Had Your Self a Misérable Little Christmas?
Sunday, December 30, 2012 at 6:28PM Another big cash grab day is ahead for the movies as New Year's Day approaches. But for this weekend the winners are clear. Django Unchained & Les Misérables much ballyhooed "Sad Off" was a true contest for wintry dollars with Tarantino's controversial slavery comedy revenge fantasy eventually pulling out in front of the musical. But the war for profit puts Les Miz in winner's position since it's already equalled it's budget in just the first six days. Django has a ways to go for that milestone but let's not nitpick as they're both true hits.
Box Office Chart repurposed from Box Office Mojo
In fact, it's been a good box office year for Oscar-buzzing players. Affleck and Spielberg's pictures were both $100 million grossers with Lincoln still going strong. Pi & Playbook have solid sales - they didn't embarrass themselves. Of the front-running Oscar six only Zero Dark Thirty has been little seen but that's a function of timing and platforming rather than audience choice. If Zero Dark Thirty doesn't delay its expansion for too long it seems certain to demolish The Hurt Locker's gross in no time.
Did you see both Django & Les Miz over the break?
I almost went to The Hobbit but abruptly changed my mind and tweeted as much:
Just realized I am not actually *required* to see The Hobbit. Ever. And shan't. My memories of Lord of the Rings will live unsullied.
— Nathaniel Rogers (@nathanielr) December 30, 2012
Oh sweet relief! I really do feel it.
Reader Comments (39)
I totally understand your feelings re: The Hobbit, as I had them too, but I'll say firmly that you're denying yourself something special by refusing to see the new film. You're right--it's not of the same awesome caliber of The Lord of the Rings, but nor is it necessarily trying to be, despite Thorin as Aragorn 2.0, a similar structure to Fellowship, and, yes, the first part of what of course seems like a needless trilogy. It has a new tone, but a very familiar spirit, and I can't tell you how good it felt just to see Middle-earth again on the big screen. That's what Jackson's done here--he's brought that world, one of the best ever to be put on film, back to life, and he's expanded it. That's what justifies the trilogy--it's an LOTR board-setter that immerses you further in the universe. (For example: I recently read that LOTR crew went South and The Hobbit gang goes East--there's so much more to see!) There will be some things you will not like (like an incessant scene with three poorly realized trolls), but if you're a true Rings fan, there'll be so many more things you'll love. Don't be worried about tainting your LOTR memories--be excited to add to them and stretch them in a new direction.
Just saw Lincoln for the second time. Remains a near-perfect movie with the exception of the beginning and end, It does seem like Kushner/Spielberg wanted to get those two signposts (the Emancipation Proclamation speech; the assassination) into the film but couldn't do it organically given that the the film is largely about process and personalities (those two moments make Lincoln a mythical figure, but the film is about making him a human). I don't blame them, per se (those are two powerful moments in American history).... and I can forgive the opening (because the proclamation actually has a direct effect on the story), but the ending.... when I buy the blu-ray and revisit the film, I'm totally ending it when Lincoln descends the staircase after uttering "I should go now, though I'd rather stay."
That this should probably win best screenplay is a testament to Kushner's astonishing abilities of portraiture (no character feels skimped upon), structure (it's a two hour talky political drama, but really flies by) and emotional generosity.
Since I read The Hobbit after LOTR, I was already familiar with the feeling of disappointment. So I went into The Hobbit movie deciding I would not have the same magical experience I had when seeing LOTR. I think I actually ended up enjoying it more than I thought I would because of my lowered expectations. No, it's not nearly as good as LOTR, but it was still fun and I didn't regret seeing it. These three (WHY??!!) movies are going to be hard to avoid over the next couple years!
Saw django and les miz. Preferred django but it is hard to compare the two. Really loved both though.
Kurtis -- but i don't need to see the world revived. I have 9 hours of it i can love any time i want. I guess this comes back to the thing that in the end i am a movie person and not a television person and I don't need constant revivals of my favorite things to comfort me. I want new comforts ;) ... basically I abhor Hollywood's shady new apparently mandatory business practice of elongating everything to make more money -- Kill Bill's split really created a monster that we've already seen enacted in Harry Potter, Twilight and now with Peter Jackson. There will be no end to the amount of padding we'll have to endure and no end to the sagginess of the new storytelling unless audiences revolt.
I shall do my wee part to not put up with it.
Saw Les Miz today. Not bad, but no where near the best of year, much less in the pantheon of movie musicals for me. I sorta feel bad for not liking it more and I think most of the blame goes to the choices that Tom Hooper made. It felt down right claustrophobic. The score is amazing. The actors are working their asses off and doing great work, but many moments that should've been grand felt awkward because the damn camera just wouldn't let them breath. It worked beautifully for "I Dreamed a Dream" and "Empty Chairs, Empty Tables" (best in show performances also help), but all those tight shots really did the film a disservice. The moments when the score sweeps and Hooper finally opens things up a bit just soar, and I just hated that the whole film didn't feel that way. Midway through I started to wonder what Joe Wright would've done with it. Love Wright or hate him, he always seems to get his material, and I think he could've made something really special out of this.
Saw both films today. I adored Les Miz, even while noticing all of the bad things (odd camera placements, Russell Crowe's voice) that have been pointed out over and over again. There was so much more to admire than dislike about it, and I'll be pissed if Hugh Jackman isn't nominated (no need to worry about Hathaway, she's got this). Eddie Redmayne was also very good. Django was a lot of fun but it felt a little incomplete to me.
The Hobbit is not too bad, and I watched it 2 times though the second time I doozed off a bit in the middle part (and recently I found out one of my friends did the same too during the exact same part, hee). But apart from that, it does justice to the material (ok, admittedly i have extremely low to almost no hope at all for the movie what's with all the "first-there's-one-then-it's-two-part-then-it-became-a-trilogy" confusion. I was too relieved that it's not a disaster thus I will cut it some slacks not to be too harsh on it.)
I watched Les Miz this past weekend, and proudly saying that although it's almost as long as The Hobbit, I did not dooze off. Though no trolls, no orgs, no dwarfs or monsters, it is still good enough to hold my attention from beginning to end.
It's really exciting to see audiences come out to see one Oscar player after another this year. Heck, even the biggest box office hit of the year came from the studio being smart enough to pull in a writer/director who was perfect for the material. Am I too optimistic in hoping the studios wil take note of this trend and start trusting beloved directors with bigger budgets to make interesting films? We can only hope.
Won't you feel weird about missing a certain-to-be-nominated for something movie? Also, I loved it. It wasn't LOTR, but it was immensely enjoyable.
I've finally seen both Django and Les Miz this week. Django had a few good scenes in which I recognized Tarantino but it was an hour too long and was desperately missing a glamorous leading lady . As for Les Miz... I don't know. I've never seen the play , haven't heard the score before ( I know, I'm the last person on the planet ) and as such all i had to compare it with was ... the book. But that isn't fair , I know. The last hour or so is very emotional and everybody in the audience went through a box of Klenex ( myself included ) but what was the elephant doing in Paris of 1832? And why was Javert always on top of some very building with angels of death behind him? Oh, so he was the bad guy...
Anyways, the score was great and I might get the soundtrack soon. I might even watch it again when it shows up on cable. In retrospect , the highlight for me was the trailer for The Great Gatsby before the movie started.
Saw Les Miz on Wednesday, Django on Thursday and saw Jack Reacher today. As a Les-Miz virgin, I thought it was pretty good but felt rushed in certain places and draw out in others. Django was also pretty good but there were some parts that could have been cut out. Jack Reacher played a little too much like a TV procedural in places for my taste but it had decent performances and strong action beats, so I was entertained.
As for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, it certainly doesn't have the emotional weight of LOTR but it's an engaging film on all levels and should be given a chance (I'll certainly be seeing it again sometime this week... and hopefully in 48 FPS). Then again, very rarely do (possible) bad sequels/prequels ruin series for me. I mean I detest X-Men: The Last Stand but it doesn't make me hate X1 & 2 (although in that case it does leave the series unfinished... but that's a topic for another time).
And I saw Les Miz today, and like everyone, the things I loved (Hathaway, Redmayne, my husband Aaron Tveit), I really loved and the things I didn't love (Crowe, the camerawork, SBC, and admittedly Hugh Jackman, who sounded awfully pitchy in the softer moments) made me question the parts I loved. I may have to see it again to form a proper opinion.
I'm kinda disappointed with this post. I always thought you were smart enough to make critical decisions AFTER having given the material a chance to present itself. The Hobbit is not LOTR, but it is not bad -- and the padding, I think, is justified because Peter Jackson is actually putting in so much of Middle Earth lore and marginalia that goes beyond the basic story of The Hobbit, a gift for the true believers.
A sample: Gandalf is asked how many wizards there are in Middle Earth. He says 5, and names three but omits the two blue wizards -- because apparently he has forgotten their names. Truth to tell, Peter Jackson couldn't mention those names (they were named in Unfinished Tales) because he has no legal right to use those characters in this movie.
It's small things like this that make The Hobbit fun. And immersive.
I saw Django today and loved it. Terrific screenplay, great soundtrack, wonderful costumes, and several performances that should make the Best Supporting Actor line-up but won't because they're all competing for one slot from the movie (seriously, Alan Arkin is going to get in over Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson?).
I also saw Rust and Bone this weekend, which felt longer than Django. Marion was good, but much of her co-star's plot was unnecessary.
I'm going to Les Miz on Tuesday, but to be honest, my expectations aren't very high, which may be a good thing.
Saw Les Mis for the second time, and liked it even more the second time. Hooper's direction sometimes puts unnecessary hurdles in the movie's way, but the cast (including Mr. Crowe, whose performance I will whole-heartedly defend) and techs (minus the fussy editing) powered through it all. Not quite in my top 5 of the year, but certainly in my top 10. For as much bad stuff happens in the story, I actually found the entire thing rather rousing and triumphant, which I attribute to the cast's renditions of the score. While never quite moved to tears, I got plenty of chills throughout, and the finale made me want to throw my fists in the air.
The Hobbit was surprisingly engaging, even though it takes a while to really get going and throw off the feeling of "why is this THREE MOVIES!?" Some truly magic moments, and Jackson's grasp of Tolkien's world remains spot on, even though this one never reaches any of the heights of the Rings trilogy.
As for Django...well...I never thought I'd find this one to be my least favorite of the BIG December releases, but there you have it. Waltz and DiCaprio shine, but the story structure is utterly shapeless. Parts of it shine, whether due to humor or stylized filmmaking, but it still feels like it's desperately in need of further trimming.
Just gonna plug this while I'm at it: http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2012/12/back-there-again-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/
Meanwhile, Promised Land is poised to be this year's Revolutionary Road-'sorry you didn't get those Oscar noms, now no one is going to see your movie' December qualifier. It's the risk they take.
Just got back from seeing Django Unchained and LORDY but it was fun! I gotta agree, though, that Waltz is not by any stretch of imagination a supporting actor. He's a co-lead. Arguably THE lead, actually, given that the amount of dialogue he has is easily three times Django's. Samuel L. Jackson was the standout, and DiCaprio was fun, although I wish he had been even MORE over-the-top.
On the drive home, my man and I got to talking: Since Tarantino's last picture was a revenge flick set during the Holocaust, and this one was a revenge flick set during slavery, when do you think the next one will be set: The Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition? There are only so many Great Human Atrocities to create a revenge flick around, after all.
I hear you on The Hobbit, Nathaniel, and truth be told, you really aren't missing much. I can't be objective about The Hobbit: It's my favorite book and the LOTR films are some of my all-time favorites. And I got a ridiculous grin on my face when Ian McKellen came on screen in his Gandalf costume and started speaking. But it is SO. FUCKING. LONG. And it could have easily been cut by twenty minutes to half an hour AT LEAST. The cast is really good (Martin Freeman really is perfect), and the Riddles in the Dark scene is really one for the ages (Andy Serkis is, if possible, even better here than he was in LOTR), but then they had to go and make it a prequel for the LOTR films, and added all this extra stuff to the narrative that really didn't need to be there. That's what Extended Editions are for, Peter Jackson!
Anyway, in the long film sweepstakes of the holiday season, from feeling the shortest to feeling the longest: Django > Lincoln > Les Miz > The Hobbit. Wonder where Zero Dark Thirty will fit in?
Nate, your reservations about the Hobbit are justified, but I think you'll be kicking yourself later if you don't see this thing on the big screen. If it's going to be seen, it needs to be seen in that format. Truly amazing visuals/effects, a real step up from ten years ago. Yes it sags in a couple spots, but not nearly as bad as I imagined. I too will be returning to see it in 48 fps, the way it seems it was made to be seen.
Was slightly disappointed by Django - it was too comedic for it's own good and Sally Menke was sorely missed. The more I thought about it in the following days I realized I really like the story and concept of the film, but Tarantino needs to tell a straight story again, a la anything prior to Kill Bill (who would have thought Kill Bill's mash-up style would have been the dawn of his new style rather than a one time flourish). Rap music in a slave pic, really!? I get the whole blaxploitation thing, but had he gotten rid of the useless and inappropriate musical and comedic indulgences - they kill the gravitas - the film could've been great.
Haven't seen Les Mis yet...
I saw The Hobbit this past week and was completely mesmerized and surprised at how quickly the end came. I was fully prepared to be disappointed, I heard it was too long and dragged but that wasn't my experience. I will go again. |Sidebar - this was my first 3D experience and I thought that the technology was amazing. I found it distracting at first but that only lasted for 10 minutes. The Imax experience was great and the sound incredible. During the dwarves sleeping scene I thought that someone behind me had dozed off and were snoring but it was sound from the movie. It was an awesome movie experience. Made my holidays.
It was a choice between LIncoln and Les Mis. Figured Les Mis would still be too packed so we went for Lincoln tonight, and will probably do Les Mis next weekend.
At first I found LIncoln so talky I was afraid of being put off, but once my mind caught up with the rhythms and I settled in, the time really flew by. DDL was wonderful, just hand him the Oscar.
I am agog, I am aghast
The Hobbit's reign isn't past
Don't people want to ooooo and ahhhhhh?
Saw Lincoln today. DDL is amazing. All of it nicely done. Seems like the safe bet to win Best Picture. The rest of the audience seemed to love it...although the dingbat next to me who kept checking her phone has no respect for history or moviegoing.
Saw The Hobbit yesterday, and in contrast to the first poster, I thought it was a total snoozefest. Beautifully shot, great craftwork, but we've seen it all before, and there's really no reason for it to be as long as it is. it's just one weird fantasy episode of Oh No, our Hobbit and dwarves are in danger again! over and over. I spent much of the film trying to figure out what Hollywood star could have played Javert instead of Russell Crowe and couldn't really come up with anyone.
After reading your tweet I wanted to write a few lines, but then I saw that Kurtis O and Ian have used my exact words already.....
I'd like you to know that I MUCH preferred "Les Mis" to "Django" (I know, how can you compare them? But still). I was rather let down by Tarantino's latest, which really feels like the director treading water, exploring areas he's already explored and yet doing it with even less brio and wit than usual. It all felt too simple and played out.
"Les Mis" however was extremely enjoyable. The constant closeup approach doesn't always work, but when it does it really pays off. Anne's "I Dreamed a Dream" and Eddie's "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" register really strongly, precisely because we get to luxuriate in the emotional elasticity of their faces. Very powerful.
Saw les miz today! Really liked it and i can't see why people are hating on Russell so much. He wasn't a sore spot and he just had the perfect look for someone like Javert. I mean, he's not going to get ALL THE AWARDS like Anne Hathaway and his voice wasn't super-strong, but he did a decent job. But i'm just a guy who's totally unfamiliar with the musical so i guess he might suffer in comparison?
Plus, Marius is kind of a dick (love Redmayne's voice though) and i realized that i pretty much am Eponine. yikes.
People applauded at the end of my screening and i didn't blame them. Great songs, singers and EMOTION. I was tearing up all over the place and usually i'm a heartless bastard.
I had hoped to see The Hobbit, Django, Les Mis, Rust & Bone, On the Road and Not Fade Away between Christmas and New Year's, but so far I have only seen The Hobbit, and will be lucky if I can squeeze one more in.
Anyway, I thought The Hobbit was terrific. I was a complete skeptic going in, and the plague of multi-part sequels is maybe my least favorite development movie-wise in the past several years. Its horrible, cynical money grubbing bullshit, and so on some level its irredeemable. That said, Jackson is the only filmmaker given the opportunity thus far to come anywhere close to persuading me that there was a valid artistic motive at play, in addition to the obvious profit motive. We won't *really* know whether it was worth it until all three films have come out and we can evaluate them all together (and yes, I kind of hate that). But I really really enjoyed what Jackson did here, and am looking forward to the next film very much.
If nothing else, it convinced me that Martin Freeman is maybe one of the most underappreciated actors on the planet right now.
See, I loved The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey more than most of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I do, however, prefer The Hobbit as a text to The Lord of the Rings. I think Jackson is getting a lot of flack for apologetically setting up a trilogy rather than creating a stand alone film. The cast is great, I like the inclusion of the extra Tolkien work, and love the alterations to the plot to make Bilbo a more active protagonist.
Really enjoyed Django and did not care for Les Mis. Have to wait until Friday to get Zero Dark Thirty around here.
Nathaniel, you're a hater when you chose to be.
You refused to watch Hanna in a movie theater from what I remember (I could be wrong) and it's a film that has to be seen in a movie theater, and so is the Hobbit.
Peter Jackson does The Hobbit book justice.
He has transcended the material more than once in the first film for sure and with the help of the absolutely fascinating Martin Freeman, has created a much more interesting Bilbo.
And I'd say the whole world would pay money to see a union of Galadriel, Gandalf and maybe Radagast and Elrond putting the Necromancer in his place (in the 2nd part probably) when Gandalf goes missing to go down to Dol Guldur.
Last but not least, Thranduil is a total Bitch Superior - can't wait to see more of that actor in the next movie.
The Hobbit was fantastic. Some people seemed to go watch it already expecting to hate it. Good thing Nathaniel didn't watch it because he'd probably be one of those. In the reviews, most people complain about the 48 fps (that's not really a reason to hate the movie, seeing as it's available in 2D - it's only a reason to hate that technology), others complain about the long running time (I loved every moment of it and could have endured another hour of that), others complain about it being 3 movies - fair enough, but I don't, because if the other 2 movies are as this I'll love them. And they didn't exactly "stretch" that thin book to 3 movies, because they'll be adding a lot of content from other sources besides The Hobbit book. Others simply say "it's not as epic as LotR". It was never meant to be...
Yavor & someone -- i wonder what this business about "refuse" is. sometimes i just miss movies in theaters because i run out of time. you can't see everything. I mostly liked Hanna though i am not crazy about this new mini genre of teenage assassins (there were already too many adult assassins in movies -- most overrepresentated profession in the movies based on the number of people who must actually practice it in real life ;) )
and u can't possibly know whether or not he's done the book justice because he's barely started telling the story! I guess when it comes down to it i morally object to movies that are not supposed to be able to stand alone. I didn't used to but it has clearly been taken too far for the sake of billions (basically the traditional standards of good storytelling were doomed the second that Potter fans didn't object to watching a seat warming 2 hour commercial for the end of their beloved series in that Deathly Hallows Pt 1 nonsense. Any self-respecting and fan-respecting and the beauty-of-storytelling respecting creatives wouldve several chopped down that saggy "let's spend the whole middle third of the book in a tent" into a 15 minute sequence and you could have ended the series on a reasonably succinct 2 hour and 15 minute note with brisk pacing.
This "every page must be transferred to the screen intact... and if that's not enough screentime for an extra billion dollars for our parent studio, we'll add another several pages of filler and add back in all the scenes that weren't really adding to the story that we were going to put in the deleted scenes bonus features" has completely driven a stake through the good storytelling.
I weep for what the next decade might bring. and i wonder when fans will finally catch wise that they're being had for every penny. Either that or I wonder when they'll realize it's super hypocritical to ever denounce a non-franchise movie for being "dull" or "sluggishly paced"
WHEW. Sorry about that. 2012 has made me so pissy. I vow to be in a better mood 8 hours from now ;)
Nat - Completely agree on Harry Potter and overindulgent adaptations in general, but seriously - I did not find what you're talking about to be the case with The Hobbit at all. And, like I said above, I went in predisposed to *not* like The Hobbit based on the three movie thing. If you're really just opposed to seeing multi-part movies from here on out, so be it, but you might be pleasantly surprised. I mean you might also hate it, but you might be pleasantly surprised instead. I know I was!
Eh, yesterday I went and saw the Cirque du Soleil movie in 3D. Why do I think I'm the only one who did? ;-) My man is not that big on the English language, so watching pretty people hurl themselves shirtless through space is a pretty good waste of time, especially when not a word is spoken throughout (that I recall).
I did watch four movies on TV though. They were and in order: Hereafter (yes, Clint Eastwood), Hanna, The Debt, and way down there, the remake of Poseidon. Shudder.
Oh, and about the elephants in Paris, I believe that is historically accurate. One of Napoleon's self aggrandizing monument to himself I believe (or some other Napoleon type).
The last hour or so is very emotional and everybody in the audience went through a box of Klenex ( myself included ) but what was the elephant doing in Paris of 1832?
The elephant is from the book, in fact.
sean c -- yeah, i asked my boyfriend about that since he's a francophile and he said the elephants were really a thing in paris (and obviously stayed a thing: think Moulin Rouge!"
@ Nathaniel
The Hobbit is a 350-page book. I have it on the bookshelf on my right and just saw that the 1st film ends at page 129. The 1st film does justice to these 129 pages and on screen has created richer characters. Especially Frodo and Thorin.
Considering that I truly loved the 1st film and that what is to follow in the remaining 220 pages is even more interesting I really can't wait.
And as I said, the White Council alliance VS The Necromancer event which is only mentioned in 1 or 2 sentences in the book will almost certainly get great attention in part 2.
Jackson showed that he is able to elevate material in the past as well.
What he did with Arwen and the Loud Water scene in the Fellowship is probably 100times more fascinating than the way that event is described in the book (to me at least).
He did the same thing when he brought Elves to Helm's Deep, an event which is entirely invented but is one of the best scenes in The Two Towers.
I could be wrong but something tells me that the Mirkwood adventures will be the best part of the whole Hobbit Trilogy.
Now you're doing what you rallied against other people doing with "Les Miz" with "The Hobbit." It's an excellent film. You shouldn't let the critics' biases (or yours) stand in the way of seeing it. All that you liked about the "LOTR" trilogy is still there (at least the creative gang is all still intact). I enjoyed myself and saw it in 3D even (didn't have a choice on that count, but that's another story). Not sure I'd give it BP honors or anything, but it should at least be in the conversation.
"The Hobbit" is like all of Jackson's film a bit too long ( I thought "King Kong" was never going to end) but if you are a fan of fantasy movies it's worth the trip. I saw it in the new 48 frame process which made some scenes look as if they were shot on video ?!