Friday, February 15, 2013

Rings of Saturn - "Dingir"

One of my favorite things about this blog is that occasionally friends and acquaintances will approach me at social functions with various comments about it; some suggestions, some criticisms, etc. But by far the most frequent thing I hear is something along the lines of "I don't really listen to any of the music you write about, but I like reading about it because I feel like I'm learning something." These words are truly music to my ears, as I take great joy in educating non-metalheads about the musical smorgasbord that is heavy metal.

So after an unintentional but almost-six month lull in music reviews, school is back in session! Today's lesson: Rings of Saturn and their sophomore effort Dingir. Now, we're going to get to the musical assault of ferocity that is Rings of Saturn's 2nd release. But first, I want to tell you about this band as a whole because in all honesty, they deserve far more recognition than they're currently getting.

Dingir was originally slated for a late November 2012 release. But by October the band had been sucked into a miasma of petty litigation concerning their name, former band members were making specious accusations about recording techniques, and an unfinished, low-quality version of the album had been leaked to the internet. Things were grim, to say the least. But then, Rings of Saturn made an incredibly bold move. Rather than posting a guilt-tripping PSA about internet piracy with B-list celebrities and a parade of judgmental staring, Rings of Saturn released the high-quality official album as a free download through Total Deathcore saying, "If everyone is going to be listening to our new album, we would much rather have everyone listen and jam out to our high quality finished product and share that...we ask that you please still pre-order or purchase our album when it drops on Feb. 5th to support us."


That's right. Rings of Saturn threw themselves on the good will of their fans, and actually - literally - put their money where their mouth is. The ethical issues with music piracy aside, it's hard to care too much when stars with private jets and mansions speak out against piracy because it hurts their "livelihood." And it's downright impossible not to laugh when "thug" rappers whose music revolves around glorifying a life of crime decry piracy because it's stealing. So when I saw that post on Rings of Saturn's Facebook, my jaw practically hit the keyboard. Here is a band who, regardless of what you think about their music, is actually doing what they do because they love making music. 

So  I decided to actually buy an album which - up to that point in time - I didn't have any major plans on purchasing; just on principle.

Here's the scoop on "Dingir"....

THE PROS

I've had a number of non-metalhead friends ask me who I think the heaviest band is, or which is generally the most brutal. It's a tough question to answer, not unlike asking "Who is the most beautiful woman in the world?" It's largely a question of taste, with a loosely-defined but still tangible set of rules. So for example, magazines might put out a list of the "hottest" who's-who and you might personally agree, or change the order around in your head or whatever; it's all about degrees. Similarly, there are a number of bands that plenty of people would agree that - like it or not - produce music that is extreme and punishing and brutal and beyond that threshold it's a matter of taste.

For me personally, "heaviest" is a balance between technical prowess, down-tuned aggression, and utter chaos. Too much of any one of these qualities can move a given band out of the running for my makeshift "Top Five" - but generally speaking bands in the death metal genre (and its subgenres) are the heaviest. Which brings me to Rings of Saturn...

Dingir is easily one of the heaviest, most brutally punishing collections of technical death metal I've ever had the pleasure of gradually going deaf to. That list of qualities I mentioned in the previous paragraph are whittled to near pitch perfect balance in this album; the sonic chaos is unbridled, but reinforced by the kind of instrumental technical mastery that still lets you find a rhythm to which you can bang your head. 

"Objective to Harvest" opens with an ominous, ten-second soundscape swell to a rapid-fire guitar riffing and breakneck drum-work that calls to mind the sound of automatic assault rifles. Or consider "Peeling Arteries," which employs an almost groove-like riff around which the rest of the audible carnage pivots. 

Rings of Saturn is known for their high-speed, high-note picking patterns that weave in and out of their symphony of destruction, with a kind of comical whimsy. At times it sounds almost video-gamey; like the original 8-bit music from Mario has been possessed by the murderous souls of alien invaders and unleashed upon the listener's fragile ears. It's a big part of what sets Rings of Saturn apart from similar technical death metal acts like The Faceless or Abiotic. The opening moments of "Faces Imploding" is a great example of this earmark. Or, maybe you're among those of my readers who don't care for "screaming music." Fair enough - if you want to dip your toe into this album without going for a real swim, the final track on Dingir - "Utopia" - is an instrumental. Comparably speaking, it's pretty melodic - easily the least heavy song in their entire catalog, but still demonstrative of their skill as musicians.

I'm at a loss for new adjectives to describe Dingir, and the band overall, as their music is consistently brutal, punishing, vicious, and merciless throughout. But I will say I prefer Dingir to the band's debut album Embryonic Anomaly. Similar to the minor shift between iwrestledabearonce's first and second albums, Dingir has sacrificed none of the band's brutality by honing their sound and making it more precise.

THE CONS

Dingir so precariously balances on the axiom between unintelligible chaos and technical proficiency that at times it's hard to be sure if there is an actual time signature or if the band members are flailing about. A quick look through the videos on their YouTube channel, demoing their songs and giving walkthroughs will banish your suspicions. But Dingir is a pretty polarizing album; either you love it or you hate it, and plenty of people hate it. 

I'm tempted to mention the album's relative brevity, at over just 41 minutes. But at an average speed of...*punches buttons on calculator*...14,873,933 beats-per-minute, it's little wonder. Hyperbole aside, the album rarely dips below the 100 bpm threshold.

THE VERDICT

If you're a fan of technical death metal, Dingir is in a class all its own in terms of sheer scope and savagery. Rings of Saturn is another one of those bands that has a pretty outspoken group of "haters," and I'm completely baffled as to why. Roughly comparable tech-death bands like The Faceless or Spawn of Possession don't inspire near the amount of keyboard-pounding, so what gives? Honestly, I think all the "hating" on Rings of Saturn is a simple case of sour grapes. In their late teens and early twenties, the entire band was already more musically skilled than most of us will ever be in an entire lifetime. And I'll admit, their no-holds-barred-all-out assault on traditional song structure almost makes you want to plop down in front of your computer in your Mom's basement and pound out a rant on your keyboard until she tells you to stop making such a racket.

But if you can resist the urge to join the hater-herd long enough to listen to these guys, particularly Dingir, you might find a new favorite. At the very least, it's impossible to deny their musical skill. And for every forum post questioning their ability to play the unforgivably intricate music they write, there's a YouTube video of them live or in the studio playing without any effects or tricks aiding the sound.

The experience of listening to Dingir is not unlike having all of your nightmares funneled directly into your ear drum; vocalist Ian Bearer's influences (like the late Mitch Lucker, most notably) are readily apparent and he brings a vicious vehemence to every shriek and growl. Musically, this album is terrifying. But if you're a fan of extreme metal, that's most likely what you're looking for.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around Dingir; it's so unapologetic in its commitment to sonic insanity that I'm still left feeling somewhat incredulous, with gallow's laugh lurking in the back of my throat at the end of each track. But conceptually, any artist that's willing to commit to their music and their fanbase by giving their fans the option to download it for free has won my undying respect. So the fact that I'm actually enjoying the album is just whipped cream on the waffle.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

House of Cards

I'm a sucker for innovation, especially in the light of how quickly our world is changing.

A number of established mediums are slowly dying off, or being absorbed into others. Print journalism is mostly dead, as an online presence is essential to surviving in this web-based world of ours. Physical album sales continue to drop as - for better or worse - online piracy and services like iTunes and Spotify force record companies and artists to deliver their material in those channels. Last but certainly not least, broadcast television is starting to take a hit as Netflix and Hulu give people a viable option other than the outmoded "cable bundles." Because who can do without 100 music channels spanning basically ten genres, right?

I have little respect for companies or industries that refuse to evolve with the times; conversely I have a great deal of respect for those that can use the changing media landscape to their advantage. So with the prevalence of Netflix, it was only a matter of time before their original programming started beefing up and with House of Cards, I think it's safe to say Netflix has successfully earned a spot among the TV big-wigs like Showtime and HBO.

This debut 13-episode season relates the story of Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey), a ruthless and cunning politician who is passed over for the position of Secretary of State in the opening moments of the show. Slighted, Underwood launches a sprawling scheme to exact revenge on those who betrayed him. By his side, and just as ruthless, is his wife Claire (Robin Wright) - who acts as both pawn and player in her husband's machinations. Hungry for an inside source on Capitol Hill, ambitious journalist Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) cozies up to Underwood - who in turn uses her desire for exclusive stories to wag the dog throughout his various and sundry dealings. A myriad of characters populate the series to varying degrees, but the heart of the story revolves around the clearly villainous but undeniably compelling Underwood; and it's every bit as good as it sounds.

THE PROS

I've been eagerly anticipating the release of House of Cards for a few reasons, but chief among them was the hope that it would further legitimize web-based television. Rather than being stuck having to sit through commercials or chained to a once-a-week dose of my favorite show, I relish the idea of audiences being given a choice in how we enjoy our entertainment. Want to stage a weekly House of Cards night with your friends on an evening of your choosing? Knock yourself out. Want to watch 2 and 3 episodes at a time with a tuna sandwich for dinner? Feel free. Maybe mainline the entire show in an epic 13-hour plus marathon so that you can go to bed with visions of political corruption (but mostly Kate Mara) dancing in your head? Go nuts, buddy.

So House of Cards had me at hello conceptually, plus it actually looked like a well-written and compelling drama. So I have been elated to find that it has exceeded all my expectations.

By the way - I'm not familiar with the book or the early-90s BBC adaptation from which the series is inspired, so I can't really comment on how they compare. Just so ya know.

First things first; Kevin Spacey is an actor who has long since established himself as capable and compelling; his turn as Francis Underwood is another solid notch on the bedpost. One of the first things you'll notice about the show is that he often breaks the fourth wall and addresses the camera directly - filling us in on little thoughts and expositional material throughout each episode. It's jarring at first, and I wasn't entirely sure of it in the early moments of the first episode. But as the pieces of the narrative come together, I found myself enjoying these moments almost more than the rest of the show. It's used as much for darkly comedic effect as it is for exposition, and helps to make Underwood that much more of an engaging character. Moreover Underwood is a curiously compelling character, considering he's so clearly villainous. I often found myself rooting for him out of sheer admiration for the scope and profundity of his plans. Underwood is one of the most deliciously Machiavellian characters I've ever had the pleasure to watch.

Practically all of the supporting cast turn in top-of-their-game performances, and I'm at a complete loss as to favorites. After Francis himself, though, I would have to say that Robin Wright's performances as Claire is equally captivating. Like her husband, Claire is a calculating and ambitious character whose marriage is as much about achieving her own personal goals as anything else. As if Underwood's asides to the audience weren't Shakespearean enough, Francis and Claire put me in mind of a kind of MacBeth and Lady MacBeth dynamic early on in the series. It's not a one-to-one comparison, but I found it utterly fascinating to watch two characters who were both so undeniably corrupt on a number of levels maintain a loving yet realistic marriage.

Kate Mara's Zoe is perfectly suited to the actress's personal appearance, as her somewhat mousy features trick characters and the audience alike into underestimating her early on. My celebrity crush on both Mara sisters aside, Zoe's subtleties as a character don't really start influencing the principle action until later on in the season. Even after a full season of this show, I'm wary of Zoe in a way I wasn't at first, and I'm curious to see if she's been hiding things from the other characters and the audience all this time. I have my suspicions, and I love that the show is taking its time unfolding its many twists and turns.

While the performances help ground the series, its really in the writing and direction where House of Cards flexes its muscles. Political thrillers can easily become either too blatant or too labyrinthine, but House of Cards does a magnificent job of balancing exposition and intrigue. There's all kinds of mystery and numerous layers to each episode, but the show manages to keep all of its conflicts in focus throughout. Characterizations are strong, but the pacing aids cohesion as well. We spend just enough time with various moments to fully grasp what's going on, but rarely do we dawdle. It's an impressive accomplishment given how many characters the show boasts and how well each of their motivations are outlined. And being a largely character-driven piece, it's astounding at how quickly everything clips along - thoroughly covering a great deal of ground each episode.

House of Cards also showcases some superior direction. As I've mentioned before, David Fincher is one of my favorite directors. Having helmed the first two episodes of the show, Fincher brilliantly constructs the blueprint for the 11 episodes that come after. Even scenes in the middle of the day are darkly lit, there's often a shallow focus to much of the camerawork, and the ominous quality to the entire combination reminds us that dark deeds are afoot. On top of that the names of the various directors who steer the proceeding episodes are ones readily recognizable from drama and television - like Joel Schumacher, James Foley, and Allen Coulter.

And while this show would hardly substitute for a formal lesson in Civics and Government, it brilliantly demonstrates the kinds of conflicts of interest and subterfuge that dictate much of American politics. Fictional situations and names are employed, of course, but House of Cards provides viewers with fantastic illustrations regarding - for example - the danger of corporate lobbying and how interpersonal networking all-too-often trumps democratic process.

THE CONS

Honestly  I didn't find too much to be displeased with.

The show does occasionally falter with dialogue; particularly with Spacey's. Once or twice I felt as though Underwood's use of cliched expressions felt inconsistent with his character's cold-blooded brilliance. But even then, Spacey's complete commitment to his character elevates these weaker lines.

There were one or two subplots that I found slightly inconsistent at first, but my misgivings were laid to rest after the season concluded and character conflicts were resolved, one way or another.

House of Cards is a distinctly adult show; there's language, drugs and alcohol, nudity, the works. Personally, this has never been a problem for me, but for more sensitive viewers this may prove a deterrent. Again, this show could easily stand shoulder-to-shoulder with any of the "Premium Cable" programming from HBO or Showtime - so you can expect a requisite approach to content.

THE VERDICT

House of Cards is easily one of my new favorites, and a formidable accomplishment on multiple levels. In a world where most television networks are entrenched in broadcast prime-time traditions and often won't release full seasons of their shows to Netflix or Hulu, I'm excited by how strong Netflix's first major foray into original programming has turned out to be.


Broadcast television hasn't died yet, and likely won't completely for some time. But this show has proven that television as we've known it has never been closer to obsolescence; and, fortunately, that's a very good thing.

When Tron first released in 1982, it was disqualified from winning any Oscars on the grounds that the film makers had "cheated" by using computers for their special effects. In a similar fashion, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Emmys balk at including House of Cards in its nominee pool at first. But, just as CGI has come to define visual effects, I firmly believe streaming services like Netflix will come to define what we collectively call television; and if House of Cards is any indication - it's going to be a change for the better.

I can't wait for Season 2.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Warm Bodies

It's getting a little old, guys. The whole zombie thing; it's starting to lose steam. Sure The Walking Dead is addictive and one of my favorite shows on television right now. Yes, Zombieland is one of the best horror-comedies I've ever seen. Left 4 Dead? Hours of dismember-tainment. Left 4 Dead 2? Hours of dismember-tainment plus samurai swords and an inescapable hatred of anyone named Rochelle for the rest of your life. So yeah...the whole zombie thing is getting old...but, all the things it's given me so far make me happy so...um, never mind? I guess?

Let's face it - the zombie "thing" has been going pretty strong for awhile and I feel like by now I should be sick of it. But there's a staying power to the concept of a horde of mindless undead because, frankly, if you've ever been to your local grocer you've already dealt with them: scores of slow-walking, blank-staring, obliviously-taking-up-the-entire-aisle-because-their-face-is-glued-to-their-phones-but-technically-not-undead. You deal with them on the highway (looking at you, Mr. "Blinker? Never Heard Of It!"), the mall, the movie theater; everywhere. So it should come as little surprise that the idea of a zombie apocalypse has caused its own little media-related zombie apocalypse.

And, predictably, that media-related zombie apocalypse has finally traversed another genre boundary: romance. In the post-Twilight era, I'm a little surprised it actually took this long for a movie like Warm Bodies to come along (Boy Eats Girl doesn't really count). The story needs very little introduction: it's boy (Nicholas Hoult) meets girl (Teresa Palmer). TWIST: Boy is a zombie. Everyone still with us? Cool.

THE PROS

The first thing I feel worth mentioning is how surprisingly good Warm Bodies actually is. It's not phenomenal, but it's pretty good considering the overall idea is conceptually thin. The movie scores points by being a loose adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, so the lit-geek in me enjoyed seeing how those parallels are spoofed or evolved; the balcony scene (yeah, there's a balcony scene) is a great example.

The performances are good, if not great, and herein lies the most notable part of the film that bends zombie mythology a bit. In the film, zombies can talk - though only in broken sentences. Warm Bodies kindly asks that you suspend disbelief here, which isn't too tough considering...ya know, zombies. It takes just a little getting used to, but the movie does a good job of exploiting the idea for comedic effect. Nicholas Hoult, who plays the lead zombie R, is the most relatable zombie you've ever seen onscreen. Again,  it's a little conceptually unfamiliar, but it works. Teresa Palmer's Julie is a nice romantic foil to Hoult; her kinda "rough around the edges" approach balances his undead-and-innocent characterization - though at times she did remind me a little bit of bad Kristen Stewart. "But! But!.." shouts Captain Contrary in your head, "...all Kristen Stewart is bad Kristen Stewart!" Friends of this blog know where I stand on this topic, and while you're opinion is perfectly valid, I urge you not to listen to Captain Contrary; he's what's wrong with the internet.

Moving on...


Rob Corddry plays M, a zombie-buddy of R who provides a good deal of the laugh-out-loud moments in the movie. Corddry isn't the most convincing zombie you've ever seen, but his place in the cast helps round out what might have been other wise luke-Warm Bodies.

Another major score for the film was the perfect balance of horror and comedy. Where other horror-comedies succeed with over-the-top gore (Zombieland, Slither), Warm Bodies is smart to keep the blood-n-guts - while present - largely toned down. The movie has a few moments of violence but for the most part wisely develops the romantic and comedic elements to a greater degree.

THE CONS

Part of the story involves a subplot regarding "bonies," which we come to find out are what zombies eventually become. They're the zombies of the zombie population and before the film's end are the primary antagonists of undead and human alike. On paper, this is a great addition to the film. In practice, it's some of the worst CGI you've seen in the past decade. The bonies' skin textures are woefully underdeveloped (subsurface scattering apparently wasn't high on the visual effects department's priority list) and they move in an almost stop-motion, herky-jerky type of way. No exaggeration, I've seen better animation in student films.

If zombies aren't your thing, you probably won't find much worth watching in Warm Bodies. Even at only an hour and a half, the movie feels almost overlong.

THE VERDICT

I'll admit I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Warm Bodies. I like my zombie-related media over-the-top and intense, so I didn't expect to like Warm Bodies all that much. And while it's not a revelatory experience - considering the limitations of its subject matter - it's modestly impressive. The comedy, while not laugh-a-minute, is steady and genuinely funny and the romance that develops between R and Julie is actually believable and accessible. I figured a zombie love story was just around the corner after the Twilight craze, and I just wanted to rip the bandaid off and get it over with. Warm Bodies isn't going on my list of favorites, but it's far from the wreck I expected it to be.

There are a small handful of "zombie movie rules" that have to be broken by the very nature of the story. So if you can get past zombies talking (to varying degrees) and the idea that the undead can be brought back to life - in a fully human way - you might find yourself enjoying this one.

Here's hoping it doesn't spawn a series of increasingly uninspired sequels generously referred to as a "saga."

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Netflix Nuggets #3

We've recently had a Documentary Edition and a Television Edition of Netflix Nuggets, but that's hardly meant to imply I haven't been keeping up with the good ol' standard narrative movies too. I've once again compiled another small list of "regular movie" titles I've found whilst cruising the digital aisles of Netflix, which you can find below. Enjoy!


(And by all means, if there are any titles you'd like to get my thoughts on, feel free to leave suggestions in the Comments section. I welcome any and all constructive input!)


BUTTER

I'm a sucker for a good ensemble cast movie, especially when it comes to comedies. Usually you can tell everyone had a good time on set working with each other by how well their onscreen chemistry is conveyed, and the more stars in a single flick the higher the chance one of your favorites is in the mix. It was these qualities that initially drew me to Butter; namely the presence of Hugh Jackman (as a cowboy hat-wearing car salesman, no less), Olivia Wilde, and Rob Corddry. The story follows two primary protagonists: Laura Pickler (Jennifer Garner), the wife of famed butter sculptor Bob Pickler (Ty Burrell), and Destiny, (Yara Shahidi) an orphan who has spent most of her life moving from foster home to foster home. When Destiny decides she wants to enter the Butter Sculpting Competition that Bob has dominated year after year, Bob decides he's ready to hang up his tools and let someone else have the spotlight. But Laura isn't ready to fade into the background, and thus begins an occasionally funny, occasionally silly, occasionally meandering tale of intrigue and social politics. Butter plays on a number of stereotypes for laughs; namely that of aggressively conservative American housewives. Garner plays the role with sufficient stuffiness, but some of the jokes fall a bit flat before all is said and done. The rest of the cast is entertaining enough, but not as laugh-out-loud hilarious as I was expecting. Wilde plays an excessively shallow stripper whose primary mode of transportation is a bicycle and again, the concept is great; watching her attempt to pedal away in a huff wearing heels and revealing clothing. But it wears out its welcome all too soon. The saving grace of the movie is Yara Shahidi, who is more or less the "straight man" to the other characters' more wacky tendencies. She's not going to go up for any Oscars, but she's a good child actor and she plays her role convincingly well. Overall Butter is entertaining enough, and squeaked by with an acceptable rating in my book; but it really could have and should have been much better. It's funny in places, and I laughed once or twice; but despite the very definite plot structure the whole movie felt a little lackluster - as though it had no sense of direction or purpose.


DARK HORSE

Dark Horse was a movie I queued up on a total whim - and a little bit because it had Selma Blair. Abe (Jordan Gelber) is a 30-something-year-old man with a pretty bad case of arrested development. He lives at home, he works for his Dad's company, he spends most of his money on collectible action figures and toys; he's every "failure to launch" cliche rolled into one. He meets Miranda (Selma Blair) at a wedding at the beginning of the film and commences pursuing her romantically, in the process discovering that she's also living at home and struggling with some failure-to-launch of her own. An unlikely relationship develops between the two, and in a desperate bid to give her life some sense of purpose she accepts Abe's proposal of marriage. From there, this already-strange film takes an even stranger turn as some of the layers of symbolism and meaning embedded within begin to unravel. Dark Horse is a head-scratcher; at least it was for me. Abe is incredibly unlikeable as a character; he has a short temper, his hobbies are puerile to the point of pathetic, and his delusions about himself are undeniably visible. Miranda is equally inscrutable as it's unclear if she's clinically depressed or just sad all the time. And while it's possible to have unlikeable characters be compelling, it's a fine line to tread and it's hard to say whether or not Dark Horse pulls this off. This is largely due to the unexpectedly avant-garde twist the film employs within its final half hour or so. It goes to great lengths to lay out a map of its meaning and symbolism, so maybe it's just that I didn't find anything to relate to. But I was overwhelmed by a relative apathy by the film's conclusion; an apathy accented by a kind of hopelessness. I'm not entirely sure how to categorize Dark Horse; it's not strictly a comedy or a drama or a black comedy. It's more akin to a mashup between the Coen Brothers and David Lynch - both of whom I greatly admire. I didn't really like this movie, but it has all the earmarks of a cult classic so I won't go so far as to say it's not worth watching. But personally, I was neither wholly compelled nor wholly repelled by the experience.


IDENTITY

Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (or Ten Little Indians...after it was renamed from a much more offensive title) was a seminal work of mystery literature, and has gone on to directly or indirectly influence thrillers and mystery books and films alike ever since its release in 1939. Identity, while not a direct adaptation of Christie's work, nevertheless uses some of the narrative devices employed by that book. It's a fairly simple setup: ten strangers arrive at a motel in the middle of nowhere during a rain storm that's cut them off from their respective destinations. Stranded, the various characters begin getting picked off slowly by a deranged murderer and of course begin to panic - each suspecting the other of guilt in turn. As you can expect, there's a big twist that ties the whole thing together - with a second twist closing out the film just before the credits. Both twists are fairly predictable, though you probably won't see them coming too far out. John Cusack takes the lead as limo driver/former cop Ed Dakota. He does an admirable job as a concerned by relatively tight-lipped character, appropriately similar enough to the anti-hero detectives types of hard-boiled crime novels. Amanda Peet plays Paris, a hooker attempting to restart her life far away from her former life in Vegas. Ray Liotta plays a cop (again) named Sam Rhodes, who seems to be hiding a pretty damning secret of some kind - but of course I'm not about to spill the beans on that front. I can't say too much more about the movie without giving something away, but overall it's a good thriller with some psychological horror elements thrown in for effect. Since it takes place at a lonely motel and involves the murder of some of its occupants, it reminded me of Psycho in several places. There are one or two grisly moments that move the film from basic thriller into more slasher movie territory, but they're few and far enough between that I wouldn't go so far as to call Identity a horror movie. Again, the twists don't take too long to unravel, so Identity won't have you on the very edge of your seat the whole time. But it's a solid entry in the genre and for any diehard fans of mystery thrillers it's a must see.


IRON SKY

As I've mentioned before, in a few places, B-grade cinema and/or the overall grindhouse aesthetic has made a solid comeback in recent memory. We're sophisticated enough as an audience (for the most part) to need a foray into ironic movies replete with self-deprecation every once in awhile. Personally, it's a trend I enjoy - regardless of how it's presented or where it comes up. While Iron Sky was actually a largely crowd-sourced film and not technically part of the "Hollywood machine," it still fits into this ironically ridiculous tradition I've come to enjoy so much. The concept is as ridiculous as you could possibly conceive: after being defeated in WWII, the Nazis retreated to the dark side of the moon to rebuild their defenses and regroup for an all out assault on planet Earth in the future. The movie more or less opens on the events that lead into their attempted return and predictably works its way into an epic space battle before conclusion. The overall idea is silly enough, but there's plenty of equally ridiculous goings-on in the smaller details of the story including the re-election of a Sarah Palin-like presidential figure (Stephanie Paul), a black astronaut (Christopher Kirby) the Nazis "turned" white in an attempt to make him a part of the "Master Race," and several others. Iron Sky is, as you can surmise, a comedy. And I laughed out loud plenty of times, but it wasn't as good a movie as I was hoping it would be. Just about all the pieces are there, but one or two of the actors overdo the already hyperbolic elements in the film and one too many times the movie goes careening into the eye-rolling without sufficient subtlety. Where it really succeeds as a spectacle is when you consider that much of the film was made through Wreck-A-Movie; a company that specializes in participatory cinema and in crowdsourcing various aspects of production. And I loved the concept enough to say that I recommend seeing Iron Sky, despite the fact that - objectively - it's not that great of a movie. But it's self-aware enough to make it worth seeing, and there are a number of references to other movies with similar themes or stories: namely Der Untergang (Downfall) and Dr. Strangelove. In fact, Iron Sky feels a lot like an homage to Dr. Strangelove - though it's not anywhere close to being as strong a film. I think ultimately where the movie fails is in attempting to weave too much social commentary into its narrative; I think it should have just stuck to being goofy and self-deprecating. Such as it is, Iron Sky is still unique and funny enough to be worth your time. And it's a real novelty of participatory cinema to boot; if it doesn't give you the itch to check out Wreck-A-Movie and possibly become a part of their next production - I don't know what will.


LOVE

I can't help but recollect the dark words of Agent Smith in The Matrix Revolutions every time I see this title: "...only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love." And Love is certainly not without its fair share of insipidness. But there's definitely more to it, and it's not all bad - I'm relatively surprised to say. Fans of Angels and Airwaves will recognize this film right away as part of the band's multi-platform media endeavors. Fortunately, if you're not a fan of Angels and Airwaves, there's not enough of their signature here to be a deterrent. The movie begins with a Civil War battle on the brink of erupting. One of the soldiers is told by his commanding officer to leave the battlefield in search of an artifact recently discovered and after wandering for a brief montage the soldier comes upon a crater - though we don't see what's within. We are then taken to a space station where a lone astronaut loses contact with mission control for reasons we're not yet privy to. The next 50 minutes or so of the film's run time is occupied with charting his loosening grip on reality, as the isolation slowly drives him crazy. The last 20 minutes or so of the movie deal with how his isolation is resolved and how he's brought to a higher plane of existence because of it. If it sounds an awful lot like 2001: A Space Odyssey that's because it very much is. In fact, the film goes further than simple homage and openly reproduces elements from that film; in some cases shot-for-shot. You don't get the impression that it's done maliciously or with the expectation of surpassing Kubrick's masterpiece, so it's not wholly offensive - at least it wasn't to me. But it wouldn't be unfair to say that this movie is the poor man's 2001. Love was a strange viewing experience for me, because it repeatedly had me loving it and then hating it - sometimes within the space of a few minutes. The long stretches on the space station are mercilessly tedious; though this was likely intentional and meant to convey the sense of loneliness and instability the astronaut experiences. Interspersed with these vignettes are dreams the astronaut has of a beautiful woman who is seductively dressed and posed, and constantly having her hair tossed about by some stock fan off camera. These scenes could be transplanted shot-for-shot into a tawdry rap music video and they'd be perfectly at home, so it was in these moments - for example - that I despised this movie. Then, during the film's opening Civil War battle scene, I was awestruck by how beautifully the combat was captured in slow motion. One particular shot made my mouth literally hang open: the grizzled and long haired general swings his saber as the soldiers around him clash in conflict - all in muted tones and caught in a jaw-dropping slow motion. If slow-mo were ever being exploited gratuitously, it's in the opening moments of this film. But that didn't make it any less captivating to see. Love is certainly more optimistic and more light than 2001 (in case you couldn't tell by the title), and for all its faults - I ultimately enjoyed it. Love is tedious, beautiful, pretentious, thought-provoking, and haunting...not in that order, and sometimes all at once. It's cerebral and definitely on the experimental side; an art-house film of debatable merit, but undeniable presentation.


THE REBOUND

It should come as no secret to frequent readers of this blog or friends of mine that I like chick flicks as a general rule. And having seen all of the bigger and better-known titles I can think of, I'm always on the lookout for an indie or underground rom-com to tide me over until the next Sleepless In Seattle, 13 Going on 30, Crazy, Stupid, Love, etc. It was by such intent I was directed towards The Rebound, starring Catherine Zeta-Jones as leading lady Sandy - a woman whose recent divorce has taken more of a toll on her personal life than she cares to admit. Justin Bartha plays Aram, a young man she meets at a Women's Center where he volunteers. At the urging of her stock character close friend, Sandy decides to "get back out there" into the dating world while Aram becomes something of a nanny to Sandy's two children. But they predictably begin to form a romantic bond that transcends their relative age gap and the rest is something you've seen before in a host of other, and more importantly, better films. I'm trying to resist the urge to be too vicious with this movie, but it's a bit of a struggle given how pitifully it achieves its goals. To start with, Aram is a perfect character. There's no need for character development with him because he's already a better human being than anyone you've met; you could practically hear the writer's backlog of Freudian hangups being poured into him during the writing process. He's a Women's Studies studies major with a passion for feminism who volunteers at a Women's Center, he's great with kids, he's conscientious and respectful all the time regardless of the circumstance, he does humanitarian work, he's technically divorced because he was in a green-card marriage for a close friend of his who was on the verge of being deported: he's perfect. He's too perfect, even for a chick flick. Then there's Sandy, who is constantly injecting her conversations with various feminist mantras. Feminism is awesome, I mean that - I don't have anything against feminists and I'm certainly not sexist. But we only need to hear her tell her daughter about the power she has as a woman or comment on how she doesn't need a man once or twice to get the point. She's every annoying feminist cliche rolled into one and to top it off, Zeta-Jones turns in a subpar performance. She's not terrible, but she's been so much better in so many other films I was genuinely surprised to see her acting with such visible effort. I don't really mind a predictable story if it's handled the right way; there's a way to be pleasantly predictable without just slacking off on keeping the film engaging. The Rebound is a good example of the latter; you can see practically every beat coming a mile away and there's precious little with which to justify it. The premise of The Rebound was compelling enough; I really liked the idea of exploring the societal double standard that says men dating younger women is somehow more appropriate than vice versa. But instead all I got was Justin Bartha always saying the perfect thing and Catherine Zeta-Jones trying too hard.


SLEEPWALK WITH ME

Any Mike Birbiglia fans in the audience? If so then this title should be very familiar. Birbiglia has gained critical acclaim with his one man show of the same title. But Sleepwalk With Me, the film, is fortunately not just an exercise in redundancy. The movie opens with Mike addressing the camera, opening the film the way he does his standup performance. From there, it transitions into a standard narrative - occasionally interspersed with vignettes of Birbiglia addressing the camera, transitioning from various parts of his story. The story he tells is one that's the textbook definition of bittersweet, and almost embarrassingly frank. Mike Pandamiglio (Birbiglia's cinematic counterpart) is a struggling standup comic who feels like his life is in a bit of a rut. He's in a steady relationship with Abby (Lauren Ambrose), but he's beginning to develop a sleepwalking problem that's more than once put him in precarious positions. As he begins to pursue his standup career more seriously, his relationship with Abby begins to crumble and his sleepwalking becomes exponentially more problematic. Birbiglia opens the film by saying that everything he's about to relay is fact; that this is a completely true story. He makes mention that often after his shows people ask him if it really did happen the way he says it did, and asserts that he's fabricated nothing. Despite some of the rather shocking things that happen to him - mostly on account of his sleepwalking - the film evinces a kind of sincerity that seems to corroborate Birbiglia's claim. Moreover, he makes no attempt to paint himself as a hero or a great guy throughout the course of the film - lending the whole movie an even greater feeling of authenticity. Sleepwalk With Me has a number of a laugh out loud moments, and just as many that will make you cringe with embarrassment or mortification for the people involved. Birbiglia's standup is much more laugh-a-minute than this film, which is as many parts drama as it is comedy. But Birbiglia is such an evidently likeable guy - even when he's not behaving in a likeable way - that it's hard to deny the inherent charm the film brings to the table. I greatly enjoyed Sleepwalk With Me; it's a fantastic piece of independent cinema that reminds you just how powerful low budget films can be with the right material in the hands of the right people. If you've seen Birbiglia's one-man show then Sleepwalk With Me won't offer any revelations you're not already privy to. But that shouldn't put you off watching it. And even if you don't know the first thing about Mike Birbiglia, Sleepwalk With Me is the perfect introduction.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Netflix Nuggets - Documentary Edition


It's a new year, and I've got yet another special edition in the Netflix Nuggets series. I've been scratching the documentary itch lately, and as a result I have a collection of documentaries I'd like to share with you. So without further adieu, we kick off 2013 with Netflix Nuggets: Documentary Edition!

 
(A)SEXUAL

Whether you regard it as a positive or negative aspect of our culture, sex is a big part of the media machine. From ads to films to books to music to just about everywhere in between, we've heard it before and we can vouch for its effectiveness: sex sells. Various subcultures in the country have responded to it in different ways and for different reasons. But the discussion about sex and its prominence in our day-to-day lives - for better or worse - has left a subset of society alienated: asexuals. It should come as little surprise that many (including myself before seeing this film) aren't even aware that such people exist; that there are those in the population who have no interest in sexual activity of any kind whatsoever. Or at least, that such people exist outside of certain religious or societal constraints - that they, like so many others, are simply born that way. The documentary primarily follows David Jay, a self-proclaimed asexual who took it upon himself to start a website for other people like himself to gather and share ideas. As a kind of de facto spokesperson for the asexual community, David is nonetheless a visibly humble individual whose primary motivation is educating both the public and asexuals themselves on how to live in a society that has little place for them. The film spans a few years and articulates some really fascinating talking points regarding how asexuals often struggle in their relationships because many simply don't understand their way of thinking. The film was extensively educational for me, and while it doesn't feature a lot of flash or flare it was still engrossing and very entertaining. One particularly compelling scene depicted a group of asexuals at a gay pride parade. I was genuinely surprised to see how many people at the parade indirectly or openly shunned these people despite being recipients of such bigotry themselves. I myself admit I can't even begin to understand what it would be like living without any kind of sexual impulse, even after this documentary. But the film was truly eye-opening and really helped me to gain fresh perspective in my worldview.


CLEANFLIX

Having grown up in a fairly conservative household (and homeschooled to boot), I had heard a lot about the company Cleanflicks and those like it in the early 2000s. Cleanflicks' business model was fairly simple: they took major motion pictures - usually R or PG-13 rated, edited them to remove offensive content (nudity, language, violence, etc.), and then resold them. A number of other services like it began to crop up, and ultimately caught the eye of Hollywood at large. Predictably, or if you remember this from the news, the company was handed a ruling indicating they were in violation of copyright law - and what followed is largely a tale of loopholes and outright flouting of legal precedent. The documentary itself, however, reveals a number of details about the goings-on behind the scenes of the business that make this story far more intriguing than one might initially expect. I was drawn to this documentary because I remember Cleanflicks from my growin' up years, and while I've developed media tastes that stray far outside those in which I was raised - I never found fault with the idea of studios publicly releasing edited versions of their films for more sensitive viewers. It's a service they provide for airlines and television networks (a point the film brings up) after all. But Cleanflix isn't an activist's manifesto; it's just an honest look at the story of this business. Several interviews offer differing opinions on the issue of such a business's legitimacy ranging from the founders and owners of the business, to "man on the street" type interviews, to some of the directors whose work was in question. The film does a brilliant job of illustrating some of the objective problems with a business such as this; like the dangers of acclimating to censorship, the hypocrisy of running an illegal business focused on "family values," and the potential damage to be done by extensive psychological repression. The movie didn't really make any points I disagreed with, so I felt kinship with the filmmakers as a result. But what I found most revelatory were the details of how the business was run, in some cases by people who weren't even technically affiliated with the Cleanflicks branding. As a result, the film almost plays like a retrospective on a mafia family as it details the intrigue and scandal woven throughout the story of this business and the people it ultimately effected - for better or worse.


MANSOME
 
I'm a big fan of Morgan Spurlock. Super Size Me and The Greatest Movie Ever Sold are two of my favorite documentaries, and Spurlock is every bit deserving of the recognition he's received on behalf of his creative endeavors. So it was with high expectations that I sat down to Mansome, Spurlock's latest film, which attempts to outline the social perceptions and definitions of male grooming. It's an intriguing concept, as far as I'm concerned. And Spurlock certainly does his damndest to make it interesting. Interspersed with the documentary's overall arc is a little "mini-movie" that follows Jason Bateman and Will Arnett to the spa for some beautification treatments. But I was surprised by how lackluster the whole thing felt by the end, and what a disappointment it was overall. The biggest mistake I think the film makes is spending too much time with two men who are just patently unlikeable unless you belong to their respective societal niches. The first is Jack Passion, a man who has won numerous beard competitions around the world and holds the unofficial title of America's Greatest Beardsman. But Passion is a pretentious and even downright rude individual who claims that since a man's natural state is bearded, clean-shaven guys are "in perpetual boyhood." On the opposite end of the spectrum is Ricky Manchanda, a man made up of every annoying metro cliche you can imagine. We follow him around town as he takes various grooming treatments (at one point advising a cosmetologist to remove just two hairs from one of his eyebrows in order to shape it properly) and shows off his new clothes and takes - according to his own words - an hour and a half to get ready for each day. To each his own, to be sure. But both of these men are insufferably consumed with themselves and their excessive vanity pollutes the film. Had they only been briefly mentioned as part of a larger look at their respective societal subsets, it wouldn't be quite so detrimental. But easily 70-80 percent of the film focuses on them exclusively. Mansome has a great concept and a few winning moments (largely courtesy of Bateman and Arnett), but it's completely torpedoed by the two subjects at its center. Here's hoping Spurlock's next movie is a return to form.



MONICA & DAVID

I do not personally know very many people with mental disabilities. I have always been fascinated by how many of these people - and those who take care of them - live their day to day lives. But I've never been quite certain of just how to approach my own curiosity for fear of "doing it wrong;" perhaps directly or indirectly offending others in the process. But as part of this curiosity, I queued up Monica & David whilst looking for something to occupy space between loads of laundry on a Sunday afternoon. A relatively short piece of cinema (only 67 minutes), the movie follows the titular people: a couple with Down syndrome whose marriage is the primary topic of the film. After some brief introductions, the movie jumps right into exploring what the outset of their marriage is like. Interspersed with interviews of various family members is a collage of vignettes of the two around the house and the city as they learn the skills necessary to help them achieve a measure of independence from Monica's parents - who are their primary caretakers. It's a very touching and poignant piece of work, as several of the interviews devolve into tears before too long. But Monica & David isn't an overly sentimental film, or one obsessed with getting a rise out of its audience. It's honest and candid without being exploitative or disrespectful. And ultimately it's an incredibly uplifting experience to watch these two people display a love for each other that's heartbreaking in both its simplicity and its depth. Furthermore I appreciated the overall presentation of the film, as I didn't feel as though the subjects were treated as novelties and by extension I didn't feel as though my curiosity about their lives was intruding upon the bounds of propriety. Educational, emotional, honest, entertaining - this is an exemplary piece of documentary cinema.


OUTFOXED: RUPERT MURDOCH'S WAR ON JOURNALISM

I almost didn't include this one on account of the rather volatile nature of almost any discussion that involves Fox News. I don't present this title as much of a talking point, because all the pertinent talking points can be found within. The title is about as self explanatory as they come, and gives you a good idea of what this documentary is about. While the film is a bit dated (2004), the points it raises are as applicable as they ever were. I'm not here to promote liberalism any more than conservatism, and neither is Outfoxed. What the film does is map, point by point, the exact sins for which it feels the network should be called to account. There are a smattering of info graphics that help illustrate the extent of the documentary's contentions, in addition to interviews with former employees of the network and academics in the journalism field. Here and there, the tone of the movie skews towards the snide or the derisive as they somewhat glibly point out errors in logic or factual presentation or in the double-speak of some of the new anchors. But for the most part, Outfoxed doesn't really have to get too caustic because much of the evidence they present is damning enough. I've never taken issue with Fox News as being a largely conservative news network (something the documentary does, more or less), but I have been somewhat amused by the "Fair and Balanced" image they attempt to portray while so obviously skewing right. And this is where most of the documentary's attention is fixated: the hypocrisies the network, at a corporate as well as often individual anchor level, has perpetuated throughout the majority of its existence. Again, this film isn't likely to sway your political leanings one way or another because that's not what it's out to do. But if you're a fan of Fox News, you may find that a number of things you didn't know about the network might change your opinion. And if you're a really big fan of Fox News, you probably weren't captivated by a title such as this in the first place. But for me, this articulated and crystallized a number of misgivings I've had about the network for some time.


THE SWELL SEASON

In my opinion, Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová are two of the most beautiful people alive today. Not physically so much; I mean specifically in regards to their souls. I say that because there's an astonishing depth to the songs they've written; musically and lyrically. If you've heard anything they've recorded individually or as a duo (under the moniker The Swell Season) or seen the movie Once you know exactly what I'm talking about. The Swell Season is a fly-on-the-wall documentary about the duo that focuses specifically on the surge in fame and critical recognition they've received since the release of Once. Filmed entirely in black and white, and occasionally intercutting extended scenes from live performances, The Swell Season does a pitch perfect job of capturing the creative energy of Glen and Markéta. Glen's family is interviewed in a few places, though unfortunately no interviews with the family Irglová. There's an unflinching quality to the presentation that I greatly appreciated because it imbues the whole experience with a palpable authenticity. More than a few times the two confront each other on camera over various tour-related or personal disputes, and though sincere and candid their arguments never devolve into unnecessary aggression. As one can surmise, the two had a romantic relationship at one point in time - another aspect the documentary doesn't shy away from. And while that's long since become a part of the past, it's amazing to see how intertwined their souls are - absent a romantic relationship. If you're a fan of their music or of Once I can't recommend more strongly that you add this to your must-see list. If you were to remove the interviews, The Swell Season could almost play like a black-and-white sequel to Once in its own way. Such as it is, it's a magnificent documentary in its own right; to say nothing of the captivating music and personalities of the two principle subjects.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Les Miserables

Victor Hugo's Les Misérables has seen its fair share of adaptations. It's been a feature film over a dozen times, a miniseries, and of course the iconic 1980 stage musical - in addition to a radio production and a few foreign ripoffs. This year saw the musical adapted to the screen under the directorial care of Tom Hooper, who dominated the Oscars a couple of years back with The King's Speech. Opinions on this latest incarnation are likely to vary somewhat, as most already have their favorite version picked out.

The story chronicles the trials of the recently-freed convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) as he attempts to put a new life together for himself after nineteen years of imprisonment. After breaking his parole and assuming a new identity, Valjean finds himself hunted by the hawkish Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe). And while Valjean remains the centerpiece of the story, numerous other characters of varying consequence come and go during the film's two-and-a-half-hour-plus run time; such as Fantine (Anne Hathaway), who is forced into a life of prostitution and destitution after losing her job...her daughter Cosette (played by Amanda Seyfried as an adult and Isabelle Allen as a child)...and many others.

THE PROS

Les Misérables is a beautiful piece of cinema. There are occasional presentations of grand spectacle; whether the camera is swooping in past the wreckage of a ship being hauled into dock, descending upon the crowded streets of 19th-century France, or floating into the sky as Valjean tears his papers and casts them into the mountain winds. It's a delicate balance handled appropriately and with breathtaking display. But for the most part, intimate handheld camerawork guides the film. We follow each character around the various set pieces in a way that makes us feel as though we're right there with them. This also allows for a much more visceral and emotionally resonant presentation of the movie's poignant scenes and songs. During several numbers ("Valjean's Soliloquy" and "I Dreamed a Dream" are the first that come to mind) Hooper wisely captures most - if not all - of the performance in a single take. This allows for the scene and the song to gain emotional momentum, and by the time the characters themselves are struggling to sing through their tears we as an audience are struggling with our own tears. It's such a simple approach, but it works wonders for the emotional impact of this movie.

Performances are as satisfying as can be expected from a cast this iconic and renowned. Jackman is well cast as Valjean, as his singing voice is well developed and has already been proven in his previous Broadway excursions. Moreover he's physically imposing enough to convincingly articulate the raw power and strength associated with the character. Russell Crowe's Javert is stern and unflinching, and his voice is good (if not always great) enough to carry the weight of Javert's own personal demons. Anne Hathaway is pitch perfect and develops her character quickly and convincingly during her comparatively brief screen time. And her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" has finally overcome the memory of Susan Boyle's YouTube'd-to-death performance of the same. If Hathaway's delivery doesn't garner at least one or two stray tears, you might need to double check your pulse; it's ineffably beautiful. Another performer who scores major points is Eddie Redmayne, who plays the idealistic revolutionary Marius Pontmercy. I've never given much thought to Redmayne one way or another - but both his acting and especially his singing in Les Misérables are fantastic.

Which brings me to the music itself. The iconic music of this piece is already crystallized in many a fan's mind by the original London Cast recording, and with good reason. I'm certainly not about to argue with the merit of that recording. But personally, I prefer the music of this adaptation. The orchestration is a bit more diverse here, dipping into arrangements that are occasionally more delicate and understated. Hooper also broke tradition with this film in regards to the recording itself. Most film musicals pre-record the song and have the actor's lip-sync on camera, but Les Misérables had the cast record their songs live on set - so the takes you're watching are also the takes you're hearing. This adds an additional layer to the performances, as actors are free to nuance the presentation and let their voices occasionally break or falter as they struggle through the passions sung. It's a seemingly minor detail, but it gives the film an even more inescapable sincerity.

Les Misérables feels very much like a stage musical, and I found that to be a very good thing. There are shifts in the tone of the film that reflect a more organic feel towards the viewing experience. The comic relief provided by Monsieur and Madame Thénardier (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, respectively) almost feels out of place at first because it contrasts so starkly the heavy-handed aesthetic employed up to that point. But as the film continues, all of the pieces coalesce in their proper place and the resulting feel is, as I said, more akin to viewing a stage production than a film.

THE CONS

I mentioned before that the run time is just over two and a half hours. In a musical, that can feel a great deal longer where an entire scene revolves around a single song and moment in the story. This isn't a con per se, but I recommend saving the soft drinks until later if you plan to enjoy Les Misérables to the fullest.

If you don't like musicals to begin with, Les Misérables isn't likely to be your exception. It's as sappy and tear-jerking as any musical I can think of and you could call it heavy-handed without being entirely wrong. I personally love all of these qualities, but if you don't there's little you'll find enjoyable about this film.

And while the following is not directed at the film proper, I've come to find out that (at the moment anyway) the soundtrack for this film is only available as a "Highlights From..." title and doesn't include some of the more iconic pieces such as "Who Am I," "Do You Hear the People Sing," and several others. I hope Universal Republic sees fit to release a full cast recording in the near future as I was completely taken by the orchestration and arrangement. And honestly, how can a highlights album leave out "Do You Hear the People Sing"?

THE VERDICT

It's already begun making the rounds for awards announcements, snagging Golden Globe nominations for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Original Song, and Best Picture. That's little wonder as the movie has all the ear marks of an award-magnet: breathtaking spectacle, stellar performances, and beautiful music. I have to admit that I didn't expect to blown away on the scale that I was by the time the film had concluded, but I'm all the more glad that I was.

Les Misérables (the original musical) has often been described as a "global phenomenon" and "worldwide sensation." I think it's safe to say the film comes about as close as it possibly could to capturing what has given birth to that kind of verbiage. If you're a diehard fan of the musical, this film isn't going to supplant your existing fondness - but I'm certain that it will supplement it. Everything about this film's composition is so lovely to behold, so achingly beautiful and heartfelt, it's impossible to deny its accomplishment. As a film, as a musical, as a piece of art - Les Misérables is an absolute triumph.