Les Miserables

Les Miserables, 2012
Directed by Tom Hooper
Nominated for 8 Oscars

Les Miserables is one of the most popular, beloved and well-known stage musicals. It tells the story, starting and ending, with Jean Valjean, a prisoner for 19 years in the galleys for stealing a loaf of bread. Finally, he is released on parole, but breaks it so to make a better life for himself. Years later, he has achieved this "better life", and when he learns one of the workers at his factory was let go, and has a child she is trying to look after, Valjean decides to rescue this child after the woman (Fantine) dies. Valjean, while still hunted, rescues the child, Cosette, and both their lives are changed forever.

I must confess something. Being the bookaholic I am, I decided to read Les Miserables before ever having seen the full musical (I've seen 45 minutes of the 10th anniversary a year before reading). Yes, you read that correctly. I read Les Miserables. Unabridged, and I skipped no pages. And once I read the final page of the book, I realized I`d screwed myself over for watching the musical or the movie. No play or film could ever accurately portray how beautifully written this book had been; how complex, how heartbreaking, and how glorious it was told. Yes, there were many parts that were drawn out or unnecessary, but when you got to the meat of the story, it was so incredible. And once I read the entire summary of the musical, I knew I was in for a let down. Because translating a 1200 page novel into a 3 hour musical meant that many things were going to be changed, and many would be simplified.

The problems I had with this movie were not the films fault (unless we're talking costume inaccuracies, or historical inaccuracies, but that's different), but that it was over-simplified from how the book had told it. Cosette and Marius did not take one look at each other and were in love. Eponine was not really a main character at all. The Thenardiers were not funny, but were incredibly evil people (and had more children than just Eponine). But I digress.

The first half of the film was incredibly done. Hugh Jackman is the powerhouse of the film, and carries it all on his shoulders. His performance is constantly great, and his singing is really quite good. The live singing, I thought, was incredibly well done. The group numbers were all my favourites and sounded so so good. Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, completely and utterly broke my heart. Her portrayal as Fantine was so emotional, and raw, and broken, that I believed her completely every second. Her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream was heartbreaking, and had me in tears (like everyone else in the theater). For only being in the film a short period of time, her character was properly fleshed out and had the right amount of development (something that the second half of the film lacked).

Everything, right up to where Marius, Eponine, etc come in, this film was really, really good. I had thought I wouldn't like the film whatsoever because of the book, but was surprised I liked the movie so much. Until then. Whether this is how it goes in the stage musical, or if this is just the film, I'm not sure, but everything felt very rushed and under-developed at that point. While Marius was my absolute favourite (Jean Valjean a very close runner up) in the book, his character was extremely diminished. We didn't get to know him on a deeper level like we had Fantine and Valjean. Same goes with Eponine. I felt like I hardly knew her at all before she dies. Which was such a shame. Had there been more time to flesh out these 2 characters, and the other revolutionaries, this would have been much better, but it felt too rushed, and too shallow for me to really care.

Overall, it's very hard to come to a conclusion of what I thought of the film overall. The first half was incredible, well paced and heartbreaking. The second half felt a little more rushed, less character development happening. It makes it very hard to decide what you thought overall.

So overall, I know that the live singing was well executed, and brought a lot more emotional, and a lot more acting in to the film. It made things seem a lot more real. I feel like I Dreamed a Dream would not have been nearly as heart-wrenching had it not been sung live. It would've sounded too perfect and not broken enough. The acting was all superb. Jackman, Hathaway were great. And I adored Eddie Redmayne as Marius. Russell Crowe was not nearly as bad a singer as I'd kept hearing he was (he was decent, ok people?). The visuals were stunning and the makeup for Jean Valjean was excellent. But there were pacing issues, lack of character development, etc.

I'd say Rotten Tomatoes hits it right when it gives it a 70%. It wasn't anything fantastic, but wasn't horrible either. It was a decent movie.

7/10

LES MISERABLES

LES MISERABLES
Written by William Nicholson
Directed by Tom Hooper
Starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway and Eddie Redmayne

Cast: and remember, the truth at once was spoken, to love another person is to see the face of god. 

I would think it would go without saying that a musical that announces itself as an ode to misery in its title, would be a fairly dramatic and depressing affair but apparently this isn't so.  Some of what I'm hearing of Tom Hoopers extravagant restaging of the classic musical, LES MISERABLES, is that it is a relentless, melodramatic onslaught of singing out pain in your face for nearly three hours. Yes, it is most certainly all of this but it was designed to be precisely that. Whether they're forever running from the law or selling their body to feed their child or watching all of their friends die in the French Revolution, these people have every right to be as anguished as they are. And what better way to deal with this pain than sing about it?

LES MISERABLES has a massive following. It has been staged thousands of times and has played to audiences around the world for over thirty years. And yet, this is the first time it has been attempted on film, as a musical anyway. To say that anticipation for the film has been high would also a be a great understatement. Now that it is finally here though, will purists be happy? I suspect not actually. Hooper decided to have his incredibly diverse and talented cast, from Hugh Jackman to Anne Hathaway to newcomer, Samantha Bark, sing this intensely difficult show live on set rather than record first in studio and then lip synch on set. While the effect itself is most often very intimate and emotionally engaging, some of the musical prowess is lost amidst the emoting. While Hathaway's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is deeply moving, I am sure some will wish there was more clarity to her belt and less cracking in her voice from crying. All the same, the film does feel more spontaneous than most film musicals so while the decision will polarize some, it is still brave and commendable.

Many an eye is on Hooper here as LES MISERABLES is the follow-up to his Oscar-winning work on THE KING'S SPEECH. While that story was a grand one, it was still told on a much smaller scale. LES MISERABLES may have been a tad bit much for him to handle. Set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, this is the story of one man's struggle to forge out a life in times of strife and suffering. Jean Valjean (Jackman) once stole a loaf of bread and he has been paying for it ever since. While pretending to be someone he is not, he takes in Cosette, a young girl (played as an adult by Amanda Seyfreid) when her mother (Hathaway, who shines like you would not believe) passes away. When Cosette falls in love with a revolutionary (a dapper and delightful, Eddie Redmayne), Valjean does everything in his power to ensure they are together. While Hooper has a strong handle on his characters, his French Revolution feels slight at times, hardly like the source of all their misery. 

What I love about LES MISERABLES is the inherent sense of hope in the music itself. The poor sing of how the end of the day brings nothing but another day to a close at first and later, albeit still suffering greatly, sing of how they long for one day more. And what with all the political unrest and death and disease in the streets, to speak of things like love seems entirely frivolous at first but eventually love is the only thing that makes any sense. For it is true what they say, to truly know happiness, you must experience LES MISERABLES first.

GONE

GONE
Written by Allison Burnett
Directed by Heitor Dalia
Starring Amanda Seyfried, Jennifer Carpenter and Wes Bentley

When Jill comes home from her night job at a diner, she finds her sister not at home. After doing a thorough search of the house, she determines that her sister has been taken. This is a scenario she knows all too well, since she herself was taken, thrown down a hole and almost murdered the previous year. Convinced the same man has come back for her, but accidentally got the wrong girl, she goes to the police. The problem is they don’t believe her. With no assistance from the authorities and time running out, Jill takes matters into her own hands to save her sister’s life.

GONE is an interesting take on the serial killer genre. Keeping the audience in the dark about the true crime being committed here, while also expecting them to invest in a character who is very likable and has clear, seemingly unclouded motives is an excellent device. Amanda Seyfried is one of the few young female actresses today who would have been able to portray a character that lies her way through an investigation, but makes the audience believe her story. The remainder of the supporting cast seems to have been put together for maximum impact at the box office. Wes Bentley is in the film for only a few brief moments and plays a non-pivotal role, while Jennifer Carpenter plays a slightly more important part, but is in the film for an equally short period of time.

In the end this is a great thriller and a solid entry into the serial killer genre. While this isn’t a ‘must see’ for everyone, it should definitely be on the list for horror/thriller fans. GONE is available on DVD now.

Written by Trista DeVries
Editor-in-Chief
Toronto Film Scene

Review copy provided by eOne Entertainment.

IN TIME

IN TIME
Written and Directed by Andrew Niccol
Starring Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried and Cillian Murphy


Henry Hamilton: For a few to be immortal, many must die.

Depending on how you see it on any given day or what side of the bed you got up on, time is either on your side or running out. For some, all they’ve got is time on their hands, while for others, time is the enemy. There are a number of time cliches one can reference to sum up a number of situations and all of them seem to culminate within Andrew Niccol’s IN TIME, a science-fiction thriller that could have used a little more time in the oven itself.

IN TIME is interesting enough but that isn’t really enough to make it worth something. At some indeterminate time in the near-ish future, the world has figured out how to stop the aging process. At 25, you’re done and a clock starts on your left forearm that, like any good wrist watch, keeps perfect time for you. Only this watch doesn’t keep you on schedule; this watch is a constant reminder as to how many days or hours or minutes you have left on this planet. Everyone gets a year when they turn 25. It is then up to you to keep finding ways to replenish that time so that you don’t suddenly time out. Like I said, it is interesting enough in theory but in execution, IN TIME is nothing more than a vehicle to continue establishing Timberlake as a thing, thinly veiled as a high concept morality tale.

Time is therefore currency and IN TIME wastes no time with subtlety in demonstrating how there will always be have’s and always have not’s, no matter what our current currency is. After kidnapping the daughter (Amanda Seyfried) of the apparent richest man (read, most immortal man) in the world, the twosome naturally fall for each other in their quest to better the planet and equal the playing field. They begin robbing her parents’ banks and giving the time back to those who desperately need it. Suddenly, Niccol doesn’t seem to know what kind of movie he’s making anymore. Is it sci-fi? Is it a heist movie? Is it Robin Hood? Whatever it is, it is only half entertaining, half of the time and Timberlake only has half the gravitas required to carry this film. In the end, I highly doubt that IN TIME will be able to stand the one test it needed to pass and I don’t think I need to even say what that is at this point.

RED RIDING HOOD

Written by David Johnson

Directed by Catherine Hardwicke

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Shiloh Fernandes, Max Irons, Gary Oldman

and Julie Christie

The Wolf: You're afraid of me.

Valerie: I'm not afraid. I simply have no interest in talking nonsense.

Filmed in British Columbia, RED RIDING HOOD opens on stunning aerial shots gliding through grand mountains, surrounded by thousands of fir trees, pristine lakes and feathery cloud formations. The shots distinctly reminded me of another supernatural “thriller” shot in the same location and, not coincidentally, by the same director. The director in question is Catherine Hardwicke and RED RIDING HOOD is her first film since she initiated the TWILIGHT series. The opening gave me reason for concern; I had no interest in reliving that tedious vampire series after all. Unfortunately, Hardwicke had other plans.

By the time we are introduced to little red, Miss “What big eyes you have?” herself, Amanda Seyfried, it is pretty clear that this attempt to recount the classic folk tale about a little girl in a red cape and the big, bad wolf waiting to devour her in the forest, is going to amount to nothing more than adolescent angst disguised as epic filmmaking. Seyfried’s mountain town is being terrorized by a werewolf but more importantly, Seyfried is being pawned off in marriage to one guy (Max Irons) while her heart belongs to another (Shiloh Fernandez). The sets, cinematography and score do their best to fill in the terribly thin premise but it isn’t enough to make us forget that Hardwicke has just made another other worldly love triangle tailored to a very specific demographic.

Pandering to a teenage audience is what ultimately takes all of the bite out of RED RIDING HOOD. By trying very hard to recapture that same desperate love at all costs tone the TWILIGHT series relies so heavily on, Hardwicke undermines the intensity of the more horrific story elements she has at her disposal. Seyfried is torn and to make matters worse, one of her suitors might actually be the wolf. Fortunately for her, loving the beast is fully acceptable behaviour for young girls these days. At least in the movies, it is.