Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunter

J.J. ABRAMS, THE DIRECTOR OF STAR TREK, IS DIRECTING THE NEXT STAR WARS! YES! Ok, on to my review.

It seems that Hollywood has recently went into a phase that I particularly like. This new phase involves taking classic fairy tales and revamping them in unique ways for the big screen. This started with Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" a few years ago, and has continued with other films such as "Red Riding Hood" and "Snow White and the Hunstman" that have reimagined classic characters in more intense ways. The latest film to follow this trend is "Hansel and Gretle: Witch Hunters," an intense action flick that tells the story of the classic siblings when they have grown up.
   But of course the film begins with the classic tale. The brother and sister get lost in a forest until the come across a house made of candy. It is only when they step inside the house that they realize its inhabitant is a man-eating witch. You know the rest...witch tries to eat kids, kids burn witch, happily every after...but not quite. It turns out that Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretle (Gemma Arterton) have made a prosperous career of hunting down witches and turning in their corpses for gold.
   The movie really begins when the two witch hunters come to a small village where almost all the children have been taken by...you guessed it...witches. But these witches are a little more powerful because they have discovered a plan to make them immortal, and if they suceed it would mean bad news for humans everywhere...plus no paycheck for Hansel and Gretel.
   There are three words that I can use to sum up this film in a nutshell....big, bloody fun. Now allow me to elaborate. I went in to this film expecting a cheesy, popcorn action film with lots of guns and explosions...and I got my wish. "Hansel and Gretel" is what many would refer to as a Guilty Pleasure film. You don't really want to like it, and you don't want to tell people you liked it, but in your heart...you like it a lot. The most recent example of a guilty pleasure I can share was "Van Helsing" with Hugh Jackman. A film with terrible dialogue, over the top plot lines, and great action...but I love it. "Hansel and Gretel" is very much the same.
   But in terms of cheesy factor, this film is really not as bad as I expected. Ok, so the main characters are carrying shotguns, automatic crossbows, and Gatling guns in fairy tale world (not to mention spewing f-bombs). However, there was barely any of what I would call "cringe-worthy" dialogue and no plot-lines and set pieces that were wildly over-the-top. And because of that I can totally enjoy watching an automatic crossbow fire away at witches as they expload...in 3D.
   Again let me stress, this film is not for those who want to hear some complex story complete with engaging character development. This film is made for a specific audience, an audience who want 90 minutes of fast-paced, fun action sequences that have a lot of guns and a lot of witches that bite that dust, some in more brutal ways that other.
   And if this kind of film sounds good to you, then I will guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy yourself in "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters." It's an intense, comedic spin on a classic fairy tale, but in terms of all the action films released on a yearly basis...it's a forgettable guilty pleasure at most. I give it two stars out of four.
   "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" has a running time of  88 minutes and is rated R for strong fantasy horror violence and gore, brief sexuality/nudity, and language.

Mama

   Over the past fifteen to twenty years, the "horror" genre has gathered a less than stellar reputation. Now, when someone says a horror film, the first thing that many including myself think of is endless amounts of gore, coupled with senseless violence and other crude perversions that have been made infamous by films such as "Saw," "Hostel," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." It is rare now to see a horror film that actually puts effort into story, character development, and old school jump scares. Of course there are some great recent exceptions such as "The Woman In Black" and "The Cabin in the Woods." And "Mama," produced by Guillermo del Toro, is yet another example of a scary movie done right....for the most part. 

   It's a well known fact that creepy children make one creepy movie, and that's the case yet again with "Mama." The film begins with two girls being found in a shack in the woods by their uncle Jeffry (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and his girlfriend, Annabel (Jessica Chastain). These two girls had been surviving on their own for several years and the two do not understand how, but they adopt the girls and bring them to their new home (which of course kind of looks creepy on the outside). 

  But the one who was helping the girls survive in the wilderness does not like that they have been taken from her, or it, whatever you would call and undead ghost mother, and thus the haunting begins. As the monster begins to make itself more and more known in the house, Jeffry and Annabel must try to discover not only what this thing haunting them is, but why it is here and what it wants, and that quest comes with plenty of fun plot twists and scares. 

   As I said before, many horror films nowadays rely on gore and mutilation for their "scares," but not "Mama." This film is old school. There is no extreme violence, I don't recall there even being any blood (the film itself is only PG-13). Instead, the makers of the film relied on some great techniques and camera angles, accompanied with eerie music to catch the audience off guard with jump scares. Of course there is a lot of stuff that just creeps the viewer out such as someone walking through the house in the dead off night, hearing noices where there shouldn't be noises, and the younger sister playing tug of war with her older sister (OH WAIT! Her older sister just walked out of another room....oh no!). 

   But of course no movie is anything without a good plot, something that most scary movies lack. Guillermo del Toro has proven himself a great storyteller when it comes to these kind of films and he has proved himself yet again. This is a mystery film. You are trying to understand this monsters backstory, why its haunting people, what it's looking for. But it's not just a story about the monster, its a story about family. A story contrasting two mothers, one who is trying to be a good , loving mother when she has no expirence and another who will stop at nothing to keep her "daughters" emmeshed and in her possession. And the movies shows the pros and cons of both of these mothers and how they view their children. A plot line with this much effort was great to see in a film in this genre. 

  Unfortunately, the film's story is not perfect, especially when it comes to the ending. Many films are ruined by having a disappointing ending and I fear this is the case for "Mama." The film had such promise, such complexity, and really good scares but the climax relied too heavily on indeed CGI and an overexposure of the film's monster (she looked creepy at first but the creepiness is lost after twenty minutes of screen time). The end didn't make sense and didn't justify everything that led up to that point. 

  But still I applaud "Mama" for breaking the stereotype of modern day horror films. It presents old school scares, a mostly impressive story, and a impressive performance by recent Golden Globe winner Jessica Chastain as well. It's a treadgy that an ending can make the overall product a disapointment, but "Mama" will still be a good choice if you want to watch a scary film late at night. I give it two and a half stars out of four. 

"Mama" has a running time of 100 minutes and is rated PG-13 for violence and terror, some disturbing images, and thematic elements. 

Les Miserables

In the summer between 6th and 7th grade, my school's required summer reading book was Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables." Looking at the book I feared it would be tough to read, not only was it the longest book I had ever read to that point but it was full of lavish description that I was not yet used to in a book. Five years later, it is still, and will always be, my favorite book I have ever read. Then, this past January, I got to see the musical adaptation of the book on stage..it is one of my favorite shows I have ever seen. So as you can imagine, I was ready to pass out when I learned that Academy Award winning director Tom Hopper ("The King's Speech") would be bringing the musical to the big screen. And when the casting list was released, when I saw that one of my favorite actors (Hugh Jackman) would be playing Jean Valjean, I had no words. Would this new film come to hold such a high place in my heart as the book and the show?

It is the year 1815, and prisoner Jean Valjean (Jackman), who has been a prisoner for nineteen years after stealing a loaf of bread, has just been released on parole. Everywhere he goes he is rejected by those who look down on him, until a bishop offers him shelter for the night. It is this bishop that shows Valjean the grace and love of God. It is this revelation that compels Valjean to become a new man as he breaks his parole and sets off for an honest life.

Eight years later and he is the mayor of a town and owner of a factory. But his seemingly happy life is soon plagued with problems. The first starts when Valjean notices a man in his office, the Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), who once ruled over him in prison, is ruthlessly hunting Jean Valjean because he skipped parole. His second problem arises when he encounters a miserable lady in the streets.

Fantine (Anne Hathaway) was a worker in the factory until she was fired when they discovered that she had an illegitimate child named Cosette. Now, trying to scramble together money to provide for her child by selling her hair, teeth, and body, she does not know how to go on. That is when Valjean comes to her and promises to take her child into his care. The remainder of the film tells of Valjean and his lifelong struggle to outrun Javert and take care of Cosette in the city of Paris where revolution is brewing.  

The first question I had when I was thinking ahead to this film concerned the amount of singing. Many know that the stage musical has no lines of spoken dialogue, it is all singing. Well I was happy to see that the movie is almost the same way. Ninety-nine percent of the film is sung, only a very small part is spoken, and I love it. All of the conversations, monologues, and songs that the characters sing by themselves, to another, or to a crowd just wraps you in to the story and mesmerizes you every step of the way.

But the songs would feel empty if not for the powerful performances behind them, and Hugh Jackman has given a performance perfectly worthy of his first Academy Award. The passion and emotion that he brings to the beloved character bring Jean Valjean to life like never before. His voice is incredible and his great effort makes this character one of the most memorable in the past decade.

However, it is Anne Hathaway that steals every scene that she is in. We have heard her version of "I Dreamed A Dream" in the trailers for the film, but in context, in it's entirety, the song is heartbreakingly beautiful. And every note she hits is beautiful. Her acting is so powerful and so real, I was asking myself "Where did that come from?" Look to her to sweep the Best Supporting Actress awards this year.

The love story between Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and the revolutionary leader Marius (Eddie Redmayne) is another major story arc of the film. Thankfully for us. Their voices harmonize greatly. Seyfried hits two of the highest notes in the whole film and Redmayne gets my award for best voice (which is saying something).

Then there is Russell Crowe. Let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that Crowe has a bad voice by any means. However, when you compare his voice to every other voice in this film, he is obviously the weakest link, which is not the best thing to be when you have to portray the movie's conflicted protagonist. There were times when I was very happy with Crowe's performance such as his solo in "Stars," one of my favorite songs in the movie, but there were other times where his voice made me cringe. That being said, his acting make up for it, and I would not have wanted another actor to portray Javert.

All of the performances in "Les Mis" are noteworthy: the perfectly casted Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter), the revolution leader Enjolras (Aaron Tveit), the beautiful Eponine (Samantha Barks), buts what makes the movie truly spectacular is the compelling story. The story of an angry man who, through the grace and mercy of God, has transformed his life into a life of putting the needs of others above himself, and has learned the supreme power of love. And that transformation, portrayed so well by Jackman, is inspiring.

The story of Jean Valjean is one of the greatest in all literature. It will touch the hearts of every one who gives themselves over to the musical epic. Tom Hopper has created another masterpiece, full of lavish sets, epic scope, and brilliant performances. Never before has a blockbuster film had its actors sing live on camera in a film that is singing from beginning to end. Because of this, "Les Miserables" is a grand achievement in cinema, and one of the greatest accomplishments and films to ever grace the screens. I give it four big stars out of four.  

"Les Miserables" has a running time of two hours and thirty three minutes and is rated PG-13 for suggestive and sexual material, violence, and thematic elements