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 (2012)

 (Disclaimer so people know where I am coming from with this review: I adore the musical “Les Miserables.” I’ve seen the musical three times on stage.  I love the score and listen to it all time on CD. It’s one of my all-time favorite musicals.

I consider the reading of the original Victor Hugo novel to be one of the most profound reading experiences of my life. I’ve seen most of the movie versions, and especially love the 1935 version with Charles Laughton and Frederic March. A five-hour French version from 1934 recently played by TCM and I was blown away by how gripping it was. I just love this story and its characters.)

 

Based on seeing the movie version of the musical “Les Miserables” (2012), I surmised that director Tom Hooper graduated summa cum laude from the Joshua Logan School of How NOT to Direct a Musical.

You know Joshua Logan. The guy who filmed “South Pacific” (1958) on location and then used colored filters throughout.

The guy who hired non-singers Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave for “Camelot” (1967) and filmed a lot of the numbers in close-up (Tom Hooper must have studied “Camelot” a lot).

Speaking of non-singers, Logan cast those iconic warblers Lee Marvin (!) and Clint Eastwood (!!) in “Paint Your Wagon” (1969).

Musical follies, one and all. Add “Les Miserables” to the list of one of the worst musicals of all time.

“Les Miserables” is the biggest disappointment I’ve had at the movies in years. It’s a soul-crushing disappointment from someone who has waited years for a movie version of this show.

Let’s call “Les Miserables” for what it is – an opera. Not grand opera, of course, but an opera nonetheless. If a story is told entirely in song, then it’s an opera. Sure there are a few scenes of dialogue, but Beethoven’s “Fidelio” is considered an opera, and that has long dialogue passages.  So “Les Miserables” is an opera.

And operas need voices. It helps if they’re good actors, but the first requirement is good voices. No, not good voices, but great voices.

Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway and even Russell Crowe have good singing voices.

But not for this material.

Ten minutes in, with the largely laughably large-scaled CGI opening, and star Hugh Jackman, as Jean Valjean, trying vainly to hit the high notes, I had a sinking feeling I was going to be in for the long haul over the next two and a half hours. And I was.

The cast isn’t really to blame. They try their best. But they can’t sing these songs. It’s beyond their abilities.

 

The show’s two best known songs are “I Dreamed a Dream” and “Bring Him Home.” A lot of people have heaped praise on Anne Hathaway’s singing, and acting of the former, but I’m in the minority. Shot in extreme close-up, I was so distracted by the tears and running snot that it took me out of the scene. I know movies are more intimate than what is on stage, but I’ve always been moved by this song, so I don’t need the extreme close-ups to sell it. The less said about Jackman’s rendition of “Bring Him Home” the better. A tough song to sing, to be sure, but it was embarrassingly bad.

A friend of mine commented afterwards that maybe in the old days, Hollywood knew what they were doing when they dubbed the singing voices of their big stars. Sure no one would rush out to see Marni Nixon in “The King and I” (1956) or “My Fair Lady” (1964) but they would go see Deborah Kerr and Audrey Hepburn, respectively. Are those films really lessened by having the leads dubbed? Is Rita Hayworth any less a screen icon because her voice was dubbed singing “Put the Blame on Mame” in “Gilda” (1946) and in her musicals?

So you have a sung-through musical where the leads can’t properly sing the songs, and a director who doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how to stage a musical. Director Hooper use of extreme close-ups throughout gets tiresome after the fourth or fifth time. For me, these are most effective for key emotional moments, not 2.5 hours worth.

And let me get this off my chest. If I hear any more prattle from the cast and crew about the effectiveness of recording the songs live during the filming, I think I may yawn myself to death. Based on the evidence here, I don’t see what the big deal is.

I may be reading too much into these interviews, but there’s an air of condescension and smugness when the cast and director talk about how much more real it is singing live than to a pre-recorded track. It’s as if they’re brushing aside seven decades worth of musicals.

As one who decries the often rapid cuts of today’s movies, I should be applauding Hooper’s use of minimal cutting. But the camera work is static to the point of inertia and when Hooper does move the camera, it’s often the dreaded shaky cam effect, and tilted camera angles, and the whole thing becomes annoying to watch.

One of the show’s most famous songs is the comic number “Master of the House” and it’s a bit of welcome black comedy levity in the often grim proceedings. But it’s very badly staged here, with dumbfounded literalness played out ad nauseum. There’s no sense of movement and looks like it was staged for a community theater production. Like everything else in the film, it’s cramped and claustrophobic.

Adding blame to this disaster was the very poor musical direction, for which I blame orchestrators Anne Dudley and Stephen Metcalfe and music supervisor Becky Bentham. They do the music no favors. Everything is pitched in the most low-key manner possible. The orchestrations are depressingly small-scaled and the musical accompaniment isn’t allowed to soar. It also sounded to like a very poor sound mix, with the orchestra barely heard in the background. It could be one of the tinniest-sounding musicals I’ve ever heard.

(Despite my snarky comments directed at the top of this review to those three Joshua Logan-directed musicals, the musical direction by Alfred Newman and Ken Darby for “South Pacific” and “Camelot”, and by Nelson Riddle and Roger Wagner for “Paint Your Wagon” are superb and can’t be beat. They are by far the best factors of those movies).

 

I’ve done a lot of complaining. Is there anything good in the movie? I liked Samantha Barks as Eponine. She brings a real humanity to the part, and has a good voice. Playing the role on stage obviously helped. I thought all the guys who played the young revolutionaries had strong voices, well suited to the material. But it’s a sad state of affairs that the secondary and third characters in an opera are the best singers.

And while Russell Crowe has gotten the lion’s share of disdainful reviews, I’m going to cut him slack. True, he has the weakest voice of any of the leads. But for me, he was the only one who realized he was playing to the motion picture camera. I never felt like he was striving to reach for the last row in the highest balcony in the largest auditorium in the world.

 

I must admit to tearing up quite a bit at each of the live performances I’ve seen. There’s a little bit of that here in the final scene – how could there be not be – but I was curiously unmoved. I actually told my friends I didn’t want to see it with them, because it would be too embarrassing for them to see me afterwards. No problem here. I could have just watched “Skyfall” for all the emotion it generated for me

I know a lot of people who have seen this movie and just love it. Good for them. I’m glad. It could be their first introduction to this wonderful story and I’m glad they enjoyed it so much.

But it was such a let down for me. It’s been years since I was looking forward to a movie so much. I love this material. But alas, “Les Miserables” is the biggest disappointment I’ve had at the movies since Daniel Craig’s second 007 outing, the execrable “Quantum of Solace” (2008). “Les Miserables” is one of the worst movies of the year. It’s one of the worst musicals ever made. It’s an ugly film to look at and a painful one to listen to. It kills me to write that.

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.

311. Les Miserables

311. (15 Dec) Les Miserables (2012, Tom Hooper)* 28



Midway through act two, Hugh Jackman and Eddie Redmayne quite literally are up to their necks in fecal matter. That Les Miserables willfully offers that metaphor makes it the ballsiest or most clueless film of the year. Considering how dreadful it is, I'm leaning toward the latter.

There's not an iota of scale in Les Miserables, with roughly four wide shots that so much as hint that this is a historical epic in its entire bloated runtime. Just like in The King's Speech, Tom Hooper's amateurish aesthetic undermines every moment. Here he's as reliant on dutch angles as he is on dopey framing, keeping heads in the corner of a shot while negative space dominates the background. It's one of the worst photographed major studio films I've seen. But there's simply not much to work with since the sets and costumes are decidedly unremarkable. When Les Miz is not irritating to look at, it's boring.

Tom Hooper's direction is astoundingly misguided. Without dialogue, he relies on the score to tell the story. Unfortunately, only five musical numbers are at all good. Most of the talk-singing is instantly forgettable (namely the added and useless tune "Suddenly"). The nasally Hugh Jackman and overly emotive Samantha Barks are shameful standouts in the cast. Russell Crowe channels Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfriend, without a hint of romantic chemistry, are wasted vocal talents. The much discussed Anne Hathaway is the only performer to give emotional impact to the film at all, overplaying her part, but at least not embarrassing herself in an intense close-up during "I Dreamed a Dream."

Hooper has suggested he attempted to emulate West Side Story, at least during "One More Day," which shows how ambitious and incompetent he is. His shoddily edited film not only is totally incoherent, unmoving, and uninteresting, it's laughable. Crowe's biggest dramatic moment is the most obvious joke, but it's impossible to enumerate the goofs in a film where next to nothing works. Empty heads and empty filmmaking.

THE FALL 2012 FILM PREVIEW (part two)

Yesterday, we stopped to admire the changing colours of September and October. Today, let's dive into the harsh rains and rapidly dropping temperatures of November and December ... filmwise, that is.

NOVEMBER

LIFE OF PI
I have made a promise to myself to read Yann Martel's brilliant novel for a second time before seeing Ang Lee's highly anticipated film version. I've seen the extended previews that everyone is apparently raving about and, while I still have full confidence that if anyone can pull off this near impossible adaptation, it would be Lee, I'm not yet convinced by the footage I've seen. So I want to go back and appreciate the beauty of Martel's brilliance, a story about struggle, strife and spirituality, one more time before letting Lee tell me his version of events. If Lee does succeed though, we could be hearing his name pretty often come awards season.

WRECK-IT RALPH
John C. Reilley voices the main character, Ralph himself, in this new animated feature from the good folks at Disney. Ralph has spent his whole life wrecking stuff and he can no longer deal with everyone hating on him for all the destruction he causes. Perplexed because he is just doing what he knows to do, Ralph decides to abandon the world he knows in search of a more accepting one. Did I mention Ralph is a video game character? The concept is amazingly geeky and the potential for hilarity is abundant. This is especially true knowing Sarah Silverman, Jane Lynch and Jack McBrayer voice the rest of the main characters.

LINCOLN
Daniel Day-Lewis's resemblance to the former President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, is a little unnerving when you first see it. That really only makes for incredible possibilities for where Day-Lewis's performance will go in Steven Spielberg's historical drama, LINCOLN, though. Spielberg chooses to focus on the final months of Lincoln's life, as adapted for the screen by playwright, Tony Kushner. After his uneven performance and reception to his two features last year (THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN and WAR HORSE), Spielberg will be looking to remind everyone who's boss with this one. Oh, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt co-stars.

SKYFALL
With the gigantic disappointment that was QUANTUM OF SOLANCE now years behind me, I am ready, no, I am desperate to see a James Bond film worthy to follow the brilliant CASINO ROYALE. The trailers for Sam Mendes's crack at bat look incredibly promising so my hope is bursting now. Daniel Craig returns, in great form it would appear as well, and looks far less depressed then he did last time. This is good because with Javier Bardem stepping into what is sure to be a deliciously evil Bond villain turn, Bond is going to need his wits about him at all times. Still, I'm sure Craig can find time for a quick dip at the beach too.

Also in November ... Robert Zemeckis leaves the world of motion capture animation and returns to live action with FLIGHT, starring Denzel Washington as an alcoholic hero pilot; Jean-Marc Vallee's award winning, festival success, CAFE DE FLORE, finally hits stateside ... And I'm very excited to see Edward and Bella again in TWILIGHT: BREAKING DAWN PART TWO. I'm mostly excited for this film because it is the last one in the series, until they reboot it in a few years, that is.

DECEMBER

DJANGO UNCHAINED
It doesn't matter to me what Quentin Tarantino is working on, I know that I will be there to see it the moment I can, because he is one of the few directors working today who never ceases to surprise me with new layers of depth to his ability with each film he makes. It doesn't matter to me if the film production is rumoured to be a difficult one at best or that the script was barely adhered to; I'm always certain Tarantino can pull through. It doesn't matter to me that the premise of the film has something to do with a fictionalized account of the slave industry told in spaghetti western style. No, it doesn't even matter to me that Jamie Foxx is starring in it. Tarantino can make a mess into a masterpiece and he's earned the benefit of all our collective doubt. Also, Leonardo DiCaprio stars in it.

THIS IS 40
Remember Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann in KNOCKED UP? Mann played Katherine Heigl's sister who was struggling with her identity as a mother and wife and Rudd played Mann's oblivious husband. Well, they're back in Judd Apatow's unofficial sequel to that film, THIS IS 40. Their characters both turn 40 in the same week and have a series of crises and epiphanies in the process. Apatow has struggled with personal growth and humour before (FUNNY PEOPLE) but I guess I'm feeling terribly charitable today, because I'm willing to let him take another stab too before I start to lose too much faith in his abilities. Besides, Melissa McCarthy and Albert Brookes co-star.

LES MISERABLES
I am not afraid to say that I do not at all believe Tom Hooper deserved his Oscar for directing THE KING'S SPEECH. He did a fantastic job with it but there were far better works in the category from far more experienced directors; it was not his turn. That said, I'm glad he did win because it gave him the chance to make what looks to be one heck of a masterful musical. LES MISERABLES has been tackled on screen before but never in its musical version and with Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman as the leads, two proven singers, we may be in for a definitive contribution to the genre itself. This should be interesting too; the songs were sung live on set and not pre-recorded so there is nowhere for anyone to hide. I'm talking to you, Russell Crowe and Amanda Seyfried! (They also star.)

Also in December ... Pater Jackson reveals the first of three more movies about hobbits and the like, THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY; Tom Cruise will make his biggest stretch as an actor yet, playing a man who is 6'5' in JACK REACHER (a reach, indeed); and parents everywhere can rejoice. This year there is no new chipmunk movie to sit through. No, instead you get to see the Pixar classic, MONSTERS INC in 3D!

There you have it folks. Be sure to come back mid-week for my TIFF 2012 preview, which basically covers every other movie coming out this fall not already covered here.

Best of the Best: The Kings Speech vs. The Artist

BEST OF THE BEST

I've decided to try something new here at the Oscars Project. It's something I've entitled "Best of the Best". I'm going to pit 2 Best Pictures against each other, and lay out who I think would win. I'll try to make it as random and unbiased as possible. Sometimes I'll pit similar films against each other, sometimes old vs recent, sometimes I'll randomly select 2 films.

To start it off, I thought I'd do something recent, and relevant. The King's Speech (2010) vs. The Artist (2011). To me these 2 films are, in a way, similar. Both are about a man struggling with finding his voice. While Bertie, in the King's Speech was thrust into the limelight or being a King, George, in the Artist, was highly regarded and was suddenly cast down. Both are about a man's journey as he finds where he's meant to be, and finds their voice. Both learn to "speak".

The King's Speech was met with critical acclaim. It was first shown at the Telluride Film Festival, but really got it's start just a little bit later in September at the Toronto International Film Festival where it got a standing ovation and won the People's Choice Award. From there it picked up steam. However, when it came to awards season, there was another movie that came along. The Social Network. Most of the awards were pretty split between TKS and TSN. However, many called The King's Speech an Oscar-bait film, being a period piece, a true story, and about British Royalty, with a dab of WWII. It was also deemed a "feel good" film, many people saying it is a good thing, and others, not so much. While it sits with a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, many also felt it was the "safe" choice that year, beating out edgier films like The Social Network and Black Swan.

Aside from that, the King's Speech gave some incredible performances. Colin Firth picked up his first Oscar for the performance, and rightly so. He played the stuttering future King Bertie to perfection, and made us feel empathetic. He was able to capture the humor, but also the sorrow of the situation delightfully. Geoffrey Rush was also nominated, and did a splendid performance as Bertie's speech coach, Lionel. He was quirky and spunky, but was brave and honest. Helena Bonham Carter was charming and a bit snooty, but very loving. Also nominated.

The Artist, on the other hand, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2011 and is a silent, black and white film. Jean Dujardin won the Best Actor Award, and the film was nominated for the Palme d'Or. The film was popular in many Film festivals, and when it came to Awards Season, the movie picked up tons of awards, with no real "second place" movie. It sits with a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. And while it was extremely popular, many called it "gimmicky", because of it being a silent films, shot in the aspect ratios of the 20s/30s, and being in black and white. They said the story was a mix of Singin' In the Rain, and A Star is Born, and that it wasn't very original, and was predictable. Another film that was deemed Oscar-bait, for being different and not being "very daring".  However, the music, the performances, the costumes, were all praised. Jean Dujardin spent most of the season in a tight race with  George Clooney for Best Actor, but won out on Oscar Night.

Being silent, the performances and the music were on a pretty high expectation. The music would have to carry the film in a way that sound movies don't. And the actors would have to express everything without talking. However, these worries were quickly set aside. Jean Dujardin, who plays the charming George Valentin, looks as though he really is from another era. He has the most expressive face, and has such a smile. And his little mustache! You'd think you were actually watching a movie from the 1930s. Berenice Bejo, additionally, was so phenomenal. She was perky and peppy (excuse the pun), and just a bubble of fun. You'd believe she really was a film star from the silent days.

But who wins? Both films had similar complaints laid against them. They were too feel good, they were too safe, and the performances were stronger than the story line. The films were even nominated for the same things. The Artist, having 10 nominations, and the King's Speech having 12, all 10 that The Artist was nominated for, The King's Speech was too (the only difference being screenplay and supporting actor).

What the King's Speech has going for it is the performances. Colin Firth is thrilling and perfect, and Geoffrey Rush is great. What the Artist has going for it is the performances, and the fact that it's a silent film, in black and white.

Verdict: I think the Artist is going to take this one. (Though I enjoy The King's Speech more than The Artist, though I love them both)

Not only was it more loved than The King's Speech, but it also had no other competition that year, like The King's Speech had The Social Network. The Artist is a lot more different than The King's Speech, and it did something unique. How can a cute, well-acted and directed film, that's silent and b&w lose? It's something that sticks out in your mind a bit more than a period piece about a British Monarch. However, I'd say that Colin Firth would beat out Jean Dujardin. Dujardin was great, but Firth truly, truly nailed it for me.

Sound off in the comments if you agree/disagree. Did I pick the right winner? For the right reasons? Or was I completely off? You let me know!
Or if you have suggestions for next time's Best of the Best, write them down there too.

The King's Speech

The King's Speech, 2010
Directed by Tom Hooper
Nominated for 12 Oscars, Won 4.
Up Against: The Social Network, Black Swan, The Fighter, True Grit, Inception, Toy Story 3, The Kid's Are Alright, Winter's Bone, 127 Hours

As I've said in a previous post, The King's Speech makes into my favourite movies arena. I seriously enjoyed it, and I'm putting that up front right now before I do a little analysis and say what I liked and didn't like about it.

For those of you who don't know, this movie is the story on King George VI, known as Bertie. Bertie is the Duke of York, and struggles with a speech impediment that makes it very difficult for him to speak (much less in front of an audience). His wife, Elizabeth is reffered to a quirky speech therapist named Lionel. While Bertie is hesitant at first, he finds himself needing help, and knows Lionel can help him. Soon, he is thrust on the throne  very unexpectedly. How can Bertie lead a country if he can hardly speak?

This is Tom Hooper's second feature film after having done great work doing several different mini-series. He and the crew knew that they had to get some sort of star attached to this project or it may never lift off the ground. Someone in the crew lived  near Geoffrey Rush and they got them to slip the script through Rush's mailbox, with a note attached to it apologizing that it was unsolicited but they desperately wanted him to do the film. Who knew the act of slipping an unsolicited script through a mailbox started the process in what ended up to be the next Best Picture winner.

The crew were able to find their star-studded cast, having Colin Firth, Helena Bonham-Carter, along with Geoffrey Rush, to play the three lead. Geoffrey Rush was such a treat in this film. He was quirky and zany, but he was also inspiring. Rush really nailed the part of quirky, Aussie Lionel (though the accent was only sort of there). Helena Bonham-Carter was lovely, which is in stark contrast with her character Bellatrix LeStrange in Harry Potter, which she was filming at the same time as the King's Speech. She was supportive of her husband, but she was broken-hearted over this hurt her husband was going through. And she was a little bit uppity, but Helena is wonderful, and was able to play all of it convincingly, and with lots of grace and poise.

And then there's Colin Firth. Honestly, we was so phenomenal in this role. His stuttering was heartbreaking, especially the beginning speech in the movie, just those horrible echoing noises, and just not knowing how to get his words out. Colin Firth both broke my heart and made me laugh throughout this movie. He was able to strike the right balance between humor and sorrow, especially in the scene while talking about his childhood with Lionel. Colin Firth really embraced this role, and seemed to truly get into the heart of the character. His speech impediment, and his stuttering were perfect and were never too overboard, or too subtle. He struck the right amount, making it more severe in some situations, and less so in others.

The scenery and artwork and costumes were all great. Alexandre Desplat gives us a lovely score. Nothing too brilliant, though in some of the more emotional tracks (Queen Elizabeth, Memories of Childhood), he replays a single not over and over, almost as though it is stuttering and can't get farther. But that may be me reading into Desplats music (though I doubt it, he's played themes backwards and forward before).

One thing that bothered me is sometimes the cinematography tried to be too "artsy". There were a lot of awkward, character in the very corner of the shot, sometimes cutting the person beside them out. It's hard to explain without showing. Google didn't have many good examples. This was as close as I could get

Overall, the film told it's story well. It showed the problem right up front, and showed how Bertie dealt with it (or didn't), and how exactly it affected his life, and why.

Many will say this is one of the most competitive and disputed years. You'll hear such debates as Shakespeare in Love vs Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump vs Pulp Fiction, and I know that list has come to include The King's Speech vs The Social Network. Like the 2 debates mentioned above, both are incredibly different and very opposite movies. The King's Speech is a classy period piece, while The Social Network was very modern and dealt with something very current. Both have pros and cons about them, but for this one, I'm going to have to side with The King's Speech. It took me a few tries to warm up to the Social Network and appreciate what it is. While it had good acting, the acting in TKS is much stronger, though TSN excelled in the music (the music and movie had amazing chemistry) and cinematography.

Unpopular(ish) opinion, but I dearly love The King's Speech. It was an uplifting, yet sad, movie, and had some very wonderful performances.

8.75/10

The Boy From Les Miz

"Who am I? Wolverine or 24601?"

Some hit Broadway musicals are adapted to film right away, some wait a couple years, and if you're a Cameron Mackintosh show, you take over two decades to hit the silver screen.

In the aftermath of this years Oscars, where Tom Hooper was crowned best Director for his helming of The King's Speech, news came that he was the favorite to direct the (finally!) adaptation of one of the world's biggest musical: Les Misérables.

News came yesterday that song and dance man Hugh Jackman (who's never graced film with his talents) was in talks to play one of the musical's famous two leading roles: hero Jean Valjean and antagonistic (not villain, but I'll get to that another day) Inspector Javert.  When word broke that  Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World's Paul Bettany had read and sung for Javert, all eyes turned towards Jackman as the cursed tragic hero Valjean.  Initially, I was more on the side of Jackman as Javert...but it seems Hollywood won't allow their leading man to be a bad guy.  Yet, oddly, they want him in what is a brooding man role but also a very paternal one.  Jackman's done the paternal thing before, over a decade ago with X-Men, but his relationship with rogue was just weird if you ask me.

So there we have it.  Our two leading men.  Jackman as Valjean and Bettany as Javert.  I'm thrilled to see how the rest of the cast materializes.  I've always thought Geoffrey Rush would be brilliant as Thénardier, but with him having already played Javert in a film adaptation of Les Miz (not the musical), I doubt to see him back on the streets of Paris.  Who's in your dream cast?

.

THE KING'S SPEECH

Written by David Seidler

Directed by Tom Hooper

Starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter

King George VI: Waiting for me to commence a conversation, one can wait a rather long wait.

When a king speaks, he must command attention. Though the British monarchy may be more iconography than anything else at this point in history, people will still look to their royal leader for guidance and reassurance in times of woe and doubt. That’s a lot of pressure for someone who may never have wanted to assume the responsibility to begin with. Unfortunately for King George VI, his birthright meant he did not have any choice in the matter. It’s not that he didn’t think he could do it; it’s just that he wasn’t confidant enough to think anyone would care to have him.

Forget the king; when director Tom Hooper speaks, he has my full attention. After his impressive first feature last year, THE DAMNED UNITED, Hooper continues his journey in regal fashion with THE KING’S SPEECH and delivers the goods right from the start. Colin Firth, who could easily garner another Oscar nod with his heartbreaking work here, is the Duke of York. It is 1925 and he is about to address the nation. The tension builds and by the time he gets to the podium, every ear in the land appears to be waiting to hear what he has to say. At first, there is nothing. What follows that awkwardness is a disjointed, passionless address that he stammers all the way through. It may not be as epic a global failure as modern day technology allows but enough people were listening to make it seem like a public collapse that he might never recover from.

He almost didn’t. King George VI went through many speech therapists before landing on Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Logue helps George break down the years of subtle abuse one suffers as the son of a king to see that his speech impediment is the result of isolation and lack of confidence, not something particularly physical. Their banter is at times hilarious and at others quite intense. Their immense combined talent, along with supporting turns from Helena Bonham Carter and Guy Pearce, give THE KING’S SPEECH even more depth and flourish than Hooper already has. Together, they created a film that will certainly resonate long after it’s said what it has to say.