this film than in the last two, more prone to quips & smart remarks, and showing genuine caring for some people- quite a bit closer to the James we all know and love. Again, I don't want to spoil anything, but the location of Skyfall's denouement - and the source of the film's title - has a personal connection to Bond, and it reveals a deep side of him that we have never seen before. M, so long before a stern and imposing figure, has more tenderness to her here, with a heartrending scene in the beginning where she tries to write Bond's obituary, and a climax that she spends injured and in pain- giving her some rare vulnerability.

The villain, Silva (Javier Bardem), is one of the most entertaining bad guys of any movie released this year. He's devilishly clever, even more witty than Bond himself, and is somehow able to be both creepy and funny at the exact same time. Witness a scene where he suggestively comes on to Bond, opening up his legs, putting his hand on Bond's knee, and remarking, "There's always a first time for everything, isn't it?" It'd be disturbing, but his behavior makes it funny, and Bond's response ("What makes you think it's the first time?") defuses it into hilarity. And when Silva's not funny or scary, he's... sad. Throughout the film, Silva tells several stories of his past, and they are uniformly depressing, showing a lonely and abusive life. The fact that he describes them with the same passive, mildly amused expression as always makes them all the worse.

Bond's less alone than usual, as he has a wide array of other MI6 members backing him and M up (CIA member Felix Leiter is a no-show this time around). Eve (Naomie Harris), another agent and Bond's partner for the movie's first half, is a great character, showing just as much fortitude as Bond in the field, but displaying a lot more enjoyment and humor in her work. Once you find out just who she is, Eve becomes even cooler. Q makes his debut in the new series with Skyfall, and rather than the foppish old man of the prior continuity, our new Q is a young and handsome geek (Ben Wishaw), with lots of enthusiasm but also some inexperience and naivete. Neither he nor Ralph Fiennes' character, Mallory, show up much, and thus they don't have much depth, but they do make up an interesting, important part of the plot.

You wouldn't expect Sam Mendes, who has previously directed only quiet dramas, to be particularly skilled at directing action movies, but he sure as hell is. Every big scene in Skyfall is memorable, from a fight atop a collapsing train, to a fistfight inside a Chinese gambling ring, to a massive shootout on the grounds of... well. You'll see for yourself. The scenes are filmed well, giving us enough time to understand what's going on while still keeping us on the edge of our seats. Just as importantly, every one of these scenes also has a tinge of humor to it, which adds a ton of personality and keeps things from getting too gritty, even if danger's at its peak.

Special mention ought to go to Adele's theme song for the film, also called "Skyfall". Ordinarily a film's opening credits aren't really something important to mention in a review, but Bond movies have always prided themselves on far-out, psychedelic openings with superstar singers, and "Skyfall" ranks among the absolute best of the entire franchise. If there was anyone out there who was born to sing a James Bond theme, it's the soft, sultry Adele, and wow! She pulls it off! The cryptic and vague lyrics, combined with some astounding visuals (such as guns turning into gravestones or some remarkable images created from "blood" moving through "water"), put this Bond song (this "Bong"? ...no, let's not) right up there with "Goldfinger", "Live and Let Die", "A View to a Kill", and Casino Royale's "You Know My Name".

I've spent nearly all of this review comparing Skyfall to its 22 predecessors. That was inevitable. Everyone has seen a James Bond movie, or at least seen a parody, homage, or summary, and there's no way to look at any new ones without also looking back on one's memories of the old. In that respect, Skyfall succeeds wonderfully, blending classic Bond with a brand new style, but the really interesting thing is how well the film succeeds on its own. You could sit through all of Skyfall without having ever seen another James Bond movie, and you would never be lost or confused. So, basically, this is a movie for absolutely everyone. So go see it!

Stars: ****
Awesome

"Dracula" Review

During the opening credits of Dracula, a haunting, creepy rendition of the famous music from "Swan Lake" plays as the cast and main crew of the film are revealed. It is the only music played during the entire film, and afterwards, every scene is accompanied only by background sound effects. It's an eerie effect- and Dracula is an eerie film.

In the opening minutes, a man named Renfield has travelled to Transylvania to sell a house in London to Count Dracula. Though Renfield ignores the townspeople's warnings that Dracula is a dangerous vampire, they are all too correct- and Renfield is turned into a deranged servant of the Count. Upon his arrival in London, Dracula begins an assault on its citizens, such as a young woman named Lucy. His next victim is her friend, Mina, and only her husband John and the brilliant scientist Abraham Van Helsing can stop Dracula before it's too late.

The central performance of the film - and the one that everyone remembers - is Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula. Lugosi is utterly spellbinding, an unsettling mix of likable and terrifying. His behavior is always polite and friendly, yet he never loses an eerie air, with a strange, hypnotic gaze (punctuated by lighting on his face). His dialogue is always extremely slow and deliberate: "I am... Dracula!" As a result, he creeps you out no matter what he's saying. And as soon as his sophisticated facade is dropped and he enters full vampire mode, the horror increases. Dracula has always been described as able to hypnotize people with his gaze, but this version of the story is the only film in which we see that firsthand: just as much as he hypnotizes people in-story, so too does Lugosi hypnotize you as you watch the film.

The cast is great all around. Mina (Helen Chandler), our leading lady, acts basically the way you would expect someone dealing with a vampire to act: unknowing, then confused, then afraid, then terrified. She's quite believable, and in the moments when she is put under Dracula's control, her behavior is chilling. Renfield (Dwight Frye), Dracula's crazy assistant, is delightfully unhinged, quite scary but also pretty funny. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), essentially our hero, is quite compelling. He seems to know everything about vampires and how to deal with them, and there's an awesome scene in which Dracula confronts him, and he shows absolutely no fear. Less interesting, unfortunately, is John Harker (David Manners), who was the lead protagonist of the novel (as Jonathan) but has almost nothing to do here, as everything important that happened to him in the book is transferred to other characters in the movie- Renfield for the opening scenes, and Van Helsing for the later ones. He's basically just there, which is disappointing. Also, Dracula's Brides are in the movie, but have no point at all- they awaken with Dracula and show up when he converts Renfield, but never show up or get mentioned ever again.

As I mentioned before, Dracula has no music accompanying it, only sound effects. This isn't always a good idea - Frankenstein, for example, would have benefited quite a bit from actually using music instead of silence - but in Dracula it works spectacularly. In only the second scene, there are several long shots of Dracula and his Brides awakening and exiting their coffins, and the only sounds are the noises made by the coffins. A few other scenes use sound effects almost as if they are used instead of music- when the "White Lady" (Lucy) begins attacking children, all we get is a brief clip of someone walking through a neighborhood as a little girl cries somewhere in the distance. It's far more unsettling than any music could have been.

Dracula earns its reputation completely. It's known as a classic, and it absolutely is. It's got Bela Lugosi- could you even ask for more?

Stars: **** (Out of 5)
Awesome

"The Phantom of the Opera" Review

Gaston Leroux's novel The Phantom of the Opera has been adapted into so many productions that it's a little absurd, with more than 20 adaptations in the medium of film alone. The very first one - before that iconic musical, before the Hammer film, before even the 1943 Claude Rains movie - was released in 1925 by the soon-to-be-legendary Universal, and starring the already-legendary Lon Chaney.

As we all know well, the "phantom" that "haunts" the Paris Opera House in the 1880s is really a deformed man by the name of Erik, who lives in the caverns underneath the Opera. He has fallen in love with a young singer named Christine, and he brings her career to great heights with the help of his tutoring (and a bit of blackmail). But this comes at a price: Erik's one demand is that, when the time comes, Christine must give her love to him. And when he finally comes to collect, she is more than a little unwilling... and the Phantom doesn't like that at all.

Phantom is notable for having an incredibly early instance of Technicolor, during the Masquerade ball scene- apparently there were 17 minutes filmed, but the scene I saw only ran for 4 or 5 minutes. It's amusingly primitive, and looks quite washed out (probably from age), but it's still neat to see, just because of how early it really is.

As for the progression of the plot, it's actually merely acceptable. Christine's relationship with her lover, Raoul, isn't really given enough focus, and he's a little flat and one-dimensional as a result. Carlotta, Christine's rival, doesn't appear enough- basically all scenes related to her character are given to her mother, not Carlotta herself. Other adaptations did well by having her act on her own authority, making her much stronger.A character by the name of Ledoux feels like a deus ex machina: he somehow knows all of the Phantom's secrets, claiming to have "been studying him for months"- but how could he have known all of these things without other characters being aware of him, and why didn't he tell anyone sooner, and most importantly, why did he want to investigate what seemed like a ghost in the first place? (Now, this one actually has an explanation - Ledoux was filmed as The Persian, a character from the novel who was a friend of the Phantom's, but for whatever reason, the intertitles completely changed his character.) You can't fault the many fun sequences - like a genuinely well-done ballet at the beginning (even if you can't hear whatever it is they're dancing to), that famous scene of the chandelier collapsing, or the sheer spectacle of the whole film, with an enormous number of extras - nor some great intertitles ("You dance above the bodies of tortured men!") - but as a whole, the movie could use a bit of work.

Ah, but of course, technical tricks and story aren't what you want to see when you watch this movie. You want to see the Man of A Thousand Faces do his thing! Lon Chaney's Phantom is already renowned, even by the people who haven't seen the film (that is, most average moviegoers), and he's terrifying. His makeup is astounding in its effectiveness, and it's a primally chilling effect. His acting is great too, as he had found the perfect way to be over-the-top without being silly. The famous scene where Christine (played by Mary Philbin) unmasks him is perfectly done- Chaney shouts, stares at the camera for a second (to allow the audience to finish screaming/scream some more?), stands up and turns around to look at Philbin, and points a long, accusing finger at the girl. "Feast your eyes," his intertitle says, "glut your soul on my accursed ugliness!" And then he lets out quite possibly the best evil laugh in cinema history- and it's one you don't even hear.

The originally filmed ending for Phantom of the Opera was much like the ending of the book, and most other adaptations: Erik sadly lets Christine and Raoul go, to be together, and after he watches them go, he dies of a broken heart. This, I think, would be the better ending, since it's a bit more dramatic, fitting, and gives a bit more sympathy to the Phantom. But the studio thought it wasn't exciting enough, and this version makes him quite unsympathetic anyway, so the ending was replaced with an action sequence in which the Phantom spirits Christine away on a carriage, chased by an angry mob. They overturn the carriage, freeing Christine, and the Phantom is chased to the edge of a riverbank. Now, though I said before that I think I'd have liked the original ending better, it's hard for me NOT to love what happens next: as the angry mob closes in, and Erik knows his doom is here, he suddenly appears to pull something out of his coat and hold it up in the air- with a knowing glance, almost like a wink, at the camera. The mob stops, frightened. What is it? A grenade? A knife? The Phantom laughs, and opens his hand to reveal- nothing at all! The mob resumes their attack, and pushes him into the river, where he sinks and drowns, and the film ends. It may not be what I'd prefer, but it's still an awesome ending.

One quick note: To enjoy Phantom much at all, you're going to need to remember a few things. First: You must watch this movie at the speed it was originally projected, 16 frames per second. Yes, it does look a little silly, but if you watch it at the 24 FPS speed that you would normally be accustomed to in a movie, it moves more slowly than a snail travelling underwater! This is the speed at which the YouTube copy plays; it does work fine at some points, but other times, everything takes forever. Second: be sure that there is music playing that fits the film! Again, the YouTube copy botches this, playing pretty harp music or tender string ballads during all the really tense parts.

The Phantom of the Opera is basically made by Lon Chaney's performance. Without him, the film would just be good. But with him, it's incredible.

Stars: **** (Out of 5)
Awesome

"Frankenweenie" Review

Love him or hate him, you can't say that Tim Burton doesn't know what he like to see in a movie. Basically every film with his touch on it - be he producer or director - always features at least a few of the many tropes he consistently uses. Frankenweenie may be the Tim Burtoniest movie he's made in a long while, as it includes black-and-white imagery, a misfit protagonist, some social commentary, music by Danny Elfman, stop motion animation, distinctive character designs, dogs, stripes, Catherine O'Hara, stitches, a creepy atmosphere, a vague time period, Winona Ryder,  weird children, overbearing parents, Martin Landau, lots of cool monsters... you get the picture. So does Frankenweenie use all its cliches to help itself, or hurt itself? Well... the best answer is, both.

A young boy named Victor Frankenstein (yes, really) loves his dog, Sparky, more than anything else in the world. Sparky is basically Victor's only friend, and the star of his many amateur movies. But one day, Sparky is tragically killed in a car accident, and Victor is left heartbroken. In an act of desperation, Victor uses some basic knowledge learned in Science class, as well as his own interest in the subject, to stitch Sparky's corpse back together and try to use electricity to bring him back to life- and, staggeringly, it works- Sparky lives again, and the two friends are reunited Victor does his best to keep his amazing achievement a secret, but word ends up getting out, and soon, all of Victor's classmates have their own plans to bring back dead creatures in time for the school Science Fair.

The central problem with Frankenweenie is that it has a very simple premise that is executed in a far too complex way. The basic story of a boy who reanimates his dead dog is an intriguing idea, and there are plenty of ways to play around with the implications and possible outcomes. After all, dogs do die eventually, and accepting that fact is something that any child with a dog has to face eventually- that lesson is learned in many other films in years past, like Old Yeller, Where the Red Fern Grows, Marley & Me, etc. But what if that was a lesson the kid didn't want to learn? What if, by his own hands, he adds an extra step to that formula: boy meets dog-boy loves dog and dog loves boy-dog dies... dog comes back to life? That's an incredible idea, one that deserves a lot of credit. But Burton, unfortunately, completely squanders it.

The bulk of the film barely even features Victor or Sparky, let alone the two of them together. There are a large number of supporting characters, all of whom get a bit too much screen time for their own good. They have little in the way of unique personality, most of them fitting one of three templates: one of Victor's creepy, overly-serious classmates who wants to replicate his experiments; a jerk grown-up that either hates or doesn't understand kids; or completely devoid of any unique traits at all. The voice actors are also rather underwhelming in some respects (though others aren't that bad)- especially the characters of Edgar Gore (E. Gore, get it?), who is clearly meant to be a Peter Lorre tribute, but whose child actor makes barely any attempt to actually impersonate Lorre; and Nassor (voiced by Martin Short of all people), whose design is clearly based on Frankenstein's Monster, but Short's Boris Karloff impression is stilted and unimpressive.

It's a shame, really, as the overall design of the characters and film is actually something quite interesting. All the characters look interesting and unique, and there are a lot of monsters in the film that have really great designs as well. Burton is very good at creating odd-looking beings and people, and as far as design goes, he's at top form here.

The animation is to be commended, also. The third act features a lot of complex stunts and effects that were no doubt very hard to pull off in stop-motion, and the characters all have a lot of, well, character to them. Much of Sparky's personality is seen through his behavior - since he is, of course, only a dog, and doesn't appear all that much - and the way he is animated makes him instantly lovable. His tail wags, he runs and jumps around energetically, and you can always tell what he's thinking just by looking at his face. He's your dog, essentially- anyone who's ever spent a lot of time around a canine will see something about them in Sparky. It's quite a shame, again, that the relationship between Sparky and Victor is so underdeveloped, because not a lot of time is used or needed to make you relate to the two- you do almost immediately.

Frankenweenie has a lot of style, and it does, at least, do a good job of homaging to classic horror films of the 30s-50s. It's just a real shame that that style was used in favor of any focus on the genuinely exciting story premise that it has.

Stars: ** (Out of 5)
Awful