#OW12: Les Misérables

Directed by Tom Hooper

Starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Aaron Tveit & Samantha Barks

Released December 25, 2012

Watched December 25, 2012

timmmc.com score:  4/5 stars
Contenders:  Best Picture, Best Actor (Jackman), Best Supporting Actress (Hathaway), Best Supporting Actor (Redmayne), Best Director

Being a "man of the theater", if you will, Les Miserables was right up there with the big geek movies of the year as my most anticipated movies of the year. I was so incredibly eager to see Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway, two of my favorite actors in the business, tear into Jean Valjean and Fantine. I was excited to see what Tom Hooper handpicked as his follow-up to The King's Speech. But perhaps most of all, I was extremely interested to see how such a theatrical musical like Les Mis would be adapted to the screen. So this review is going to be in a different format as my other OW12 reviews, much more in depth, and will use those particular hopes as something of an outline.

First, the cast. Clearly, the producers wanted big names to fill out the cast, and they should be commended for finding actors that would create buzz while also being appropriate for the roles. I won't sit here and say all of the actors shined when it came to the musical aspects of the film (here's looking at you, Russell Crowe), but the actors all fit for the most part. Hugh Jackman is more a Javert to me, but his Valjean was solid. Russell Crowe acted Javert well enough, but fell far short vocally. The real standouts, however, are Anne Hathaway and Eddie Redmayne. Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream" is the absolute showstopper the song deserves... I would be absolutely floored if she doesn't leave the Oscars a winner, something I fully expected from the announcement of her casting. Redmayne, however, is an absolute revelation as Marius. Marius is a tough role in that he's easily played too soft, too lovey dovey, too cold, not strong enough... or the complete opposite. Redmayne's take is a perfect blend of all the right elements, topped off with some of the finest vocals in the film. I'm hoping that this is Redmayne's arrival on the big Hollywood stage.

Tom Hooper does a great job of presenting Les Misérables the musical on film: the emotional highs and lows are nailed, the scope of the film is just about right, the film looks great, and wonderful performances are had. This is a musical with all sorts of iconic imagery that would truly be missed if missing from the film, but Hooper replicates them without them feeling forced, which is a feat in and of itself. All the buzz about the film (perhaps rightfully so) is the whole "live singing" aspect, with the actors singing their roles live on set, as opposed to singing to pre-recorded vocals. The technique adds a level of realism and spontaneity to the film, but does expose some of the vocal shortcomings of the actors (specifically in Crowe, but all of the principles had rough vocal moments, for sure). That said, it allowed for actual acting by the actors, so I'll most certainly take it.

The problem with Les Misérables, for me, stems from the source material itself. The musical is such a richly theatrical piece, almost completely sung-through and filled with what are essentially monologues set to music. These work spectacularly on stage... but suffer a bit when on film. The near monotony of the proceedings is also made worse by the live-vocal techniques used by Hooper, which limited many of the musical performances to one close up shot of the actors. Hooper and his crew does what they can with these limitations, but in the end, the movie ends up feeling every bit as long as it's 2:37 run time, if not longer. This is perhaps blasphemous for a theatre fan to say, but I would have absolutely loved to see an actual movie adaptation of peace that was more a film musical, less of an opera, less of a filmed musical. The way that the film presents the stage musical on film in realistic locations is very much reminiscent of 2005's The Producers and Rent, which is not a good thing (though, obviously, having a skilled filmmaker in Tom Hooper solves many, many of the problems those two films had).

Don't let that last paragraph of criticisms fool you, however: I really, really enjoyed Les Misérables. It was absolutely everything I expected of the film, which is both a positive and a negative. There is a whole lot to really love about this film, though I can't throw myself behind it completely. I'm already planning a second viewing though... afterall, that's what we "men of the theatre" do!

#OW12: Lincoln

Screenplay by Tony Kushner

Directed by Stephen Spielberg

Starring Daniel Day Lewis, Sally Field, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Tommy Lee Jones and tons more

Released November 9, 2012

Watched December 13, 2012

timmmc.com score:  3.5/5 stars
Contenders:  Adapted Screenplay, Director, Leading Actor, Best Picture... basically everything

LINCOLN: very good, if a bit long winded. My initial worries were unfounded. DDL has it in the bag. Blog to come. #timmmcreviews
— Timm McIntosh (@timmmc) December 14, 2012

Lincoln is a perfect example where my "skills" at separating aspects of what I see.

First, the performance by Daniel Day Lewis is absolutely deserving of every accolade it's received, and will almost assuredly take home the Oscar.

The scope and tone of the film was exactly right for me. When I first learned of the film, I feared that the movie would turn Abraham Lincoln into this god-like figure, as opposed to a president dealing with what he had to deal with. I am extremely happy that this was not the case, that the film concerned itself with the moment as much as it did the man (if that makes any sense). This is a trapping that biopics often fall into, but Lincoln mostly avoided.

My problem with the film most lies in the screenplay. While obviously this is a film without many action sequences or whatever, the characters are incredibly long-winded, to the point where it's easy to lose what they are saying. For me, this is my general problem with Tony Kushner... the man is an absolutely stirring writer, but sometimes loves his words. Unfortunately for me, it came off somewhat dry.

In all, however, this is probably the film to beat come Oscar time. I can see it winning a vast majority of the awards, and deservedly so. I can't say it's my favorite film of the year to this point, but I can most certainly see and feel it's power.

#OW12: Looper

Written by Rian Johnson

Directed by Rian Johnson

Starring Joseph Gordon Levitt, Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt

Released September 28, 2012

Watched September 29, 2012

timmmc.com score:  4.5/5 stars
Contenders:  Original Screenplay, Blunt (Supporting Actress)

#Looper… complex, exciting, action packed, thrilling sci-fi goodness. Absolutely loved it. Doesn’t pull any punches. #TMreviews
— Timm McIntosh (@timmmc) October 1, 2012

Before I gush, I must highlight the performance of Emily Blunt. Her role was specifically hidden in the trailer, so I somewhat forgot she was in the film until she made her first appearance... and even then, I wasn't 100% sure it was her. I absolutely love when an actor or actress completely transforms themselves into a role, and this is absolutely a case of that. I would be willing to doubt she will get much serious Oscar consideration, but as I write this, there aren't many other performances I'd put ahead of Blunt from this year.

I appreciate good science fiction, especially science fiction that doesn't cater to the masses. I read an interview with Rian Johnson that Looper isn't a film that needs a director's cut, because what was released WAS the director's cut, and I really admire that. That said... that is probably what will keep this film from the glory (and that's fine!). I enjoyed the hell out of this movie, and absolutely cannot wait to own it on blu-ray.