Les Misérables (2012, UK)

I have such mixed feelings on this one. I loved parts and I really disliked parts. I had never seen this musical in any form before, so I'm not sure how much of that is the musical and how much is the adaptation. For instance, I thought that a lot of the story was very jerky and disjointed. In middle or high school I had read an abridged version of the novel, and I remember there being a lot more to it than was found in the musical. I remember there being more Fantine, more of young Cosette, more of Marius and his buddies, more to Jean Valjean's story and his relationship to Javert... just more everything! In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia tells me I'm not wrong: "the novel elaborates upon the history of France, the architecture and urban design of Paris, politics, moral philosophy, antimonarchism, justice, religion, and the types and nature of romantic and familial love." So clearly the point of the story suffered in the condensing process and made the historical parts of the plot harder to follow.

Anyway, to the music. I really enjoyed the big "group" numbers, "Look Down," "ABC Café / Red and Black," "One Day More," and "Do You Hear the People Sing?" I liked the Thénardiers' "Master of the House" for similar reasons, but I didn't like the Thénardiers at all. I don't know if they were solely for comic relief for a musical with a very serious subject or if Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen were just too over the top (somehow I think it's the latter), but they were just too distracting. I also thought a lot of the individual numbers were overdone, as if they were trying to perform on stage and project the emotion, forgetting that the audience is much more immediate in film. They had the right idea, but it was just too much. For instance, Fantine's "I Dreamed a Dream" and Valjean's "Valjean's Soliloquy." However, I was absolutely enchanted by young Cosette's "Castle on a Cloud" and thought Éponine's "On My Own" and Marius's "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" were beautifully done. (Although I must say, despite my love for Eddie Redmayne, I thought a little bit of that song was out of his range. Either that or his voice cracks way too much when he is crying and singing!) In general, I thought Éponine, Marius, young Cosette, and the ABCs were the big standouts in this film. Lastly, I was very underwhelmed with both Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe's singing abilities. Jackman wasn't terrible, but I think he would be much better with more chipper-sounding music. Crowe just didn't enunciate or emote much at all, which made his multitude of songs very jarring (despite some seemingly beautiful lyrics about the stars especially).

Of course visually it was stunning: sets, costumes, makeup, hair. The main exceptions were the Thénardiers (who just stood out too much visually as well) and the prostitutes who Fantine takes up with (they were garish, as they should have been, but something about them was too much as well). My friend informs me that the role of the priest was played by the "original" Jean Valjean, so that was cool too.

Now I've downloaded the soundtrack so I can start listening and memorizing the words, which will help me get a better feel before I watch it again. I also think I may need to read the book (unabridged this time), because it really is a fantastic tale and I know there's so much more to it.

Rating: 3.5 

Dark Shadows (2012, U.S.)

Well, it's impossible not to like a Burton/Depp/Carter/Lee/Elfman lovefest, particularly with the additions of Eva Green and Jonny Lee Miller, but I almost came close here. I think the big problem was that there was so much hype for this movie, and therefore so many previews, that it seemed like I had already seen the whole thing before I saw it. (Did you follow that sentence?)

Maybe I'm worn out with the aforementioned lovefest, because acting, directing, music was all exactly as I would anticipate. I guess it's harder to be thrilled when you expect great things every time. So yes, it was great in a way, but it already felt old. So that was frustrating. I'm sure I'd recommend it, particularly if you were a fan of the show, a fan of the dream team, and haven't seen any of the previews. If it felt fresher, it would have been much more memorable.

Rating: 3.0

The King's Speech (2010, U.S.)

The trailer for this film was pretty badly done, if you ask me. I still went to see it because I knew that any film with Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter had to be a winner. On top of that, what could be better than a film about a relatively unknown part of British history?

What can I say? Obviously those three were fantastic, as were most of the supporting actors. The chemistry between Firth and Rush was especially wonderful, particularly in their therapy sessions. The film was enlightening. It was well written. The score meshed perfectly. The cinematography was beautiful. I felt like I'd stepped into the 1930s. Sure, it wasn't the most fast-paced movie. But it was engaging and moving and informative and even somewhat inspiring. I knew it was going to sweep Best Picture and the Best Actors at the Oscars.

This one was a very unsurprising surprise, if you will, and well worth watching.

Rating: 4.0

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010, U.S.)

I heard a lot of people say this was a boring film because they spend so much time wandering around doing nothing. On the contrary, I found it to be way too fast-paced. They're galloping around the countryside, accomplishing their tasks with seeming ease. It completely negated the epic David and Goliath, hopeless battle for Good that they're fighting, practically belittling their efforts.

I know one shouldn't judge movies based on one's knowledge of the books, but in this case I just can't help it. Of all of the Harry Potter films, I thought this one was the weakest adaptation. Of course, I rather expected it to be. They've been dropping threads of the plot and relationships since the beginning (or perhaps since the fourth movie), so with the final installment, it was impossible to weave together the complete, complex tapestry.

Of course, I still maintain that this undertaking put together one of the greatest casts, and this installment brought almost every participant together. Though it was inevitable to miss Hogwarts, the various settings, from nature to Malfoy Manor to the Ministry to a London street to a snowy graveyard in Godric's Hollow were all beautifully rendered.

I'm glad Dobby had his day, even if it was very "Oh, remember Dobby? He has a very close relationship with Harry even though you don't know anything about it, so he's going to come save his friend now!" Ugh. Even worse, however, was the thing that came out of the locket horcrux. It was way over the top and super cheesy. And greenish—think "dead faces in the water" and the army of the dead and all the other cheesy parts of Lord of the Rings times about a trillion and plus gratuitous nudity. Shiny nudity at that. So even Catherine Hardwicke could be proud! As you can tell, it annoyed me quite a bit.

The music doesn't stick out in my head too much, but I can only assume that it was good, since Alexandre Desplat is one of my favorite composers.

I still look forward to the second part of this film, but I won't get my hopes up.

Rating: 2.5

Alice in Wonderland (2010, U.S.)

You never can guess how a remake of a classic like Alice in Wonderland will turn out. On the other hand, any project that involves Johnny Depp, HBC, Tim Burton, and Danny Elfman is guaranteed to be a winner.

Having forgotten the adventures of her childhood, the 19-year-old Alice returns through the looking glass and finds her destiny is in stopping the Red Queen, not marrying some pompous ass in England.

Wonderland is definitely a land of wonder. All of the mixed live action and CGI really does something amazing. The bizarre plants and animals, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, the Cheshire cat, and above all the Red Queen... wow.

I love HBC and Johnny Depp. They are incredibly talented actors. But I think that Tim Burton just coaxes the absolute best performances out of them. I mean, I could limit this review to one sentence: HBC as the Red Queen and Johnny Depp as the Hatter. End of sentence, end of review.

Amaaaaaazing.

Rating: 4.0

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009, U.S.)

So, the big movie of the summer (which was supposed to be the big movie of the fall). I went into this with absolutely zero expectations. In my opinion, the quality of the films peaked at 3 (which I love) and rapidly deteriorated toward 5 (which I practically hated). I assumed 6 would be just as terrible as 5, since it has the same director and has to cope with all the plot holes from the previous terrible scripts. (Sidenote: I've always loved the casting, the cinematography, the costuming, etc. The scripts have been what are so terrible!)

Well. It was definitely missing a lot. Some of the things were understandably condensed, but other very important things were left out. This whole book is about Voldemort's memories, very important things that build to the events of the 7th book, and yet they only show two. And one of them is dreadfully unsatisfactory. Secondly, it's called The Half-Blood Prince, for crying out loud. So why does Harry use the HBP's book to make one potion, only use one spell out of it, and then forget about it? Where is the Other Minister? Where is all the continuing panic and confusion of a dementor-infested England? Where is the challenge of getting into the cave? Where is Harry confronting the implications of his destiny and having to leave the people he loves? Where is Dumbledore's Army banding together to protect the school? Obviously, the thing I love the most (namely character development) was sacrificed for something that has never seemed important to me, especially in this series (namely action). But then, what do we expect?

I know that I shouldn't compare the movie to the book, but I can't help it. So here's what I think about it by itself. I think they did a wonderful job of showing that there is a world outside of Hogwarts. Harry hanging ont in Underground stations and flirting with waitresses, for example. Or the amazing fly-through shots they did of London, including Death Eater destruction of the Millenium Bridge. Seriously, that shot was one of the best things ever. They also captured what it's like to be a teenager. All the angst and crushes and giggles and tears.

Also, it was hilarious. It's hard to know how to feel about this, since this was one of the most serious books up to this point. (I have to say, they did do a great job with the darkness in the 5th film.) There were so many silly joke-type things. A lot of it may not have been actually funny (especially to teenagers), but so much of it was, "Ha ha, those teens are too wrapped up with themselves!" Also, Rupert Grint's face. That boy sure can act. He really has been the comedic relief for every movie, but he's reached a new high this time. Then there was Daniel Radcliffe, whose normal up-tight, pained, destiny-inflicted persona got a moment to cut loose after taking Felix Felicis. To act out his luckiness, he acted like he was on drugs. Priceless. And Emma Watson, whose acting has always impressed me more than the two boys', has gotten even more talented. She's subtle, and I think one day she'll be a brilliant actress. (You heard it here first. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.) As much as I enjoyed all the laughs, looking back it seems like it took away the strength of the terrible moments, like when one character has to force poison down another's throat, or when an enemy is attacked and his chest ripped open, or when crazy Bellatrix is terrorizing England, or when a major character is killed. Completely lacking in transition.

I already mentioned the kids' acting. About the adults, I will say that they were as great as always. Alan Rickman is unparalleled as Snape. Really, he's incredible. As for new faces, I love Jim Broadbent, and even though he's not how I pictured Slughorn, I was looking forward to his performance. It was a bit disappointing, however. I wonder if he ever read the book, because he really didn't capture the most important (or really only) part of Slughorn's (rather flat) character. Also, the woman who played Narcissa was a) not the beautiful ice queen you would imagine and b) not very convincing in her only scene, in which she's trying to save her son. (And in case you're wondering, I looked it up. She has two children. So she should be able to pull this off.) Speaking of Malfoys, I want to quickly note that Tom Felton (Draco) has always been great at playing the weasel-y, bad apple type. But his portrayal of a bad (but not necessarily evil) kid forced to do terrible things to save himself and his family was incredible. He really captured the tortured, hopeless feeling. He should give his screen mother some tips.

Let's talk scenery. I mentioned before the incredible shots of London at the beginning of the movie. Everything else was as a beautiful as always. The only other thing I want to mention is the portryal of an abandoned Diagon Alley. They did a great job of making it look abandoned (although because of poor scripting, you're not sure why it's abandoned). And then there was Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes. The shop was amazing. They had to cut out a lot of what goes on in the shop, but they used it just enough to remind you of Fred and George and their continuing defiance of acceptable behavior. It was garish and loud and very them. (The twins are really my favorites, and I wish they could have featured more. Maybe next time!)

I will cut short this ramble with a mention (as I always must) of the score. So the first 3 were composed by John Williams, someone else did the 4th, and Nicholas Hooper has done the 5th and 6th. I don't remember paying much attention to the score in any since John Williams stopped composing. But I really loved this one. It was dark and ominous and sad, and what little of the appropriate tone that was conveyed in the film came from the score. Good stuff.

It wasn't the book. But ignoring print to screen comparisons (and in comparison to the 5th movie), it was pretty good. I was surprised. (Though I can't wait to see how they manage to fill all the holes they've created in the adaptations of book 7).

Rating: (and I can't believe I'm saying this) 4.0