The Critical Frog: Les Miserables (2012)- Good or Bad?

Where do you start reviewing something with such a cultural impact on modern media as Les Miserables? It's a little tricky to pinpoint exactly where it's impact began, and thus how the version I'm discussing weighs in to the original's legacy. So I'll start from the very beginning.

In 1862, the renowned author Victor Hugo published his magnum opus- Les Miserables, a title that can be translated to "The Miserable Ones" or even "The Depressed". It caused a great stir in late 1800s England, causing critics to pan the original book and citizens to protest and riot over it's publishing. But as time went by, people started to notice that it was, in fact, a powerful work that spread it's message of rebellion, hope and poverty with a heavy heart and a lasting impact on whoever reads it. It became so popular that a play based on the novel was released on Broadway, and became an instant hit: It was true to the story, had phenomenal scenery and music, and was overall a fantastic performance. But I'm not a play critic, so let's continue with the timeline.

Over the years, Les Miserables has inspired many other plays, reimaginings, and even a fighting game (which, for some reason, is called "Arm Joe") with it's legacy. And recently, in 2012, a new chapter was added, this time in cinema. Les Miserables hit the big screen as a musical three years ago- and continues to be a subject of laughter among die-hard Les Miz fans. But it really as bad as they say?

Let's get the big thing out of the way- yeah, Russel Crowe is not a very good Javert. While his voice works for the part, it's just so awkward and jutting out that you can't help but pick on it. But here's the thing: the reason Russel Crowe sounds so out of place is because he is. Crowe doesn't sing dramatic pieces, he's accustomed to simple baritone and deep tones. and attempting to fit into each different part just isn't his style. Of course it wasn't an ideal casting choice, but it's fair to say this is less of Crowe's fault and more of his voice's.

One of the big problems of adaptation is the time limit: with a book, you can take as long as you need to write and flesh out the characters and story. With a play, audiences usually allow 2-3 hours at least to hold attention and tell the story. With a film, audiences allow 2 hours AT MOST to tell the story. I honestly think they didn't do too bad compressing it.

But what about the time lapses? The odd close-ups? The lack of the powerful scenery found in the play? Those are all factors, There's no excuse for the lack of the powerful scenery found in the play (barricades, anyone?) or the sometimes mismatched casting (although admittedly the film could be improved by having Jackman play Wolverine in this film), but taking into consideration the limits imposed on a film adaptation on a timeless book, it's not too bad......
**ducks under desk** please don't hurt me, Le Miz fans..

Jurisdiction: Good
OVERALL RATING: 7/10
-----------------------
By Les Miz standards. it lacks compared to the Broadway version, but as a standalone film, it's not bad. Now kindly put down your pitchforks and torches and remove yourselves from my room.

The Critical Frog: The Cell

Have you ever heard of exploitation media? They're designed to take a single subject and exploit every little thing about it in hopes that the shock value will draw in customers. The categories range from sexploitation (Showgirls), to blacksploitation (The Boondocks) and even to bloodsploitation (Saw, Friday the 13th). There's no doubt that this kind of film has effects on popular culture and future media projects, and some have even gained cult followings.

There's nothing wrong with an over-the-top exploitation project- heck, I love Black Dynamite as much as the next guy - but there are always the rotten few exploitation films that give the rest a bad name. The worst kind of these, in my opinion? The exploitation films that really think they're trying to say more than they mean, and think that because it takes a lot of thought to understand them that it automatically makes the film "Art". And then you have The Cell.

The Cell is sickening to watch; not because of the shock value (of which there is little to begin with), or the long and boring scenes- it's that it tries too hard to be artistic, so hard that it drops everything else and abandons all inklings of plot to try to convince us through visuals that it means more than it really does.

How do I describe this art project? I guess director Tarsem (because last names are not artsy enough) really wanted to show us what goes on inside a screwed-up mind. But if he really wanted to do that, he coulda just asked me to borrow mine. No need to spend 50$ million on a make-your-own version.

But I'm getting way ahead of myself. What's the plot?

Well, we've got our crazy detective, our hot lady, and our serial killer. Mr, Detective is crazy about catching the killer, who apparently loves to kill women slowly by drowning. He's captured another lady and is apprehended, but cannot reveal the woman's prison place because he is in a drug-induced coma.

After much discussion, the cops decide that the best thing to do would be to (get this) enter the killer's disturbed mind in hopes of discovering the trapped woman's location. Naturally, because the man is known for killing beautiful women, the best thing to do is to send the most attractive woman the cops can find into the killer's brain in a skin-tight bodysuit. She plunges into the brain and encounters jumpscares, nonsensical imagery and disturbing scenes in an attempt to find the location, but when she does not return, it's up to our detective hero to save the day.

There are a lot of messed-up images in this picture: over the course of the film we see torture, gore, skeletons, sadistic devices, and various other images that clearly indicate that Tarsem wants to leave you feeling unsettled. There are idiotic quotes and scenes ("If we don't stop the killer, he's going to keep killing"- no s**t, sherlock) and stupid morals (in case you didn't know child abuse was bad) balanced out by strange imagery, and overall it leads to a messy film.
Is this what people consider "Art" film? If so, I hate to think of what they consider to be real art.

OVERALL RATING: 3/10
--------------------------------------
If you're going to try to show intense scenes like child abuse, torture and murder, you'd BETTER do it right. The Cell does not. The imagery is so surreal and so difficult to comprehend that and art quality they would get across is lost in the sheer amount of graphic brutality and bizarre scenes that the film throws at us. Want to see an example of meaningful art in media? Try the old Hey Arnold episode "Pigeon Man". That gets the message across without complex imagery and shock value in under 15 minutes. That's right, a cartoon for children has more of my respect than a multimillion-dollar budget film.

Although I disagree with the imagery representative of the killer and his mind, I do appreciate the dedication put into the scenery and the intense scenes. You can see every little spot of blood on the intestines, if that's your kind of thing.

Frog Announcement: Blog Closing (Re-opening TBA)

There's some big news about the blog, and unfortunately, it's bad: I'm closing down shop. A lot has been going on lately in my life, with my parents and my schoolwork and my own mental state, and as such I really don't have time to pursue a lost cause like this anymore.

It's not like this was anything special anyway- I'm sure there are a million film critics out there who are all better than me- so luckily I won't be letting too many people down. I've given some thought into re-opening the blog, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time or sanity to commit fully to a post for a bit, so I may not re-open. In case I don't, I just wanted to say how much I'll miss it.

Film is, and always will be, the object of my ideals- be they real or unreal- and for the time being, it was fun to try to make my opinions heard. It felt good to finally have a voice. Isn't it ironic that the instant I start to develop one, something stops it? '

So long, everybody. It's been...... a trip.

The Critical Frog: Taken 3

Haven't I seen this movie before? Is there a rule or something that shoot-em-up films always have to involve either Arabs or Russians or Germans? Not that I have a problem with any of these peoples, but clearly some big shots in the film industry do. It's been quite a while since I've seen a non-superhero action film that doesn't involve at least one of the three. And all of them seem to star some grizzled action star rescuing a female that probably has a tie to the star. For example, let's just take a random enemy, a random action star and a random plot device, stick them together and see what comes out.

Ok, a relevant foe? Let's go with.....terrorists of some sort. Can't go wrong with terrorists.
A grizzled action star? I'm gonna say Liam Neeson. Pretty good casting. Very original.
And some kind of plot device? How about the main character's daughter? That's a good device!

Well, we've got out story: Liam Neeson is out to rescue his daughter from some terrorists and stop their evil plot, which of course involves hiding a bomb somewhere. Now this is our original film idea, and it's nothing like anyone's ever seen- oh, wait. Taken. Nevermind.

Why would I take the time out of my day to review the same movie I've seen about 100 times? Why would YOU take the time out of your day to read a review of the same thing you've seen about 100 times? Why would ANYONE watch the exact same movie they just saw unless it's decent? Seriously, everyone- get a hobby. Get a dog. Play some League Of Legends. Find a mate. Just stop making the exact same film that you made a billion lookalikes of.

OVERALL RATING: 4/10
-----------------------------------------
Why would I even take the time to rate this differently than I rate any other stereotypical action film?

The Critical Frog: Spare Parts

(Sorry for the lateness, everybody. I've got a lot on my plate lately with schoolwork and family issues, so I may not be updating as often. But until then, I'll go as fast as I can to crank out good reviews for you.)

When a comedian wants to show that he can do more than just comedy, he'll flex his acting muscles a bit and do something different than his normal work (and whether that's good or bad I leave up to you). This even applies to already talented actors (Nicolas Cage, master of the freak out, pulled off a surprisingly cool performance in Kick-Ass). Sometimes the comedian will do something great, like 50 First Dates or Punch Drunk Love. Others wind up with something infamously terrible (Bonjour, Jerry Lewis). So it was only natural that eventually a comedian like George Lopez would try his hand at some redemption. (Redemption for what? Have you ever SEEN some of his routines?)

I think there's some sort of hat that comedians draw out of to determine what kind of serious film they get into. I can almost see the brainstorming session for Lopez's now:

Announcer: Welcome, Hollywood executives, to the Wheel Of Film Deals! Today's show is brought to you by Old El Paso fake Mexican food, and tonight's special guest is almost the same: Ladies and Gentlemen, it's George Lopez!

George Lopez: Hey, everyone! It's a pleasure to be here! You know, a funny thing happened on the way to the show taping-

Announcer: No time for Jokes, Lopez. Please, spin the wheel and see what kind of film you get to attempt to redeem yourself for some of your worse routines in!

George Lopez- Wait, is that how we do this? Trejo told me there was an obstacle course and that I had to wear this sparkly suit...... I bought it off the guy for 700 grand.

Announcer- Is that why you look like a balding, hispanic Elvis?

George Lopez- Why that lying jerk! Soon as I get back there I'm going to clean his clock.....

Announcer- Don't mind Danny, he's just joking around. He's been that way ever since Spy Kids.

George Lopez- Really? That long? I mean, I imagined after Danny Trejo's cameo in Muppets Most Wanted he'd get a little goofy side, but I didn't think it went so far back.....

Announcer- Just spin the freaking wheel already.

And so he spun the wheel, and it landed on "Documentary".

Announcer: Congrats, George! That's the first one we've seen in a while!

GL: Ok, sounds fun. What's it about?

A: Some kids in a bad school who build a robot while evading the local immigration laws. We've got the script lined up and everything.

GL: How are the kids at acting?

A: They're not bad, actually. Although one of them kind of looks like a grown-up version of one of the kids in The Critical Frog's old Yu-Gi-Oh club (hi Christian!)
GL: Who's The Critical Frog?

A: Nevermind. Just get to filming.

OVERALL RATING: 7/10
----------------------------------------
Putting aside the bad jokes, Lopez gives a very good serious performance laced with a tinge of his typical humor. There are some sweet scenes here and there, and the eventual building scenes and robotics competition are engaging to watch, and for what it is, it's a decent documentary.

The Critical Frog: Life Itself

Say it ain't so, Roger.

Say that none of these painful experiences truly damaged you. Say that your life was a completely happy one, that the pain you felt never stopped you. Say that everything was OK.

Let us believe. We critics need our heroes.

Of all the film critics in all the world, Roger Ebert was clearly the voice among them. When he passed away 2 years ago, every critic shed a tear, me included, for the future of criticism. Without a definitive voice, who would take up the reins and lead criticism into the modern era? Who could possibly follow in the footsteps of a giant like Ebert? Why, Ebert himself of course! Wait, what?

Yes, Ebert packed one last surprise in the form of the film Life Itself. A beautiful picture of the work and upbringing of the great critic, his family and friends join Ebert's narration from his autobiography as they talk about the ups and downs of the giant's life. We learn of his history, as an alcoholic, then as a journalist, then as a TV star and rising up to being the leading man on the subject of film. We see his memories told through his voice, and that makes them so much more profound.

The only reason I had so much trouble watching this primarily comes from the fact that Ebert was.... well, my idol. At the end of his life, he had to undergo multiple surgeries due to jaw cancer, and as such he was left with an open hole for a mouth and an inability to speak or eat. Although he appears happy, playing with his grandkids and continuing the criticism work via blog, you can see the amount of pain he's in. And whether or not you know what it feels like, when the one you idolize is in pain, you feel the pain too.

But, despite his condition, he grew an even larger following, later becoming, as I like to put it, the suave uncle of the internet, one of the voices telling what is right and wrong that, obligingly, you listen to. He even pulled a 1-up on all other critics by totally admitting the few cases where he was wrong. Through his attitude online and his relations to his fanbase without voice, he left a legacy to watch. And now, with the release of Life Itself, we can. Do I occasionally disagree with his opinions? Sometimes (what's wrong with Three Amigos? I LIKE Three Amigos). Do I think video games are art, opposed to him? I do (Ebert clearly never played Shadow Of The Colossus). Are ALL his opinions mine? Not entirely. But do I respect them? Of course. That's how Ebert acted, and that's how any critic should.

  Oh, Roger, my friend, my fellow critic, my guy-who-loves-movies-and-who-kind-of-reminds-me-of-my-grandpa, I tip my hat to you one last time. We will cross paths again on this blog, however- come April, that is. I'm thinking of going to the Valley of the Dolls. Probably beyond it.'

OVERALL RATING: Two Thumbs Up!
-------------------------------------------
Was there any other way to grade Ebert's life story besides with Ebert's trademark? Definitely not.

The Critical Frog: Night At The Museum 3: Secret Of The Tomb

 Happy 2015! **Fires Party Cannon**

(I hate to break the solo vibe I have going on here, but I have a bet going with my dad on the ending to the film- an ending that I must spoil in order to proceed with the argument. He likes the ending, and I frankly think it should have cut out 5 minutes sooner. He's got a review of the ending up at writingwithscissors.blogspot.com in favor of the happy, subdued end. Take a look at them both, and cast your vote: would you prefer a gigantic party or a subtle, ambiguous number?)

Following the death of Robin Williams, is it really right to kick off the new year by taking a few pot shots at the last film he added his gift to? Not that there's anything wrong with Williams in this part.

Of course, the first few Night at the Museum films were charming, with Ben Stiller faced with a living museum full of historic legends and lighthearted stories. They weren't anything super special, but it's not like I can't appreciate the cute jokes and impressive ideas they brought to the table. Night At The Museum 2 even managed to get the Smithsonian involved, turning real statues and paintings into memorable characters and scenery. And such Night At The Museum 3 drags the British Museum into the mixture, and once again new characters and scenes follow.

The story of the final act is quite simple: Ben Stiller's character Larry, still the night guard of the magic museum, discovers that the magical tablet of Akmenrah that powers the entire museum's revival is losing it's power. Akmenrah himself, keeper of the tablet, informs Larry that the only people who understand how to fix the tablet are his parents, who are locked away in the British museum. Larry and Akmenrah set out to find them, and unintentionally bring along a team to assist them. This team consists of Teddy Roosevelt (Williams), Sacajawea, a tiny cowboy, a tiny Roman, a monkey, Attila the Hun, and a caveman who looks suspiciously like Stiller (upon investigating the credits, I discovered they were indeed both played by Ben Stiller) who has been affectionately named "La".  And so the race is on to hunt through the newly awakened museum and recharge the tablet before it loses power...and takes the museum and it's living history along with it.

Overall, this isn't a bad film- I wouldn't call it classic or pure evil,  but I would say it's harmless at the very least. Williams is fantastic as the most epic president of our time, the CGI can be cool at times, and the story plays out well, alebit a bit shifty at times. It's alright, bring the kids- and kudos for making me feel bad for a taxidermied monkey.

OVERALL RATING: 6/10

----------------------------------------

Well, if you just came for the review, then you are free to go. But if you want to hear exactly what I thought of the ending, and precisely why NATM 3 needed to end a bit earlier.

I really hope I'm not giving the fact that the film ends in the same way as the last 2 did: with a big party in the museum, thanks to the power of the newly-reformed tablet. Yeah, it's predictable, but the real shining moment near the ending comes after the gang returns home from Britain. As the group agrees to leave the tablet with Ak and his family, safe under the protection of a statue of Lancelot, they are sure that the magic will drain out of them by sunrise. They say their sad farewells, Larry and the monkey share a kiss (Hey now, PG rating), Teddy and his girlfriend Sacajawea part, and Larry says goodbye to his friends forever, with the slight reassurance that they are happy giving up their lives for the greater good and continuing to teach the leaders of tomorrow. 

So what makes me want to stop the film here? Well, yes, its not very happy for a kid's film, but kid's films can be used to address issues like death in a slightly friendly matter. It's a simple case of putting the advantages for others over the advantages for yourself. How interesting is it when a film requires a kid to think? It's all open to interpretation- how the characters feel, how Larry responds to the loss of his friends, and how the British museum's new cast will react to their sudden life (as Teddy Williams explains, it's confusing to suddenly come to life after 100 years). No matter what you think, depending on what you imagine happens, someone's not going to be happy, and the kids just have to deal with it. It shows that loss can be a part of life, and leaves everything open to interpretation, like a good ending should do. It makes you laugh a bit, it makes you cry, and most of all, it makes you think. Not bad for the same film that has a monkey peeing on midgets.

You can cast your vote- Frog Vs. Dad- in this poll. Vote for your favorite kind of ending and settle this debate once and for all!

(And don't forget- one of us is actually a film critic, and probably knows his way around a movie theater more than the other, while the other has been scientifically proven not to be able to thrive on less than 19 hours of sleep per day. I'm just sayin'.)

http://goo.gl/jasFdH