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 

Scoop (2006, UK)

Here I am, nearly two years after starting blog, saying the same thing. What the hell, Woody Allen? You think you know what's going on and then he just tosses in the most random twists and turns in the plot.

A famous British journalist dies before he can reveal his big scoop, the identity of the tarot card serial killer of London. He cheats the Reaper and appears to American journalism student Sondra, passing his scoop on to her. She's on stage at a magic show featuring magician Sidney. Sidney and Sondra embark on an investigation to verify the dead journalist's story, which has a wealth aristocrat pegged as the murderer. Things are complicated when Sondra falls in love with the prime suspect.

It's hard to say much without giving the ending away, but I will say that the acting was top notch. Allen himself stole the show. He was very funny with his stutter and repetitive phrases and odd mannerisms/demeanor. Johannson was the perfect nerdy co-ed, while Jackman was a perfect suave aristocrat. (I love Hugh Jackman. He is so yummy and such a good actor!) The plot takes all kinds of unpredictable twists and turns, and it is very laugh-out-loud funny. I read one review that called it a "top-notch 'Woody-Lite,'" which is a perfect description. And as always, Allen chose a fascinating soundtrack that completely set the tone of the film. Wonderful.

Rating: 3.5

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009, U.S.)

Let's face it. Hugh Jackman is a badass. I don't know if anyone else could have pulled this film off. The plot was a bit confusing at places and strained credulity at others, but it was still pretty awesome.

Aside from Hugh Jackman, the rest of the cast was pretty amazing. Dominic Monaghan and Will.i.am I thought were especially good, but Ryan Reynolds just stole the show. Considering that they all had such minor roles in a story that revolved around Jackman's character, it was especially impressive. (Side note: two of my favorite Aussie actors made brief appearances... Wish they were longer!)

The special effects were also jaw-dropping. Fight scenes were over-the-top, but pretty cool and well-choreographed.

One last thing that especially impressed me was the score. Of course, I've love Harry Gregson-Williams since the first time I heard the Kingdom of Heaven score. (Other good work of his includes Shrek and Gone Baby Gone.) Normally superhero-type movies have cheesey, over-the-top scores, but this one was perfect. It used some of the stereotypical action stuff, but it also had some truly beautiful parts too. That man sure can compose.

Overall, I think this is a good addition to the X-Men films (perhaps the best one), and I look forward to the other Origins films they're planning to make.

Rating: 3.5

Kate & Leopold (2001, U.S.)

I have always hated Meg Ryan, but I was willing to overlook this for Hugh Jackman. Mistake!

This movie was terrible. Although the whole romance/comedy/fantasy combo could have worked, even with some scientifically sketchy time travel, it just didn't. I can't really explain it, but the time travel thing just didn't click. For instance, Jackman was very convincing about not understanding the 20th century at first, but by the end of the "day," it was as if he'd always been there. No sense.

Also, the chemistry between Ryan and Jackman was nonexistent. She seemed to have more with Schreiber, who was playing her ex. In fact, the interaction between Jackman and Schreiber created what little enjoyment I found in the flick.

Meg Ryan is an awful actress and the writing for this film was awful. That is a fatal combination. Sorry, Hugh.

Rating: 2.0

X-Men (2000, U.S.)

I can't lie, I was confused for most of this movie. Partially because I was talking to Jeff through most of it, and partially because I never read or watched X-Men as a kid. Mostly I wanted to watch the trilogy so that I could watch and understand Wolverine because a) I have become a Hugh Jackman fan (especially since he hosted the Oscars) and b) Aaron Jeffrey is in it!

Still, I thought it was pretty sweet. For starters, the aforementioned Mr. Jackman was awesome, and the rest of the cast was great too. The special effects were really believable, which is sometimes all one can ask of a movie like this. One thing that did really bother me was when the script obviously dropped the ball. For instance, Storm is letting herself (and everyone else) get beat up, and I assumed she just couldn't use her powers inside. Then five minutes later, she uses her powers to save the day. Why couldn't she do this earlier? I don't know.

So yeah. Good casting, good special effects. That pretty much sums it up.

Rating: 3.5

Australia (2008, Australia)

I have been looking forward to this film for years, quite literally. It was wonderful, as I expected. Other than that, there was little that was what I expected.

Australia is definitely an epic. It's about a country, yes. But it's also about a woman, a man, a little boy, an old Aborigine. It's about love and about hate. Family, friendship, business, war, hardship, tradition, culture, belonging. It definitely felt like a loving tribute to a way of life that is no more. In that way, it was the romance it was marketed as. But the romance was not between Kidman and Jackman, but between the filmmakers and their homeland.

It goes without saying that the acting was phenomenal, but I'll say it anyway. Nicole Kidman is one of my all time favorites, and she was in perfect form. At the beginning of the film, she is amusingly uptight, but by the end she is a self-assured, strong woman who knows her priorities. She plays both roles with equal strength. Kidman definitely overshadows Jackman, although he too is quite good in his role as The Drover (he's never given a proper name, which somewhat annoys me). The real star of the show, however, was Brandon Walters, the boy who plays Nullah, a half-aboriginal child that Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman) meets in Australia. He was absolutely charming and a stunning actor, especially considering it was his first project. The rest of the cast was also great. There were many minor Australian actors that I recognized that others probably wouldn't, but I enjoyed seeing them in such a high-profile film. And it was good to see David Wenham in a major supporting role, since I haven't seen him in awhile; he was even great as a bad guy.

As I said about the acting, the backdrop of this saga was also phenomenal, obviously. Luhrman truly captured the rugged majesty of the outback, the incredible sight of 1500 head of cattle being droved, the horror of war (when the town of Darwin is bombed), and all the rest. It was visually stunning, to say the very least. I really don't know how else to say it.

And to the main event—the plot. I expected Australia to be all about the romance between Kidman and Jackman. Instead, it was about a woman from England who discovers the magical draw of the land down under. She meets a half-caste boy who doesn't fit in anywhere and who needs a mother. She meets a strongly independent man to love, a man who loves her back as an equal partner. She learns about what's worth fighting for, and she finds herself as well. It is a beautiful story.

And of course I have to say something about the score, which was composed by David Hirschfelder. The only film I can think of off the top of my head that Hirschfelder scored is Elizabeth, in which he did an incredible job integrating a period feel. I think the same can be said of the Australia score. It also had a markedly old western feel. At times it was just incredibly overstated and upbeat, such as when they head off droving. It was kind of off-putting at first, but I decided that it was well orchestrated. It made it seem as if the film was produced in the era it depicted, which was kind of cool.

I thought that the best part of Australia was how The Wizard of Oz is wound through the plot. Sarah tells Nullah the story to comfort him, and he relates "Somewhere over the Rainbow," which she sings to him, to his culture's ideas of dreaming and stories. The song weaves through the entire movie and one line from The Wizard of Oz reappears in the dialogue. They eventually see the film at the theater. And of course, Nullah (who narrates the film—another element I love), is telling his own story of "a land called Oz." It was beautifully integrated.

See this one.

Rating: 4.5