Les Misérables* (2012)

Even though I was involved with my college’s student theatre group for four years, I have never considered myself a theatre person. I have no burning desire to see a Broadway show and I do not have enough experience with stage productions to form any preconceived notions of what a good movie-musical should look or sound like. I think the absence any personal stylistic biases helps me enjoy Les Misérables more objectively and fully than some of its critics.

This story is far too long and complex to summarize in one paragraph but I will do my best. After a moral conviction, parolee Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) reforms his life but, in doing so, violates his parole. An act of mercy exposes Valjean’s identity to the ruthlessly legalistic lawman Javert (Russell Crowe), who makes it his personal mission to hunt Valjean down. Years later, Valjean and the prostitute’s daughter in his care are caught up in the clamor of proposed revolution. Try as Valjean might, the lovely Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) falls in love with a charming wannabe revolutionary. Between protests in the streets and Javert hot on their heels, Valjean tries his best to maintain his freedom while providing a life of opportunity for his adoptive daughter.

Even at two and a half hours, cramming this much story together makes things feel more than a little rushed at times. Because of this, a lot of character development is either stunted or missing altogether. I would have particularly appreciated a little more focus on Javert. I get the stereotypical hardcore lawman bit but we could use a little more time to see his conflict growing as he considers how Jean Valjean’s selfless acts conflict with his beliefs that law and morality are equivalent.

Unlike some, I love the decision to have the cast singing live to the camera rather than lip syncing over a pre-recorded track. Les Misérables takes the audience into the gritty, dirty streets of impoverished 19th Century Paris. Using raw vocals fits the raw setting we find our characters in. It also lets the actors and actresses act through their singing instead of trying to make their expressions match the tone of voice on a recording. This is effective on pretty much all of Hugh Jackman’s songs and also very powerful for Anne Hathaway’s solo number “I Dreamed a Dream.” These pretty Broadway songs are made far more moving this way, helping this film stand out amongst its movie-musical peers for me.

I haven’t exactly followed Hugh Jackman’s career outside of the X-Men films but from all that he does here, I have to assume this is the performance of his career to date. This story requires a strong performance out of Valjean and that is precisely what Jackman delivers. We see anger, fear, determination, and tenderness that suck you in and break your heart by the end of it all. You get the sense that this role is something of a dream come true for him because he clearly gives it his all.

As supporting characters, Anne Hathaway delivers a powerful performance of desperation and Amanda Seyfried performs admirably as the love-struck Cosette. Russell Crowe is certainly the film’s weakest link in terms of singing ability but the man does play a good villain. Les Mis feels the most disjointed during the scenes featuring Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thénardiers. Everything about them feels like it belongs in a separate world from the rest of the film. A tremendous amount of drama and realism abounds in Les Mis but the Thénardiers are just so wacky and bizarre that it feels very obviously like a comic relief sideshow. These characters serve an important purpose to the overall story but it is clear that Broadway yukked these folks up a little too much from the source material.

Combine this largely talented cast with beautiful but not showy costumes and splendid location and studio sets and it really is like you are there. In addition to the live singing, director Tom Hooper lets the camera follow characters through sets more, avoiding the stagy feel of most movie-musicals. Despite a few visual effects that fail to impress, Les Misérables has more than enough going right for it to make it a film that commands a large screen. If you did not catch this one in theaters, it is your loss. I went to see it because my wife loves the musical but I left the theater a fan.

RATING: 4 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Monsters, Inc. (2001)

The first time I saw this film, when it got its original rating, I was in college and did not appreciate the finer points of Disney and Pixar films. I liked what I grew up watching and cast a cynical gaze upon everything that came after the point at which I stopped watching kid flicks. As a parent, and as someone who better understands how movies are made, I now have a completely different viewpoint on this film.

The concept alone is brilliant. Pixar gets back to thinking outside the box and it pays off big time. The writers had to have had a firm outline in mind before pitching this film to the Disney execs because I can’t imagine anyone jumping right on board with a movie about monsters, creatures that have scared children silly for ages. The monster world is created so fully and carefully that you have no problem suspending disbelief. The story quickly gives a purpose for scaring children and provides a world of personalities that mirrors our own. All this, along with the fact that monsters are actually terrified of making physical contact with humans, softens the monster characters and makes it easy to slip into their world.

Just like the toys in Toy Story, Monsters, Inc. puts forth the illusion that monsters are just as quirky and flaky as we are. In true buddy flick fashion, Mike and Sulley are very different from each other but those differences help them complement and supplement each other. The film wouldn’t be as enjoyable if our protagonists were both like Sulley or both like Mike. The interplay between them and the way they interact with the supporting cast feels so effortless and right.

The animation in this film is gorgeous. Pixar continues to expand the possibilities of CGI animation with lush details and, in this films case, new and realistic looking textures. Somebody had a lot of fun designing all the monsters in this film and everyone in the animation department should be proud of the final product. Sulley’s fur is one of the standouts of the animation. Instead of matted down hair, each strand seems to have volume and life. I don’t know what kind of programming it takes to make all of Sulley’s fur look and behave like it does but the fact that Pixar can do it at all is a marvel.

I only have two minor quibbles with this film, neither of which are deal breakers. Both concern the film’s villain, Randall Boggs. First, Randall gets pretty creepy at times and that might scare younger viewers but that’s really only a concern for parents with kids four and under. Second, even though Randall’s secret scaring device is the very thing that necessitates the entire story, it’s easy to forget about. All I remembered from my first viewing was that Randall left the door on the scaring floor and was trying to cover his tracks for his role in letting a human through. Despite this, Monsters, Inc. is really about Mike and Sulley trying to do the right thing and get Boo home. Randall’s plot may be forgettable, but his character is antagonistic enough to make up for this minor story fault.

Disney may have the market on princesses and fairy tales but Monsters, Inc. cements Pixar as one of the most original and creative production companies in the business. Think about it- four films in and A Bug’s Life is your low point? That’s not bad at all. My original rating was way too low and future viewings may reveal that even this revised rating is a notch or two too low. Pixar’s story department may need to retool every now and again to tighten up the details but the animation department shows no signs of slacking off.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3.25 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.75 out of 5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Over a decade after bringing the first Lord of the Rings film to life, director Peter Jackson finally brings us the first part of the first tale set in Middle Earth, that of Bilbo Baggins and his epic quest. Those anticipating a viewing experience on par with the quality of the award-winning trilogy will undoubtedly think my rating is too generous. Knowing the differences between the two as books, I got only slightly less than what I hoped for.

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) lives the quiet life of a Hobbit until the wandering wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) volunteers him to host a gathering for a band of dwarves on a quest to reclaim their homeland from a dragon. The otherwise careful hobbit lets curiosity get the best of him and he sets out across Middle Earth into places and dangers he never imagined. Surrounded by orcs, elves, trolls, and the forces of darkness, Bilbo tries his best to earn the respect of his dwarf companions while keeping himself alive.

Having read The Hobbit several times, I was fully prepared for the lighter story being told. While The Lord of the Rings is an epic drama with sprinkles of humor and wit, The Hobbit has always been more popcorn friendly. Bilbo is setting out on a treasure hunt, not to save the world. Sure, the quest means everything to the dwarves he travels with but to him and to the audience, the journey to the Lonely Mountain is but a wide-eyed adventure. For the most part, that is exactly what you get with this film. It looks pretty good, it’s exciting, and it’s quite a good bit of fun.

So what holds this film back? More than a little, sadly. For starters, The Hobbit is a much shorter book than The Lord of the Rings, so Jackson runs the risk of spreading this tale far too thin over the planned three films. As all first films must, An Unexpected Journey introduces the main characters and sets the wheels in motion. We start out with a prologue narrated by an older Bilbo (Ian Holm from the LOTR series), which seems to run a tad long but also frees up a lot of time later on by dumping a pile of exposition on you first thing.

Two critical story elements throw a perpetual wrench into the film’s narrative. Even in the book, I felt there were too many dwarves in Thorin’s company. It is cumbersome to try to differentiate and involve that many characters in one story. The fact that they are all dwarves doesn’t help much either. Kudos to Jackson for trying to make them all look different but the end result is remembering only three or four out of the thirteen of them by name.

In an attempt to spread out the story, Jackson pumps quite a bit of expository filler and tangential scenes that form as a loose bridge to the events of The Lord of the Rings. I can understand the desire to throw some foreshadowing into the mix but because most people saw the LOTR trilogy first, much of the foreshadowing feels unnecessary. Perhaps future generations that watch the Hobbit trilogy first will think more highly of those tangents but to me it feels forced. It is wholly unrelated to the story being told and slows the film down. Tolkien fanatics may disagree but to casual observers, it’s a bit of a drag at times.

The biggest filmmaking flaw is the overuse of CGI. The Lord of the Rings flicks crossed the line occasionally but The Hobbit seems to ignore the fact that there is a line at all. Wide shots look pretty good for the most part but when Jackson launches the camera through the action to follow characters around or spin and pan between characters instead of cutting, sequences begin to look almost like a video game instead of a movie. Case in point, much of the scenes involving the Goblins inside the Misty Mountains don’t cut it.

Overall, I was pretty pleased with how An Unexpected Journey turned out. I didn’t mind the songs (a major turnoff for a number of people for some reason), Middle Earth still looks pretty spectacular, and the film sets things up pretty well for the rest of trilogy. The problems with this film largely stem from Jackson’s indulgence. He had some tight budget restrictions on The Lord of the Rings films but takes full advantage of budgetary carte blanche here. I would have been happy with fewer LOTR allusions, quite a bit less CGI, the total absence of Radagast the Brown, and a better ending point (they should have ended with Thorin’s company entering Mirkwood), but I can live with what we got.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5