At the Movies

Les Miserables

I've never seen Les Miz. Never seen the play, never read the book, never seen the movie with Liam Neeson. I assumed Javert was a non-singing role, because he's played by Russell Crowe. In other words, I had no idea what to expect.

I loved it.

I was so curious to see what would happen next, I didn't notice it was a three hour film.

I think all but ten words were sung. So the grand experiment (the actors sang live, their microphones edited out in post-production) makes perfect sense. I mean, the transition from song to sung dialogue would have been extremely tricky sound editing wise, yeah?

Pretty much everyone had beautiful voices. Yes, even Russell Crowe did a decent job. For someone not known for singing, the fact he didn't Brosnan any of his songs is a triumph. Still, I know he singing threw some people off.

What threw me off? The ginormous elephant statue.

The Hobbit

Based on the reviews, I was expecting to be disappointed. But I wanted to see this 48 frames per second newfangledness. And I like Martin Freeman, who plays the title character.

I was pleasantly surprised by the fact I enjoyed the film. The reason it's done so well is because, all in all, it's an entertaining.

Now, a woefully inadequate description of this 48 FPR thing: You know how most movies and TV shows have a glossy feel to them? Well, 48FPR feels matte. Not unpolished, but not glossy.

I liked the look. And a bonus – less eye strain from the 3D.

The film should be considered a prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. There is more foreshadowing in the movie than what I imagine was in the book.

(Literarily speaking, The Lord of the Rings are sequels to The Hobbit. That is, The Hobbit came first and The Lord of the Rings built upon it.)

So, next up – the Desolation of Smaug. (Because they took the shortest book of the series and made it into three movies.) But the lingering question is, what's the third movie going to be about?