Les Misérables

Director: Tom Hooper
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Isabelle Allen, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen
Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

As someone who's usually not a fan of musicals and was completely unfamiliar with Victor Hugo's Les Misérables on stage or screen, here presents that rare opportunity for me to go into a movie cold. Knowing so little about it, preconceived notions tend to disappear, or at least fade as far into the background as possible. But it still turned out to be a more fulfilling and entertaining experience than my few expectations had prepared me for. It's also a bizarre one, as certain creative and technical decisions are made by Academy Award winning director Tom Hooper that will likely raise the eyebrows of even those who care little about these sorts of things. Arguments could go on all day as to whether they enhance or detract from the material, but at the end it may not even matter. Since all fans will remember is whether it remains true to the source, Hooper's preaching to the choir here. Everyone else will likely be more divided, but it's pretty cut and dry what works and what doesn't, as one section of the story clearly surpasses the other. At the top of the list of successes is the inspired casting, followed closely by a sensational opening hour that sets in motion a chain events that spans nearly twenty years and claims more than a few victims. As the running time wears on and the characters start dropping like flies, it's almost too easy to revert to the joke that this should have been titled Les MISERABLE. Few will debate the film starts losing steam after the opening sixty minutes, but there's still a lot to recommend in a story so expansive that there's genuine doubt all the characters could die of old age before the final credits roll.

Opening in 1815, Les Misérables really tells two tales that eventually converge as one giant, sweeping one. The first involves convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), who's released on parole by prison guard Javert (Russell Crowe), but manages to escape and start a new life for himself, eight years later becoming a factory owner and mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer in France. When one of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), is fired and forced to sell her hair and turn to prostitution to support her illegitimate daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen) Valjean steps in to become the girl's guardian. Now, years later and set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, Valjean is still being trailed by police inspector Javert while an adult Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) becomes the object of Marius Pontmercy's (Eddie Redmayne) affections, much to the dismay of his good friend, Éponine (Samantha Barks), who harbors a secret crush on him. As Javert draws closer to apprehending Valjean, the political turmoil escalates, putting all their lives in danger as a country's future hangs in the balance.          

The first hour of this film is so strong on every level possible that it was almost inevitable that the remainder of it wouldn't be able to keep pace. And Anne Hathaway's Oscar winning supporting performance as the dying Fantine is the major reason why. She has only maybe a little more than 10 minutes of screen time, but makes the most of each grueling moment, effectively selling her character's rapid descent into hopelessness.  Losing her hair and over twenty pounds, her gut-wrenching rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is without question the defining scene of the movie and it's a magic that isn't quite recaptured once Hathaway makes her exit. Was the role predestined, if not calculated, to win her the Oscar? Maybe, but who cares when she's this good.

It's also the best work Jackman's done in a while as a man on the run, shamed by his secret past as a criminal and racked by his own guilt. The decade plus cat-and-mouse game that unfolds between him and Javert is the film's greatest narrative asset, even when being overshadowed by other goings on in the third act. Russell Crowe himself would probably readily admit his singing isn't exactly the most polished in the cast, at times coming across as a strange hybrid of William Shatner's spoken word albums from the '60's and Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! Crowe's not a singer, but because he's such a formidable actor he's able to pull off absolute lunacy with confidence and conviction. Whether it was for the right reasons or not, I looked forward to every appearance he made. As the swindling, manipulative Thénardiers, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter feel as if they've just stepped off Tim Burton's set, embodying comedic goth creepiness as the innkeepers mistreating young Cosette and extorting her mother. Cohen is fantastic in the role, making "Master of the House," in which he sings about cheating the inn's patrons, the most raucous and purely enjoyable number in the film. If nothing else, the characters deserve credit for their surprising staying power, as few would guess these seemingly one-dimensional villains figure into the action as much and as long as they do.

Unfortunately, everything comes to a grinding halt once we get to the love triangle, which never seems to take off despite spirited efforts from all involved. Because the time jump is so sudden and jarring, it's difficult to immediately adjust to Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks as older versions of the child characters we got to know earlier. But they do well nonetheless. Seyfried, besides being a dead ringer to child counterpart Isabelle Allen in looks, is definitely the best singer in the cast, while Barks, who actually played Éponine on stage, sings and acts her heart out in a role that might not be quite as large as you expected. That her part almost went to Taylor Swift would be shocking if not for the fact that the content of this romantic sub-plot isn't entirely dissimilar to that of her hit songs. As for Redmayne, this marks the second time after My Week with Marilyn that he appears to be a spectator in his own movie as the young lovesick revolutionary. In some ways, Aaron Tveit, who plays his friend and charismatic leader of the movement, Enjolras, makes more of an impression. What saves this section is the music and the fact Hooper gets his act together in time for a strong, emotional finale focusing on the characters we want to see, even if most of them are dead by that point.

This isn't one of those movie musicals that directs itself or is in any way shot like a stage play directly transposed to the screen. Hooper's style is umistakenly "in your face" with weird dutch angles and extreme close-ups that could feel like an invasion of personal space for certain viewers. This is especially true of the Hathaway sequence, where the camera doesn't leave her face the entire time. At times it is too much and it's easy to see why many may not be on board with the approach or feel it's just a filmmaker showing off at the expense of the material. But for me, any bells and whistles were necessary since this was just never going to in my wheelhouse no matter what. The best that could be hoped for was to be sufficiently entertained and Les Mis did deliver that in spades It's never boring or uninteresting. Strangely, it sometimes suffers from the opposite problem, moving a mile a minute with hardly a moment to breathe and take it all in. But as far as problems go, that's a pretty good one to have.          

The King's Speech

Director: Tom Hooper
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, Timothy Spall, Derek Jacobi, Jennifer Ehle, Michael Gambon
Running Time: 118 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

As expected, The King's Speech is an ordinary, old fashioned crowd pleaser custom built to entertain in all the predictable ways classic Oscar grabbing pictures do. It isn't disappointing at all, which is as much a testament to my low expectations going in as as it is to the film's quality. With its inspiring message of overcoming your fears to take the next step in life it's easy to see why it's striking such a chord amongst moviegoers. It's like the Rocky of stuttering king movies. And as much as I'd like to take cheap jabs at the film (nominated for 12 Academy Awards), it's important to note I'd be skeptical of any film released during any year standing in the corner opposite The Social Network in the Best Picture category. That's not director Tom Hooper's fault. He made a good film. That's it, but it's still something. What I can't possibly accuse it of is lacking heart or being irrelevant to our lives today despite taking place during what would appear to be a stuffy, restrictive time period, at least for entertainment purposes. This overcomes that stigma and is at times funnier than most comedies, which is a victory in itself.

When England's King George V (Michael Gambon) dies in 1936, the Duke of York (Firth) is passed over for the throne in favor of his hard partying older brother King Edward VIII (Guy Pearce). Edward's brief but embarrassing reign during which he carries on an affair with a twice-divorced woman connected to Hitler, results in him abdicating the throne. Next in line, the Duke (or "Bertie" as he's known to his friends) must now step up and take the crown as King George VI. There's only one problem: He stutters. It's actually less a stutter or stammer than a full-blown speech paralysis that's affected him since youth, preventing him from speaking publicly and also even rendering him speechless in certain stressful social situations. Initially reluctant to accept a life of royalty, the King's wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) seeks him the help of Lionel Logue (Rush), an Austrian speech therapist with some unorthodox ideas for treatment. The King must learn to trust him as well as admit that he wants to help himself before he can act as the leader and voice for his country as World War II begins.

Based on a true events, it's undeniable this story has built-in universal appeal. Everyone at one time or another had to face that one obstacle (or maybe more) that's prevented them from taking action and reaching their fullest potential. With his intelligence and strong sense of duty the King would seem to be the perfect candidate to hold the throne, but this stutter has crippled his confidence to the point that he's reluctant to be burdened with the responsibility. He could be great but doesn't want to, or maybe more accurately, is too afraid to be and the most interesting aspect of David Seidler's script is how well it zeros in on that psychological block, making the story about more than just a speech impediment. There's the physical manifestation of the problem and then there's the REAL problem. Lionel's methods for treatment of the actual affliction (which include breathing exercises and singing) take a backseat to the deeper issues instigating it as he acts as not only a confidant to the cranky, reluctant King, but as a life coach and mentor. While these two men from seemingly different worlds would likely never be friends under any other circumstances and the King tries to fight Lionel efforts all the way through, both do attempt reach a common ground on which they can effectively communicate. Their arguing back and forth (as repetitive as it sometimes is) results in more than a few laughs and quotable scenes of dialogue, one exchange in particular causing the otherwise tame film to receive an R rating, somewhat of a sham since the swearing in question isn't gratuitous at all and even essential to the advancement of the plot. Notoriously prudish when it comes to profanity and ignorant of its context, it's of little surprise the MPAA disagreed.

As the King, Firth is a revelation, giving one of the best performances of the year and proves to be more than worthy of all the attention he's received. He perfectly navigates both the physical requirements of the tricky role (never overplaying or underplaying the speech impediment) while also subtly conveying the character's massive insecurity and self-doubt. It helps having a great sparring partner in Rush who as the witty and sarcastic Lionel shows no hesitation in letting the King know he's in his house now and playing by his rules, royalty or not. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly fine in a role that doesn't require much at all but at least provides a welcome break from the Burtonesque gothic sideshow parts she's usually saddled with. Seemingly just along for the ride as the supportive spouse this is the first time I can remember where she doesn't stand out as an oddly unwelcome presence in a film. Guy Pearce has charisma to burn in just a few scenes as the King's screw-up brother, even if I was perplexed as to how he was cast as the older brother despite being much younger than Firth (and looking it).

The direction from Hooper (whose previous credits include HBO's John Adams and the soccer drama The Damned United) seems non-existent, as there's nothing noteworthy he needs to bring to a project that with few exceptions consists of conversations taking place in closed quarters. Despite being directed with no discernible imprint it's still easy to see how a less talented filmmaker could have botched it, causing the material to come across as a regal bore, as period dramas centering on the British monarchy have the unfortunate tendency of being. He makes a few interesting visual choices but aside from the performances this is mostly going to be remembered for Alexandre Desplat's score and the costume and production design. Technically the whole enterprise is handsomely put together so it's to Hooper's credit that he knew to just hang back and let the cards fall as they may, wisely letting the actors just do their thing.

I can't say I was on pins and needles waiting to see how this would all unfold. It's no mystery it will all come down to a big speech that must be delivered reasonably well, but not too well in order to maintain a realistically happy ending in much the same way Rocky did. Even while connecting with the deeper themes in the film. I found myself curiously unmoved by the time the final credits rolled, possibly because its intentions are so blatantly obvious. It's social relevancy comes in reflecting how much more is expected from our leaders than actual decision making with King George VI reluctantly finding himself at the forefront of an important shift, now required to do more than just ride his horse and wave. There's nothing wrong with The King's Speech, yet nothing spectacular about it either. While not merely about the King delivering a speech, at the end of the day the film somehow still feels like it's just about the King delivering a speech because it employs so many other familiar elements we're accustomed to seeing in inspiring underdog stories of Oscar's past. It's always nice to walk away from movies thinking about all that was done well, but more often than that a film can succeed by simply not messing things up and making it look easy.