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

Letters to Juliet (2010)

I imagine that the earliest chick flicks probably were not well received because of their kitsch, convenience, and poor storytelling. I don’t know how long ago the first quantifiable chick flick actually came out. Since those early days, however, many chick flicks are met with similar dissatisfaction, not only for the aforementioned qualities but also because those qualities have all but become a caricature of themselves. Such is largely the case with Letters to Juliet.

Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is a journalism fact-checker on a pre-honeymoon with her fiancé, who uses their trip to Italy more for perfecting recipes than for enjoying his bride-to-be. After wandering around Verona, Sophie stumbles upon a group of women who answer ‘letters to Juliet’ left in a wall in town. After writing a response to a very old letter, Sophie gets recruited by the writer- Claire (Vanessa Redgrave)- to track down a long lost love. Sophie and Claire get along fine, but Claire’s grandson (Christopher Egan) does not approve of the quest.

From that description, keen observers and those exposed to too many chick flicks over the years can probably figure out all they need to know about this film. If you envision plenty of convenient coincidences, an all too likely ‘unlikely’ romance, and a neat and tidy bow of a happy ending, you win a cookie. But wait, there’s more!

As a man, I am not hard-wired to appreciate the clichés and gushing predictability contained in chick flicks in general. Therefore, I take Letters to Juliet for what it is- a candy-coated puff piece for girls. The acting is far from great but both Seyfried and Redgrave are likeable actresses. You can tell they are trying, which I can appreciate. Egan is more or less reading lines. Part of me can’t blame him for being fed such a flimsy character with terrible lines. But another part of me sees the other two stars trying and ponders whether Egan’s performance is a reflection of his apathy to the material or just his acting ability.

While the plot is silly to the extreme (do you really expect us to believe that Claire’s letter went unfound for that long?), Letters to Juliet does not insult your intelligence. In fact, it is genuinely humorous at times. My biggest beef with the film is just how long the first half feels. It just drags on and on before much of anything happens worth noting. To say that about a film that clocks in at an hour forty-five just seems wrong.

As with many chick flicks, this one is mostly harmless (once you get through the first half anyway). I’m willing to call it subpar for the genre but you could easily do far worse.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

Mama Mia! (2008)

Oh, the modern movie-musical. It seems that this genre has been hit or miss for quite some time. This is easy to understand because it is very easy go wrong with adapting a popular Broadway hit. You can make the film too much like the stage production and appear stagey and gimmicky or you can take too many artistic liberties and risks, drawing the ire of loyalists and getting “too weird” for general audiences. Somewhere in the middle lies the elusive perfect combination of the two. Mama Mia! does not fall into any of these categories.

The subject matter of Mama Mia! is tame stuff when compared to some of the more dramatic productions Broadway has churned out in the past. Young Sophie Sheridan (Amanda Seyfried) is getting married and she wants her father to walk her down the aisle. There is just one small problem with this- she doesn’t know who her father is. After snooping through her mother’s old diary, she narrows her search down to three possible candidates and invites all of them to her wedding in the hopes of sorting it out before the ceremony without her mother finding out. The men arrive earlier than expected and are surprised to learn that they are all possibly the bride’s father. Sophie’s mother (Meryl Streep) is equally surprised when she is confronted with her three former lovers.

All of this is set to the disco-tastic music of ABBA. Some songs work better than others but, on the whole, it’s rather evident that the songs were inserted around the story or the story written specifically with a song in mind. Some of the musical numbers feel more forced than others and the musical as a whole feels more manufactured than organic. Such seems to be the case with so-called ‘jukebox musicals.’ Interestingly enough, two former members of ABBA wrote the stage musical. This solidifies my belief that musicians should stick to what they’re best at.

To be fair, Mama Mia! isn’t a bad musical. In fact, it’s good to the point of entertaining you with jokes and songs aplenty. The downside is that this is a very safe production. It rarely makes you think and doesn’t make much of a statement about anything. Movie-musicals don’t necessarily have to do any of these things but I enjoy it when they do. Mama Mia! is pure sugar frosting. Nothing dynamic; nothing powerful. Just a cute, harmless puff piece that occupies less than two hours of your time.

Seyfried is charming as Sophie and really portrays the innocence of the character well. Pierce Brosnan, Stellan Skarsgård and Colin Firth provide plenty of give and take humor as Sophie’s three befuddled potential fathers. As long as one of these three is on screen, Mama Mia! is at its funniest. Meryl Streep works as Sophie’s quasi-scatter brained mother but her two friends (Julie Walters and Christine Baranski) have a tendency to go over the top. Maybe I feel this way because I am a man and don’t appreciate catty, corny female humor as much as others, but the women of Mama Mia! had me rolling my eyes more than rolling on the floor.

Simply put, you could do a lot worse than Mama Mia! It gets the job done in that it entertains you and doesn’t drag on in too many places. This easy, breezy aspect comes at a price though- the film never really leaves its mark on you. Fun and forgettable is fine because it is fun. But it is still forgettable.

RATING: 3 out of 5