Excellent Screen Adaptation of Epic Musical

I was trying to delay seeing Les Miserables over X'mas because the depressing story didn't seem to fit in well with the jolly Holiday Season. So having finally watched it earlier this week, I was pleasantly surprised. No wonder the movie has garnered eight Oscar nominations - Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Production Design, Best Original Music (the new song Suddenly was written for the movie), Best Sound Mixing, Best Costumes, and Best Makeup and Hairstyling - 25 years after the Broadway musical won eight Tony Awards.

Les Miserables was never one of my favourite musicals, but the large-screen adaptation is an excellent masterpiece on all fronts and, in fact, is even better than the stage version itself! Director Tom Hooper makes the transitions between scenes seamless and beautiful. Under his lenses, the distinction between good and evil;  the misery of the poor and deprived; the beautiful love story; and the vigour of the French revolution are all portrayed with perfection. After such great feats as The King's Speech and Les Miserables, Hooper is now added to my most-respected directors list.

The cast is wonderful as far as the acting is concerned. Anne Hathaway is such a talented actress that it's not surprising that she's one of the few leading actors who can really sing. Hugh Jackman's performance as the lead actor in this film certainly transcends his X-Men fame. Having said that, there's acting and there's singing. Apart from Anne Hathaway who is just outstanding as a songstress and actress, most of the other lead actors in the film are just mediocre singers. By now, we've all read about the challenges this film's actors had to face by singing live throughout the movie. Russell Crowe should definitely never take up a musical role ever again - even his acting has been kind of lacklustre of late! I heard that Paul Bettany was originally considered for the role of Inspector Javert and he would have done a much better job than Crowe. Although gifted and trained as a singer, Jackman is more impressive as an actor playing Jean Valjean instead of his vocal skills. Eddie Redmayne is one of those British actors who always exceeds your expectations, but you can never remember his name or which was the last movie he's in.

In spite of my dislike of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, both of them are convincing as buffoon characters and I'm surprised that Lady Bonham Carter can actually sing! But I thought the most outstanding songstress in this flick is 22-year-old Samantha Barks who plays Eponine. I've read that she won this role over Taylor Swift and this is certainly no small feat.

Hugh Jackman may not beat Daniel Day-Lewis in the Best Actor category, but let's hope Les Miserables the movie can do better than Lincoln at the Oscars next month.

A New Perspective Of Condemning Slavery

I love watching Quentin Tarantino's movies because they are like cartoons with real-life people in it. They are always extravagant, violent, ultra-creative and extremely funny. I guess this sums up his new movie Django Unchained as well - brilliantly original, skillfully crafted, hilariously funny, wildly entertaining and cooler than Jay-Z!

The director's eighth movie took him 130 days to shoot with some of the wild, wild West scenes (taking place in the south, rather than the West) filmed in California, Wyoming and at the National Historic Landmark Evergreen Plantation in Wallace, Louisana, just outside of New Orleans. That's why Candyland looks stunning in the movie - the ultimate castle for all evil white men!

Every Tarantino film has a key message - for Django Unchained, the message is loud and clear: slavery and racial discrimination are despicable and abominable, and should be avenged! Tarantino decided to drive home this message via a Spaghetti-Western genre - his first attempt ever! And it's such an original masterpiece!

As a long-time Tarantino fan (I've seen and loved all his movies), I've come to expect a couple of things when I go experience his works of art: original creativity, clever screenplay, stylish execution, the use of quirky but aptly-selected music, and so much violence that it becomes super comical. All these attributes exist in Django Unchained again. Even then, Tarantino sensitively postponed the worldwide screening of the movie after the horrible Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Connecticut.

The cast is outstanding and each of them deserves an Academy Award for either Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor. I can't even imagine how Will Smith (Tarantino wrote the entire story with Smith in mind for the role of Django Freeman) could have done a better job than Jamie Foxx who rode his own horse Cheetah in the movie and, for his equestrian skills alone, I can go see this film one more time. Although both Leonardo Di Caprio and Christoph Waltz are nominated for a Gloden Globe as Best Supporting Actor, I think this should be given to the latter who manages to outshine everybody else once again or to Samuel L. Jackson who has a powerful, albeit minor role in the film.

I read somewhere that director Spike Lee refused to see the movie because he thought Tarantino misused the 'n' word too many times and that Lee claimed that he respects his ancestors too much to watch such a 'ridiculous' movie. Well, I'm not going to repeat how Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson defended the movie, but to the diehard group of Tarantino's followers and fans, most of whom are young men, the movie is a different and less serious way to condemn black slavery than Roots, Lincoln or The Help.

Tarantino first made his fame in La La Land as a screen writer, so it's not surprising that he's not only up for a Golden Globe for Best Screenplay, but also as Best Director and Best Movie. Let's hope it's not going to be beaten by the very boring Lincoln!

New Anna Karenina Lacks Depth

I'm a big fan of Tom Stoppard's. I also like most of director Joe Wright's works including Hanna and Pride & Prejudice. That's why I'm a bit disappointed with the new Anna Karenina featuring Stoppard as the screenplay writer and Wright as the director.

As a Russian literature major at university, I have huge expectations of Tolstoy's epic novel being adapted into a movie. This classic is a timeless, liberating literary work for women - in late 19th century imperial Russia, an aristocratic married woman gave up everything for her affair with the young Count Vronsky. I always have different expectations of who should be playing Karenina and who should be Vronsky. Even though both 27-year-old Keira Knightley and 22-year-old Aaron Taylor-Johnson did a good job, they are, in my opinion, miscasts. Knightley shows her passion well but is less convincing as the tormented adulteress facing her moral conundrum. Taylor-Johnson's love in real life is more than 20 years his senior, so he should have had a better grasp as Count Vronsky. But playing John Lennon (his most famous role so far) is very different from playing a young Russian military calvary officer who swept a married upper-class woman off her feet.

Jude Law as the older, cuckolded Karenin, is the best in the entire cast and might earn him another Oscar nomination as Best Supporting Actor. Olivia Williams (The Ghost Writer) as Countess Vronsky is also very impressive. What on earth has happened to Matthew Macfadyen (the dashing Mr. Darcy in Pride & Prejudice)? He has gained more than 10 pounds as the playful Oblonsky in this flick.

My strongest criticisms of this movie are the very average screenplay adaptation of such an epic novel by one of the best contemporary playwrights Tom Stoppard, and the campiness of the entire production. I'm sure the film might win Best Cinematography or Best Costume or both. But director Joe Wright's attempt at putting most of the film behind frame in an ancient Russian theatre just doesn't quite work. It also never integrates seamlessly with the story of Levin, most of which was shot outdoors in the fields. The film reminds me of Atonement, another of Wright's works, which was also too campy in style for me.

In spite of my harsh comments, the movie is still worth seeing if you're a fan of period drama.

Ang Lee Works His Magic Once Again!

There are only two Canadian writers whose Booker-Prize-winning novels were adapted and made into movies. Michael Ondaatje's The English Patient not only won The Booker Prize in 1992, but the film, directed by the late Antony Minghella in 1996, also won nine Academy Awards. Now, French Canadian author Yann Martel's Man-Booker-Prize-winning Life of Pi (2002) will probably experience the same glory at the Oscars next February. Award-winning director Ang Lee (one of my favourites) once again works his magic behind the camera and, lo and behold, Life of Pi shot in 3D is such a visual feast!

Everything, good or bad, is beautiful and visually stunning in the movie - the storm, the zoo, the sky, sunset and sunrise, even the animal-kill-animal scenes. A lot of people and critics have juxtaposed this movie to Avatar in terms of visual and technological supremacy, but because I haven't watched James Cameron's movie, I cannot compare. I cannot simply imagine Life of Pi shot without 3D technology. How else can anybody capture the wonders of God's creation?

For somebody like me who never have any particular affinity or interest in wild animals or even pets, I'm in awe of all the animals, mammals, fish and birds in this flick, particularly the tiger. Ang Lee has disclosed in many media interviews that he has used four real Bengal tigers for the movie, but for most of the tiger shots on the lifeboat, they are CGI creations. Teenaged principal actor Suraj Sharma plays the 16-year-old Pi extremely well given that he has never had any acting experience prior to this movie. Apparently, he didn't even intend to go for the audition but accompanied his brother instead. At the end, Ang Lee picked Sharma out of 3,000 other teenagers.

But what's most intriguing about the movie is the faith of Pi in God. He's raised a Hindu, believes in Christ and practises Islam as well. To Pi, all three faiths can merge and co-exist as one. During Pi's struggle for survival, he constantly converses with God. The movie also has numerous metaphors relating to the Christian faith - Noah's ark immediately comes to mind.

Towards the end of the movie, we all draw our own conclusions as to what really happened during the shipwreck. But as a Canadian, I'm proud of Yann Martel's inspiring novel and the movie's location shoots in Montreal in addiiton to India and Taiwan. I'm even more proud of Chinese-American director Ang Lee, who, in his own modest yet confident demeanor, presented another accomplishment as a multi-talented director and artist. The enthusiastic applause from the audience indicates that this movie is not only a critics' favourite, but also a cinematic work of art appreciated by all.

Hitchcock: A Focus On Strong Actors

Watching Hitchcock is like watching the movie A Week With Marilyn. Because everybody knows what really happened to these iconic characters in Hollywood, we, as the audience, form our own views as to whether this movie is true to reality or even whether we like it or not as an art form. But you don't have to like or know Alfred Hitchcock to really enjoy this movie. The focus is on the strong actors, from principal to supporting - Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson and Toni Collette.

Hopkins is hardly recognizable with his prosthetic makeup and fat suit, but he still gives a very strong performance. Helen Mirren, as Hitchcock's wife Alma Reville, once again outshines everybody and her performance might earn her another Oscar nomination. Johansson already looks the part with her blonde wig, but I still have to give her credit for playing Janet Leigh, the mother of Jamie Lee Curtis, with such charm and glamor. In those days, movie stars do look like movie stars! On the other hand, why would a talented actor like Toni Collette accept the role of Hichcock's assistant Peggy? Michael Stuhlberg's performance as the big Hollywood talent agent Lew Wasserman is a bit weak, and Andrew Garfield would have been more convincing as Anthony Perkins than James D'Arcy. Jessica Biel never strikes me as a good actor and she even looks tired as Vera Miles in this flick.

The film is not about the director Hitchcock. Its emphasis is on the love story and relationship between the renowned director and his wife Alma. Their relationship came to a crisis when Hitchcock was shooting the movie Psycho. We learned that even a successful box office director had to be at the mercy of the big Hollywood studios and behind the success, his pride, ego, insecurities, jealousy, obsessions with his characters and fantasies for blonde screen sirens almost engulfed him in his own artistic world. Hitchcock's determination to make an unusual movie best demonstrated that the best artists are those who take risks and experiment with new, innovative ideas and approaches no matter how high the stakes are.

Having the character Hitchcock play Prologue and Epilogue to the movie is an interesting approach. But having the real psycho Norman Bates appear throughout the movie does not work as well unless the director Sacha Gervasi wants us to think that Hitchcock himself is a bit of a psycho himself!

Ben Affleck Matures As Director

It's the time of the year when everybody is talking about which movies would be considered as Oscar contenders. The Master, Lincoln and Argo are all on the favourites' list. All three are based on true stories or events although The Master is a fictional depiction of a true-life cult religion leader.

I haven't seen Lincoln yet, but Argo would definitely win some Oscars if not the Best Director award for Ben Affleck. At the time when tension, once again, arises in the Middle East, particularly in Iran, this real story which happened in the '70s is very timely and relevant.

I was never a fan of Affleck's as an actor, but I saw all three of his feature films which are all excellent. Gone Baby Gone and The Town both took place in small towns near Boston and have a melancholic tone to the story treatment. But Argo is history - a very funny and suspenseful portrait of a real event. As one could imagine, nobody could probably film in Tehran now, so most of the movie was shot in nearby Turkey. In addition to Affleck, who plays CIA agent Tony Mendez, a cast of veteran actors support him - Canadian Victor Garber as the Canadian Ambassador to Iran; Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) as Mendez's CIA boss; John Goodman as Hollywood makeup director John Chambers; Alan Arkin as Hollywood producer Lester Siegel; and Tate Donovan (Damages) as the leader of the U.S. embassy staff in Tehran.

The movie keeps you sitting on the edge of your seat from beginning to end. The attention to detail is superb - from the hairstyle to the props and furniture to the wardrobe. The real protagonist Tony Mendez, I read, was very involved in the production of the movie and has now become a good friend of Affleck's. Canada had a huge role to play in the successful rescue of the embassy hostages and, in spite of some criticisms from Canadian media about the movie's disproportionate emphasis on the heroism of the CIA agent, I thought due credit has been given to the Canadian Ambassdaor who made this whole escape possible.

Chris Terrio, who wrote the screenplay, deserves an Oscar nomination. Not only are the dialogues funny, witty and tense, they also absolutely form the important skeleton to the entire movie. Dirty politics are still at play here, but at least all hostages have been rescued due to a silly but brilliant idea.

Ben Affleck has come a long  way from his Good Will Hunting and JLo-love-affair days. Film critics have even been calling him the Warren Beatty of the 21st century. He has definitely matured as a feature film director who deserved the thunderous applauses at most Argo screenings here in Toronto!

Best 007 Movie In 50-Year Bond Franchise

By now, almost every single review I've read on Skyfall is beyond excellence. Having watched the first show in Canada, I cannot but agree! Not only is it engaging, exciting and sexy, it's visually stunning and as close to reality and logic as a movie on James Bond could ever get.

Kudos first go to director Sam Mandes whose training in classical theatre, including Shakespeare, probably explains why this is the first Bond movie that's poetic not only in storyline and screenplay, but also in its visual glory and structural perfection. This is the first Bond movie that is not related to any previously-published Ian Fleming James Bond short story or novel. In fact, Mendes said that Skyfall does "not connect" with the two previous Bond movies - Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. That's why the film is so much more creative and full of pleasant surprises.

Second to the director, credit should go to the script and screenplay writers - award-winning Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon) and John Logan (RED, Hauptmann and Never The Sinner). The screenplay is so witty that in spite of all the tensions created between Bond and the villain, the sense of humour makes you laugh throughout the movie and marvel at the writers. In an interview with CNN, Daniel Craig revealed that he had a lot of input on the screenplay and the writers actually listened to him and took some of his suggestions.

A lot of questions have come up about where the 25th Bond movie was shot. Well, the correct answers are Glen Etive, Highland, Scotland; Smithfield Market, Holborn, London, England; London, England; Shanghai, China; Surrey, England; Adana, Turkey; and Istanbul, Turkey. The rest were either studio shots or digital recreations. This is also the first time that a Bond movie has filmed in China.

If anybody has doubts about the cast, let's take a look at the number of individual Academy Awards from this film's cast and crew. Sam Mendes won an Academy Award from American Beauty; Javier Bardem who plays an impressive villain (Kevin Spacey was offered but turned down the role) has two nominations and one win (No Country For Old Men). Ralph Fiennes as M's new boss has two award nominations while Albert Finney and Judi Dench each has five nominations. This leaves only Daniel Craig and Ben Whishaw (as Q) with the thinnest resume. Everybody raves about Bardem as the villain Raoul Silva in this movie, but I actually think we should give both Craig and Whishaw their deserving credit. The latter was proclaimed by many critics as one of the best young actors of his generation and I thought his performance as Q is funny, cute and outstanding!

I read that Daniel Craig was worried about the delays in the film's production as he feels that, at the age of 43, he is already getting too old for the challenging physical demands of the stunts. Well, not only should he not have anything to worry about, but I thought he's, by far, the best Bond ever. I've not seen any other actor in as excellent a shape as he's in. Apart from wearing his Tom Ford suits well, Craig's six-month pre-film preparation and the daily two-hour workout put him in absolute top form!

Among all the actors in the movie, talented Ralph Fiennes and the two Bond girls are disappointments. The former has considerably aged and his character really doesn't need the skills of such a gifted actor. The latter two continue to play sex objects to men - what's most disturbing is that in this day and age, shouldn't they find a Bond girl who is both attractive and intelligent? Perhaps CIA Director David Petraeus's mistress Paula Broadwell (minus her jealousy) could be considered for a future role?

What's most impressive about Skyfall is that Bond is portrayed realistically as an aging and vulnerable spy in the 50-year-old film franchise instead of being the ultra-invincible and indefatigable MI6 star agent. Relevant to our times, Bond is now sensitive, vulnerable and even tormented from his childhood pains! But because of this evolution of his character, we, the audience who grew up with him, tend to relate to him even more! The flick is definitely worth an ecore for me at the IMAX theatre before it retires from the big screen.