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
Showing posts with label Helena Bonham Carter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Helena Bonham Carter. Show all posts
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Friday, December 23, 2011
The King's Speech** (2010)

Featuring a powerful one-two punch in the acting department and a solid supporting cast, all one needs to do is see this film to understand why it claimed Best Picture at the Oscars. While younger audiences may yearn for something more contemporary and faster-paced, The King’s Speech mirrors its subject matter with a measured pace that is both satisfying and rewarding.
The film follows Britain’s Prince Albert, Duke of York (Colin Firth) along his journey to Kinghood (as George VI) in the 1920s and 30s as he struggles to overcome his pronounced speech impediment. Helping him through his struggle to sound like the leader of his people is Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a quirky Australian actor and speech therapist. In confronting his client’s stammer, Logue also helps Albert/George confront feelings about his brother Edward and other memories that influence and exacerbate his speaking issues.
Let’s not kid ourselves here, this film is all about Colin Firth’s performance. It is darn near flawless. People work for years to conquer speech impediments, making it difficult to accurately determine how much progress Albert/George makes as we jump through the years. The way Firth pins down the intricacies of the stammer is impressive because actors are notorious for underplaying and overplaying disabilities to movie-ruining effect. Firth’s performance makes this film, no doubt about it.
Fortunately, this film is not like many biopics in that it is not a one-star show. Geoffrey Rush is delightful as Logue, providing most of the humor opposite of Firth’s pathetic and angry straight man role. Helena Bonham Carter isn’t given much to work with as the Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother, not the current queen) but it’s a refreshing break from her usual eccentric roles. Guy Pearce is perfectly slimy as Edward, the weasel who makes Albert/George’s life miserable as a person and as a royal.
As something of a history buff, I am probably better able to appreciate this film’s sets, costumes and visual effects than some in my generation. Period details are often lost on people uninterested in things that aren’t flashy and hip. So if you can’t get into the story being told in The King’s Speech, you’ll be too bored to appreciate the subtle and intricate details the filmmakers are careful to include.
There may not be anything in the way of unique or fancy camerawork on display in this film but the story doesn’t require it, so that cannot be considered a negative. Younger audiences may be turned off by the old school approach the filmmakers are going for but if you’re over the age of 21, chances are you will be able to see this film for what it is- a great true-life story told through great performances. In short, a great film.
RATING: 4 out of 5
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)
I’m starting this review off with a disclaimer: this is going to be an incomplete review. The reason? Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is an incomplete film. Unlike the first six Potter flicks, Hallows Part 1 is an unfinished story. After seeing Part 2 in July 2011, I will be able to give you a true assessment of the last and most ambitious installment to one of the biggest franchises of all time. Until then, please accept these reflections of the first half of the tale…In the wizarding world, adulthood comes at age 17. Harry has been on the fast-track to maturity his whole life, but the cutesy fun and enchantment of Hogwarts is behind him now. Lord Voldemort’s strength and influence are growing beyond measure. After a daring escape from his aunt and uncle’s house, Harry teams up with his pals Ron and Hermione on a secret mission to locate and destroy Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes, artifacts that contain pieces of his soul.
The road is long, dangerous, and pushes the teenagers to their limits. Relationships must be mended, obstacles overcome, enemies defeated. In many ways, this is the Harry Potter film I have been waiting for. No more silly school scenes with ghosts romping through the hallways; no more lessons from alliteratively-named professors involving absurd-sounding spells; and no more help for Harry. The young wizard and his friends are out of their element and totally clueless about what to do. Harry has done a good job relying on instinct and improvising over the years but reality hits him now like a cold brick in the face.
Hallows Part 1 is interesting because there are stretches of time that are slow and sprawling while other parts all but suffer from information overload. It’s an intriguing balance because the film never feels as long as it really is. This is good because the audience doesn’t get restless, but bad because, when the credits roll, we’re still capable of taking in more. It doesn’t help that the cutoff point is also unsatisfying.
Having read the book, I had a few ideas of how the film could be split with momentum to bridge the gap. No matter where the filmmakers decided to make the cut, Part 1 was always destined to feel incomplete but I think they got it wrong here. Harry’s progress is limited at best and we fade to black with a tragedy for Potter & company but a triumph for Voldemort. It’s a pessimistic and deflating way to say ‘come back next summer for the conclusion!’ Maybe I was foolishly hoping for a Lord of the Rings kind of ending because those films found a more organic jumping point than strict adherence to the books would have dictated.
Staying true to the book is a noble task, even though a myriad of minor details and set pieces are either rushed over or changed, but it may also hurt Hallows in the long run. There is no self-contained story arc within the first half of this tale. Discovering the truth behind the Deathly Hallows is the closest thing we get but that only develops in the second half of this film. Despite a minor victory or two along the way, nothing is resolved and we leave Harry just as clueless as when the film began.
There is also a problem of perception for the audience to work past. Fans of the book series, especially those who read the book shortly before taking in the film, will be dissatisfied by some of the little changes. Comparing a movie to its source book is inevitable but it’s also wrong to do. Film and the written word are two entirely different beasts. Even I have to admit that, all along, I have been basing my ratings for the Harry Potter movies partly as adaptations of the books.
This is unacceptable as a movie lover because books are almost always better because they allow you to create your own artistic vision for the story. When watching (and in my case, reviewing) a movie, you should only be concerned with whether or not the film functions properly and tells a good story; don’t let the details they leave out from the book affect your opinion of the movie. How good was the story the movie told? That’s all that matters.
As far as movies go, Hallows Part 1 does pretty well. Most of the visual effects look sharp and the use of more handheld cameras really pays off in capturing the gritty reality of Harry’s new life in hiding. The locations selected for Harry’s cross-country trek are beautiful and haunting in their isolation. Finally, the young stars of the series carry themselves differently this time. They’re clearly up for the challenge of making a more adult Harry Potter film.
More adult it certainly is! With a little more salty language and a surprising scene involving some supernatural sensuality, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is not for anyone under the age of 15 (at least that’s my opinion). It’s a pretty bold departure from the tone and style of previous installments but it’s the right move. After a little bit of stalling and a fair amount of set up between Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, we finally come to the meat and potatoes. We have to wait until next July for the rest of the main course, but at least it is finally here.
I don’t know if I will re-watch every Harry Potter film before seeing Deathly Hallows Part 2, but at some point I will definitely need to re-evaluate them all. This way I can be sure that my ratings for each film reflect their accomplishments as films and not as adaptations. I’m reserving too much judgment on Hallows just yet because the story isn’t finished. I did dock it a quarter-point though for not explaining the existence of the mirror fragment Harry gazes at throughout the film. I know where it’s from (and so will anyone who has read the books) but this was the first appearance of it in any of the films.
I will probably grade Part 2 as a stand-alone component as well and then write up a true review for both halves combined. One consistent review for one consistent storytelling and filmmaking vision only seems right. Until then, you better believe I will be eagerly awaiting the final chapter.
RATING: 3.5 out of 5
Friday, August 17, 2007
Planet of the Apes (2001)
The big problem with remaking a legendary film (especially one with such an iconic and oft referenced/mocked ending) is that everyone already knows what’s going to happen. The middle of the film may be wildly different (as some remakes try to be), but the beginning and end points are already known to us.Tim Burton brings his creep-tastic directing skills to create some very nice imagery but a mediocre script. Burton’s films typically have a dark feel to them and this is no exception. The landscapes work really well, but "Marky" Mark Wahlberg is out of his element and out of his league here. It doesn’t help that the script is bad, laden with intimations at current politics and how our society is really no better off. Pile on top of this some ridiculous special effects, a shameful overuse of wire work, a weak supporting cast, hideously cheesy references to the original, and an ending that made me say out loud “Well, that was stupid,” and you get this underwhelming example of why Hollywood doesn’t need to remake really good movies.
RATING: 1.5 out of 5
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
I think if you put Michael Jackson in charge of a candy company the outcome would be fairly similar to this “re-imagining” of Roald Dahl’s classic children’s story.Johnny Depp is known for playing some really out-there characters (Ed Wood anybody?), but his abuse of creative liberty as Willy Wonka is downright creepy, looking and acting like a child molester.
Evidently Roald Dahl wasn’t fond of the now-classic 1971 musical version of his story and sold the rights to have it remade shortly before he died. His surviving family allegedly oversaw every aspect of the production and all creative decisions that went into this flick.
I realize now that this means that Dahl’s family realized that they could make serious cash off of the remake because everyone would pique their interests in what the remake was like. Director Tim Burton floods the film with his standard lot of unnecessary imagery, set designs and camera work. It’s also got a minor Gothic aftertaste that Burton seems to command.
Burton claims it's not a remake, but I’ve got news for you- once a film based on a book or other source material has been made, any other “versions” that come after it are remakes. And remakes almost always pale in comparison to the original. This one sure does.
RATING: 2.75 out of 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
