LES MISERABLES REVIEW (so after the fact, as I saw it in the theater opening night)

I saved it but never posted it, I was on amazon i think & saw some reviews dissing the actors or whatever & so i wrote this addressing them. Had I been writing a "real" movie review, it would be much more concise, in depth, touch on the whole story, at the very least, but unfortunately that's not what I did here. As if anyone is reading any of my posts/blogs anyway right? :P 

And I'm actually going to write a REAL film review for once! Normally I will just give my opinion on a film, maybe touch on the characters, in regards to what I thought, etc. but I never really do a synopsis of a film. I respected Roger Ebert a great deal (we almost always agreed on films & had the same thoughts! since i was a little kid), BUT sometimes it has been off-putting for me to read a review of his prior to seeing a film, as he would expound on the ENTIRE story & obviously that can ruin the film for you to varying degrees. I finally started just looking at how many stars he gave a film & maybe read the first paragraph, then waited to read his entire review until after I saw a film. SO much better that way! 

First, let me start by addressing (or commenting) on the people dissing the actors, their singing abilities, etc.

the singing/the songs, AS written originally for the play, if you think about it, is NOT supposed to be about who can sing the best, how pretty can they make the song.

that is the last consideration really. if you want HONESTY in your films (or even stage) musicals that is, and that is what THIS "les miserables" is about. for starters, they are singing LIVE, take after take after take, WHILE they are acting, and the acting takes precedence, in my opinion anyway. the story, the characters, what they make you FEEL, is a million times more important than "oh i don't know if they sang that song to perfection". gimme a break you naysayers. yes, films are about escapism, and suspending not only your disbelief, but your reality as well, though this film is STEEPED in reality....that reality being the human condition, which we ALL can (or should) be able to relate to.

so instead of having gone into the studio months and months prior to filming, before the actors even ACTED the roles, they have to then decide and TOTALLY commit to how they are going to perform the role and are stuck to it regardless of what happens, because they laid it down in the studio, so the die is cast.

would YOU want to do that as an actor? make all of your acting choices before you even got on the set? before you even became the role? before you even interacted (and acted) w/your fellow actors?

people are too used to the "perfect", prettied up musicals. i myself have always loved musicals, the great ones, that is, but i always did find it cheesy that there was perfect playback that they were lip synching along too and how they are walking down the street and suddenly break into song and everyone else joins in and happens to know the song and the dance routine. c'mon, that IS cheesy, and totally unrealistic. maybe i prefer realism more than most. so while i overlooked that w/my much beloved musicals, i still always struck a false note (no pun) w/me. "Chicago" did a great job (the film), because the director came up with a way for it NOT to be cheesy, he made it imaginations of Roxy Hart and that brought up the level of "Chicago"'s greatness even higher.

Also people have mentioned the quality of the actors singing voices. They ALL (w/the exception of Russell Crowe in my opinion), have AMAZING voices, and as a singer and musician myself, I know what I speak of. Russell's is passable and that's about it in my opinion, but Anne, Hugh, Eddie, Samantha, Amanda all have fantastic, amazing voices, especially Sam, Anne, Eddie and Amanda, they could be professional singers in a hot second if they so desired.

Okay enough about the naysayers and the disappointed. Les Miserables is a BEAUTIFUL, sad, moving, amazing, hopeful, cinematically (ok amazon, i'm spelling it correctly, not sure why the underlining) stunning and beautifully produced film, bottom line, no bones about it. Tom Hooper took on a close to impossible task in his undertaking of this much loved, MUCH seen story.

It is also considered to be THE best musical EVER written!! ever!! Based on Victor Hugo's novel written in 1862, or first published in 1862, i have it on my kindle & am reading it at the moment, along w/a few other novels i have going. 

Well okay, I'm gonna do it anyway, I'm going to give a synopsis while I'm here posting this.....

"Les Miserables", French literature at it's finest, written, as aforementioned, by Victor Hugo (who also wrote "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (1831), for those of you that are familiar w/at least the film versions of that story as well), it IS considered to be one of the greatest novels of the 19th century!) is a story based on the lives of a few particular people: Jean Valjean, Fantine, Inspector Javert, Cosette, Marius, and Eponine. The lesser characters that still have a fair amount of screen time are: Enjolras, the Thenardiers (Eponine's parents & Cosette's caretakers for most of her early life), & countless additional characters for the time, the setting, the Revolutionaries: the young men wanting to change France & change the lives of the people of France, putting an end to the suffering & starvation that was rampant. The poor & wretched, whom are everywhere in this film & in history of course. As a matter of fact, Les Miserables can be translated into a number of words/meanings. Literally the translation is: "the miserable" or "the miserable ones", but it's also been translated as: "the wretched", "the poor ones", "the wretched poor", "the victims", "the dispossessed", according to how poor the translation from the original french was. 

oh dammit, i don't have time to finish this, so i'm going to post it now & perhaps come back later & finish my "official review" of the film, which i was finally attempting to do.

My review of OLAY TOTAL EFFECTS 7 in 1 Anti-aging moisturizer....

I would agree w/the post below this. As a Esthetician/Makeup Artist/Cosmetologist, it IS nice to be able to use just one product instead of a handful. And being an expert on skin, skin care & products myself & having tried almost everything under the sun, I DO agree that Olay Total Effects is a pretty great moisturizer, and it is just one step, which is fabulous!!
No more first putting on your anti-aging/rejuvenating serum, then your eye cream, then perhaps another treatment cream, THEN finally topping it all off w/your moisturizer, to feel that you are getting all of the effects (no pun) and benefits that you want & require.
So, to get down to brass tax...... you know that w/products in general, they are all basically the same, some have differing or additional ingredients that MAY work a tiny bit better, smell a bit better or more luxurious, have a better, fancier package that makes you feel decadent, or that you are getting a much more effective product, because if it costs a fortune, it's got to be great right? Or even no smell at all, which has been the huge trend for awhile now, as fragrances can mess with sensitive skin, or people find them objectible, but what you are REALLY paying for is the BRAND, the label!! The "status" of the company, who their demographic is, meaning rich or not rich.
Of course there is always the "newest, latest, most cutting edge technology" or some newly discovered ingredient that becomes the MUST have & that every product sooner or later ends up putting into their product, following the leader. Hello grape seed oil, lipids, vitamin C, retinol, retinoids, emu oil (which i've been using for YEARS), all kinds of "free-radical" fighting antioxidant ingredients. There is always a new "discovery" for such things. The latest are things like: rhamnose, glycans (which is thought to be an offshoot of glycolic acid which IS good for your skin, but usually in medical strength, like when you're getting a glycolic peel), well you get the point.
A shampoo is a shampoo, you are simply paying 400% more for a name & that is all. They all have cleansing agents & the usual ingredients.  Point being that a skin cream is a skin cream, some are superior to others in miniscule ways, but no one has any miracles to offer, regardless of what they claim. It is the mere fact of taking CARE of your skin & moisturizing, cleansing, exfoliating, etc. etc., regularly, that alone keeps you ahead of the game.
It's like oiling & caring for a leather bag or pair of shoes, for example, or even keeping your lips moisturized, (I could go on for DAYS about that topic! And how my lips have remained young, moist & perfect always, because of my addiction to KEEPING my lips moisturized w/emollients 24/7, & that's only for starters!), you are preventing it that much more from becoming cracked, dry. That alone will keep your skin younger! Keeping it moisturized.
Olay IS a good product, it does have the 7 needs covered & it DOES do what it claims to do (again, no miracles here, but skin care-taking), but that is all you need right? A product that covers it's claims and keeps your skin soft, supple and moist. Those 3 things are the signs of a "healthy skin": a soft, supple & moist texture. That is what you always want to strive for.
Also, I give it added points for being SO reasonably priced!! You are NOT going to get better results (except maybe in your head) from a Creme de la Mer that retails for $300 and such, or a Chanel that is just about as pricey, or a Guinot (ditto on the price), though i do have to say that some of those pricier creams MAY have a better consistency/texture, smell, as they have more than plentiful the funds to add slightly more expensive ingredients & for much more extensive & expensive advertising & packaging. Again, though, you are simply looking for results, regardless of the product or the price.
So in essence, in a long winded way, I have just expounded on the fact that the Olay Total Effects IS a good moisturizer and it does the job you need it to do, WITH an affordable price! In fact, I will state that ALL of the Olay products are quite great & they have been for years & years.
I remember as a little girl, and growing up, always watching my Grandmother go through her beauty routine & in all of those years, she ALWAYS used Oil of Olay, the basic & only moisturizer that they had at the time. It had a really great smell *kind of like roses & a really great feel as well, & my Grandmother always looked years & years, decades even, younger than her age & I credit a huge amount of that to Olay! I always followed her lead & moisturized with Oil of Olay as a young child, later a teenager, & so on. I firmly believe, or even KNOW that that is why I always have had great, wonderful & amazing skin! Because of the product, but more so, always having taken excellent care of my skin.
So kudos to Olay for doing such a great job & not making you break the bank.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CHIVALRY? OR MEN JUST BEING MEN??

what DID happen to chivalry, and isn't it (or wasn't it) IN the NATURE of men to want to cherish, spoil, adore, take care of (not just financially or always financially, lest it be thought i'm saying i'm a gold digger or looking for a man to TOTALLY take care of me. that's not what i'm saying, but you know the sentiment would be nice for a change!) women?? whatever happened to that?
is it only older men who still do that or feel that way? and do all of them even feel that way? is it a dying art? a dying breed? because these days it seems that there has been a role reversal. that men want the WOMEN to be the ones supporting THEM & spoiling them & adoring them AND also, while taking care of all of the financial aspects, to be sure to also still do EVERYTHING that a woman is "supposed to do", meaning clean the house, do the laundry, pay the bills (w/her money of course), cook the meals, have the children, RAISE the children, be the happy homemaker while also being THE breadwinner. sure, maybe sometimes she is the 50/50 partner, but even if she is "only" doing 50 percent of the cash earning, she is still expected to do all of the housewifey things as well, so in essence she is doing 150% of everything, whilst the man is putting in a measly 25% or whatever.
i'm not just talking out of my ass here. i have dated a LOT!! i won't even mention how much i've dated, because it might be an embarrassing number of dates, it's so plentiful. besides that, in leading up to, or in the deciding of dating someone, i have also talked to COUNTLESS men, getting to know them, their views, their opinions. then on top of that, i read a LOT & i also have a lot of mail friends, so i think that my opinion on this matter is QUITE well informed, to say the least. i think i'm a pretty decent authority on men & who they are and what they want. granted, it might be a certain demographic....say early 20's to mid/late 50's, there are some exceptions below & above those ages, but that is the basic age range.
below is an email i composed to a man on facebook who is a "friend" but i JUST "met" him, we know nothing about each other, we have only exchanged a couple of emails & they were very short emails.
he was asking if i do cam to cam. meaning, obviously, do i get on cam to talk to him while he's on cam & in my experience of guys asking those types of things, it generally means ONE thing: they are HOPING they will get lucky. that this cam/cam session will turn into something sexual. in fact, many men ask flat out about things like that, or wanna go there in ANY arena. via email, text, im, you name it. in fact i've had guy FRIENDS, that i knew very well try to take things in that direction & to be honest, i was offended!
i thought they they were my FRIENDS! not some fairweather friend who wanted to get some cheap thrill out of me & that's all! also offensive is the fact that our friendship obviously means SO little to them that they will risk it for trying to go to such a place. if a guy is interested interested in you & wants it to be more: a relationship, a start of a relationship, then that is more understandable. also it's different if YOU are interested in the guy romantically as well. i'm including sexually in that statement i suppose.
just to be clear, i have NOT gone on cam w/ANY guy EVER!!! ever in the history of my life, of the computer age, the history of the world, or the history of anything! i own a cam, but i've never used it. it's in my computer center cupboard. i bought it for work, for internet meetings, but never had the need for it.
i have talked to and "watched" guys on cam. i don't have a problem w/that. i mean TALKING, just talking, as a friend or whatever.
here is the majority my response to that guy's email to me, asking if we could do cam to cam....

"very expensive? really? wow. when you meet & like a woman, don't you take her out to dinner? or at LEAST drinks or something?
you seem to be looking for some cheap sluts w/NO self esteem, just ready to go on cam & give you your cheap thrills for absolutely NOTHING in return. now THAT offends me.
i'm worth more than that, i have more self respect than that & i'm not some fucking "free" whore walking down the street waiting for any guy to ask if i wanna fuck, or if i wanna cam. wtf? u men these days make ZERO effort for women! you are so spoiled, entitled, wanting instant gratification & everything else you want, all for NOTHING! u don't even have to lift a fucking finger.
whatever happened to chivalry? or treating a woman like a lady? or wanting to spoil or take care of a woman, even for a day?
don't worry i'm SURE you will find a TON of women on fb who have NO self esteem & don't value themselves at all, who would LOVE to jump on cam w/you because that's the ONLY way they think they can get "love" or attention from men."

so that was most of my email. i guess i went off on a tangent, but why should that be shocking or taken as more shocking, my going off on a tangent, if you wanna call it that, then a man i don't even KNOW asking me right off the bat if we can go "cam to cam" or however he put it?
i don't know. it all makes me wonder. OF COURSE, men wouldn't be doing this stuff, asking this stuff, etc. were it not being ALLOWED by countless women right? if every woman was like "go fuck yourself" they wouldn't be so easy to ask, so flippantly & so right off the bat. so i'm not just blaming men, i'm blaming women as well.
then conversely i ALSO believe that we ALL should be able to do what we want to, in ANY arena, sexually included & NOT be judged & yeah that's a great concept, but unfortunately it DOESN'T work that way and we ARE judged for our behavior & everything we do in this world.

the L.A. Complex...anyone watch it??? it's cancelled?? dammit! SO wrong! now we don't know what happens to anyone!

well i did by accident but ended up loving it! and i was just wondering what happened to it and when the hell it was coming back, so i googled and apparently it was CANCELLED!!!! WHY??
okay i somehow stumbled upon this show, thought it would be SO cheesy and terrible but it wasn't. it was totally good, entertaining, intriguing, kept you guessing and TOTALLY sucked you in!
so i then ended up dvr'ing every episode though i apparently caught them in reruns, but i think i caught ALL of the episodes, though i thought there had only been one season and that that was all that i watched. maybe it was? i'm not sure.
i had never even HEARD of it, never saw a commercial, except during watching the show.
apparently the CW did a horrific job of promoting it, which is OBVIOUSLY the reason why it was cancelled! but was it cancelled for sure? there are varying posts that are pretty old too, w/different info.
okay networks now THIS is the problem. you don't put the time or money into promoting good shows on TV & you also don't GIVE THEM THE TIME to actually catch on....if you aren't getting the ratings you want, poof! the show(s) are pulled! which is a big, stupid bag of BS in my opinion. they didn't use to do that, they used to give shows TIME to catch on!! and SO many fantastic shows have been pulled due to that, while the crap shows keep-a coming. the utterly forgettable, unwatchable tripe that gets cranked out non friggin stop.
for one simple example, let me site "seinfeld", it didn't get good critiques OR viewers for YEARS, yet the network kept it on, very wise of them. look at what it became!! will always be a huge part of television history.
okay enough of my babbling, but can anyone absolutely confirm for me that the la complex is NOT coming back??
arghh, i hope it is, but i have a feeling it's not and that is total bs and a complete travesty. good job CW programming big wigs, once again you've blown it. meanwhile i'm sure there will be more crappy endless america's next top models on and even MORE crappy, endless tripe-y tyler perry shows and more of it's kind. i know there are tons of people out there who actually enjoy watching tripe, but there are also those of us who have brains and taste who ARE discerning and want DECENT and GOOD shows to continue! at least the premium channels get it right for the most part and AMC is kicking ass for sure. breaking bad and mad men, oh and the walking dead are three of MY favorite shows EVER!! because they are GREAT shows! well written, fantastically acted and directed, high production value, on and on.
i'm not putting the la complex in the company of the above esteemed shows but it was a VERY good show for the CW (which btw i don't watch at ALL, EVER! because of their crappy programming), and it definitely deserved to stick around.
i, like other comments i skimmed on here, also thought it was going to be a regurgitated, BAD melrose place or something in that vein, but it's totally not. it's citizen cane compared to melrose place, beverly hills 90210, etc.

My review of the film: "Most High", I was posting it on imdb, so figured I may as well put it on here too, if anyone even reads any of my stuff. :)

**If you haven't seen this film, there are SPOILERS I have written!!
perhaps i should start w/a synopsis of "most high"?
i'm not sure if that's what people want to read? well, no, the plot is already outlined on IMDb & anywhere
else that you look it up. so back to what i was saying about it being HARROWING: he, (julius, the lead character) REALLY and truly got it down, the "life" of a tweeker!! omg, i can't believe he gained 25 lbs
to start the film, then filmed it over TWO YEARS and LOST 100 lbs!!!
talk about passion and dedication! ps. i don't know if my review contains spoilers or not, but i checked the box just in case. i don't want to get in trouble w/the IMDb gestapo. haha. jk.
wait, i just noticed that on netflix the film release (or making) date said 2006,but on here it says 2004, i guess they are going by when he STARTED making it (w/all of the weight loss etc. being the time factor),
instead of the release date? anyway, marty sader/julius & the writer
and director, was fantastic, as i said he REALLY got the behavior down, along w/the paranoia, drug induced psychosis, the mouth movements (see: grinding), the hallucinations, the whole kit and kaboodle.
sadly, i have known meth users in my life & have witnessed much of what he put on film. that is WHY it IS so harrowing and tragic, sad, wasteful, you name every negative emotion and i'm sure it fits. supposedly speed usage is the biggest epidemic in our country & i don't doubt it, especially in southern and midwestern states, where it seems to be so prevalent, because there is "nothing" else to do for people and once someone is introduced to that drug (& this applies to most, if not all drugs), at the onset of usage, you apparently feel AMAZING! like you're king of the world, on top of the world, invincible, can do ANYTHING and plan to do anything! which of course you never do....
but then the rest of your time on the drug/drugs is spent chasing that initial feeling, which you rarely or never get, which i think speaks to many of the overdoses from drugs:  i'm sure people are thinking "oh if i
do MORE i will surely get that original feeling?" i can't say that i know if that ever occurs, not overdoses, of course those occur constantly,  but what i'm speaking of is the recapturing of that first HIGH, but i do know this: that drug is EVIL! pure evil. the first time you decide to partake in it, you may as well just
throw your life into the trash at that same moment, and kiss it goodbye while you're at it. same goes for heroin, which i think those (meth and heroin), are the top 2, MOST addictive and most dangerous drugs out there. though that bath salt deal in recent times is just crazy insane and i still can't wrap my head around THAT one!! WHO possibly came UP w/that idea? who possibly thought that THAT is a GOOD IDEA?? in ANY way? i also don't understand people wanting to be & feel BEYOND oblivion on any drug. you don't even know what is going on, you can't remember, you go into psychotic episodes, some are crazy & ruined for like or simply DEAD!!! not only WHO started it, but WHO jumped on that bandwagon? wow. just nutty. flat out nutty!! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418903/
so yes, i'd recommend this film, it's DEFINITELY not the "feel good" film of ANY time, but it's quite sobering, no pun.
i noticed some people questioning/posting about the end, what did it mean? i thought it was pretty apparent. it seemed that he and his girlfriend were at a rehab type facility and possibly about to start getting clean. the dream sequences were his dreams of his "normal" future, of having the "leave it to beaver" type american dream lifestyle. which may be possible for him in the future, though he was pretty tore up in the last half or third of the film, but nothing is impossible!
okay now THIS is definitely a spoiler: when the ambulance carrying the girlfriend to the hospital, RAN INTO THEM, or over them, though they kind of dissipated into molecules or whatever you want to call it.....was symbolic of his daydream/dream being crushed by the reality of what was going on in actuality, and that he/they were possibly getting clean, or starting the road to getting clean: hence the interviews throughout the film showing people discussing THEIR roads to recovery and being clean.
i think it was really sad that he so unfairly lost his job that he had a unique talent for, (due to that Dr boss' a-hole EGO BS!) RIGHT after losing his adopted "father" whom he adored and who adored him, and his girlfriend as well, whom he was already disconnected from. so it set the stage perfectly for him to go down the worm hole, as he did.
something that REALLY pissed me off, was that the girlfriend who INTRODUCED him to drugs & other nefarious things....the scenes where she set him up to rip him off & he discovered that she had stolen the $25 grand from him, and yet he was TOTALLY okay w/it, didn't even mention it. i thought it was sweet of him to love and want her regardless & THAT takes a lot, a good man, no matter how spun out he was, to completely overlook & accept what she did for him, because to him love was love & he loved her unconditionally, so THAT was what was sweet about it, not many, or any people would be so kind. on the other hand he SHOULD have been pissed off at her & that should have been the final sign to him that she was just a USER, in every way, shape and form & was not good for him or ANYONE!
i found the voice overs VERY interesting, quite profound, those more so at the beginning of the film, (because by the end he was basically impossible to understand), how we ALL have our vices (& addictions), which is for damn sure! and he was a drinker at that point. would drink to celebrate, for when he was depressed, for any occasion, because that is what we are TAUGHT in this country *the US*, or many countries, go home after work and unwind, be it alcohol, food, shopping, drugs, love, sex, they all have propensity for addiction, and as i mentioned, i believe that most of us ARE addicted to one thing or another. many don't realize it, or let's say WANT to realize it. we all have and need escapism.
so in essence i think this film was a painful to watch commentary on our NEED for excess, be that whatever you use to excess.
not to ramble on forever, but what i find surprising is that i've not, to my knowledge, seen marty/julius before in anything, and that there is such a huge amount of time between each of his works, whether it be acting, directing or writing. i think he's a very talented guy!
yes, i would recommend watching this film. it's a cautionary tale at the very least. GOOD JOB Marty sader!!
ps. speaking of the length of time between each of his projects, not many, i even wondered (because of the realism of this film), if he HAD been on speed, to TRY for more realism & also to lose the 100 lbs and so on. that would be above and beyond method acting though. i know it sounds ridiculous, but the thought DID occur to me! it's also unfeasible though because HOW would he direct, act, write, etc. while being all spun out on meth? not very likely.
those are my thoughts on this film, having just watched it,(i even have more, as shocking long as this review is, but i will stifle the rest, as i've gone on MORE than long enough & i don't need to bore anyone any further :P).