LES MISERABLES

Les Miserables (2012)
Grade: A
Directed by Tom Hooper

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Isabelle Allen, Daniel Huttlestone, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter

Premise: Ex-con Jean Valjean seeks redemption from a life of selfishness even while concealing his true identity in the midst of the French Revolution.

Rated PG-13 for violence, blood, sexual material and intense emotional content

Maybe you have to have a passion for performing arts, like I do, or maybe you just have to have a certain excitable personality; whatever the case, as Tom Hooper’s tremendous Les Miserables drew to a close, I couldn’t wait to clap—just as if I was watching a performer on stage throwing themselves into the last few notes of a song that had moved me. True, the ending is one of incredibly powerful images of love and unity, bringing together nearly every character viewers have beheld during the previous two-and-a-half hours, and it’s also the big payoff for a sweeping, dramatic, emotionally-powerful movie, but, still, I wanted to clap very badly. Maybe, though I wasn’t moved enough to cry, I felt the need to express myself in some outward way. Thus, when the screen when black, I led the theater audience in a round of applause that started even before the first credits appeared.

Les Miserables—based on the musical play that was adapted from the 1863 Victor Hugo novel—is the rare movie that deserves to be called art. That’s an easy thing to say, yes, because nearly the entire movie is sung, but I mean it. The camera captures amazing images, from a man of powerful conviction walking a precipice by moonlight with a sprawling, sleeping city in the background to a young woman smiling contentedly as she dies because she’s in the arms of the man she loves. The music surges and hums and soars, and a cast of actors acts and sings with full-hearted passion in a way that’s really impressive to behold. Supposedly the first movie musical ever to be sung entirely live on camera as opposed to recorded in a studio and then lip-synched, this latest adaptation of the classic story immediately enters the annals of the best movie musicals of all time.

PLOT

Imprisoned as a young man for stealing bread, Frenchman Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) gets out of jail and promptly ignores his status as a parolee in his quest to make up for the time he lost. This unwise decision naturally puts him back in the crosshairs of the local law enforcement, particularly stern government officer Javert (Russell Crowe), who makes a point to keep track of the case of Jean Valjean. However, after being shone some touching kindness by a priest (Colm Wilkinson), Valjean decides to drop his law-breaking ways and sets out to do some good in the world. In a few years, he’s a successful businessman and a leader in his community, and he’s able to do some serious good when a young single mother (Anne Hathaway) loses her job and, with it, her ability to support her young daughter (Isabelle Allen). Valjean takes the child in and raises her as his own. Still dogged by Javert, Valjean is forced to change locales every few years until one move threatens to break up his household, because his now-grown adoptive daughter (Amanda Seyfried) has fallen in love with one of the local rebellion leaders (Eddie Redmayne). Still very tempted to act in his own interests, Valjean is torn between his desire to keep his daughter (and himself) safe from harm or make her happy by letting her be with the man she loves. But Javert is hot on his trail and the city is on the verge of exploding as tensions between the rebels and government troops come to a head.

What Works?

Unlike many musicals, Les Mis stays interesting the whole time. Where many lengthy shows’ second acts are composed largely of reprises of the first act’s best songs and tired romantic clichés, Les Mis is constantly offering new action, new characters, new songs, and new looks—in this it probably benefits largely from being a movie, where the camera can draw in and out and around the actors and sets to keep things fresh, rather than the audience’s being forced to see everything from one viewpoint the whole time as they would at a musical theatre. Speaking of which, it’s obvious what an undertaking making this movie was, from costumes and sets to acting and getting groups of hundreds to sing the same song. It’s a sprawling, important, dramatic epic, and it’s done well.  Despite the considerable length, the pace rarely lags, and even though this show spans nearly 20 years and contains about a dozen major characters, the audience is able to maintain interest and affection for each.

Of course, a lot of that has to do with the actors, and director Tom Hooper has assembled a cast of bold actors who can not only sing well but are willing to go above and beyond, to act and sing with raw emotion in ways that are not always movie-star glamorous. The one you’ve probably heard about is Anne Hathaway, who sings one of the show’s biggest numbers, “I Dreamed A Dream”, in uncomfortable close-up, her haggard appearance, quivering voice and yearning eyes making the performance not only an impressive vocal display but an almost disturbingly real appeal to the heart. In those four/five minutes, you can see why the filmmakers opted for their actors to sing on camera, because it’s obvious the emotion of the moment and the setting and the character’s fall from grace enable the actress to make it so astonishingly vivid. While Hathaway’s the most likely actor to receive attention from year-end awards shows, she’s hardly alone in doing impressive work in Les Mis. Though best known as Wolverine from the X-Men franchise, Hugh Jackman validates his second reputation as a musical talent with waves of emotion and impressive vocal range. Though he becomes less the focus as the film moves into its second hour, he remains affecting. Then there’s proven screen actor Russell Crowe, who sings at least two of the show’s best solo numbers in an eye-opening performance. Eddie Redmayne has an emotional musical number (“Empty Chairs At Empty Tables”, an ode to dead rebel allies) nearly on par with Hathaway’s. The luminous Amanda Seyfried and sincere Samantha Barks make memorable impressions as well, as do child actors Isabelle Allen and Daniel Huttlestone.

Les Mis is the rare musical that has a bigger goal in mind than a romantic happily-ever-after, and another impressive achievement by the film is that despite the fact that all these things are conveyed through music, the morals of love, redemption, unity, sacrifice and faith all stick. Finally, the cinematography is also phenomenal (bravo head photographer Danny Cohen), going from those emotion-grabbing close-ups to sweeping panoramic views to create a visual experience a play never could.

What Doesn’t Work?

When it comes to musicals, be they on stage or on film, you have to make some sacrifices as a viewer. First, you have to believe two people could fall deeply in love after a few seconds of eye contact. Also, after two and a half hours, you do get a little tired of people singing, you’re also worn out by the constant emotional peaks and valleys. Les Mis does feel long—probably fifteen minutes could have been cut without compromising the movie’s quality—and, in keeping with musical tradition, there are a pair of supporting characters on hand mostly for comic relief that prove rather distracting. While they do have one amusing gag (the constant mispronunciation of a major character’s name), they’re so much less interesting and heartfelt than the other major players that you feel they could have been done without.

Content

What’s generally going to keep people either from seeing Les Miserables or from enjoying it are its length (a little over 2.5 hours) and its main idea (it’s a musical; ergo, it’s pretty much all singing). But there are some obvious innuendos and some partial nudity derived from skimpy costumes and scenes near a brothel, but these are largely contained in the film’s first half hour. And there is a fair amount of blood and a few minutes of intense warlike violence (the audience will see a number of people get shot at close range).  For the most part, though, it’s fairly light by today’s movies’ standards.

Bottom Line (I Promise):

I can’t stop humming a few of the melodies, does that help? It’s long and pretty heavy, but Les Miserables is an admirable and impressive movie with an exceptional cast, a grand scope and some important themes. Like all great shows, it earns its applause handily.

Les Miserables (2012)

Directed by Tom Hooper

Screenplay by William Nicholson; Based on the musical play written by Claude-Michel Schonberg (composer) and Alain Boublil and Jean-Marc Natel (lyrics); English lyrics later added by Herbert Kretzmer

Originally inspired by the novel “Les Miserables” by Victor Hugo

Rated PG-13

Length: 157 minutes

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Grade: A
Directed by Peter Jackson
Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian Holm, Sylvester McCoy, Hugo Weaving, and Elijah Wood, with Andy Serkis as Gollum
Premise: Respectable hobbit Bilbo Baggins finds himself drawn into a quest in which a company of dwarves looks to reclaim their long lost homeland.

Rated PG-13 for thematic material including violence and gore, scary moments and some grotesque bodily images

Yes, I would call J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' my favorite book. I was a child (probably seven or eight years old) when my mom first read it to me, and it's the first story outside of Disney movies I can remember really embracing. I read it over and over again (and still read it at least once every two years or so). I've memorized whole passages and know chunks of dialogue verbatim. Of course I've pictured how it would all look and sound if I could see it, movie style. Well, obviously, that dream became more of a reality when Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings films became monumental successes from 2001-2003, and then whispers about a big-screen film adaptation of The Hobbit immediately began, considering Hobbit is LOTR's predecessor. Well, for a few years, momentum has been building as a rumored trilogy based on The Hobbit and events from the same time period--but featured in other Tolkien works like The Silmarillion--has been in the works.

Well, last night I saw the first film in that trilogy, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and let me tell you, the experience was sweet. Unlike the recent Silver Linings Playbook--another movie adaptation of a book I adore--there wasn't a lot of wiggle room with the plot, so the makers didn't try to give it any. Sure, they've put a few things in there that aren't in The Hobbit's text (first published in 1937), but it mostly feels right (most of what they've added was meant for the unitiated, to help them mentally connect the dots between The Hobbit and the beginning of the Lord of the Rings, which take place 60 years apart). All the best scenes have been created in loving detail, the characters have been brought to vivid life (enriched by a fleshed-out backstory), and the genial entertainment of the originally for-children story has been recreated. I could tell people in my row at the theater were looking at me as I chuckled in glee throughout most of the first hour, which consists mostly of one wild and very unexpected party. While there were a few moments when my movie critic senses started tingling, for the most part, the movie was on point. And considering it was telling the primary beloved story from my childhood, that made me happy.

Plot: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole, with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat. It was a hobbit hole, and that means comfort." -first lines from "The Hobbit", by J.R.R. Tolkien

The hobbit in question is, of course, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, with Ian Holm in a few scenes of Bilbo as an older hobbit). As a respectable, middle-aged hobbit, Mr. Baggins lives a quiet life in the Shire, a peaceful country where people never have any adventures or do anything unexpected. All that changes one day when old Baggins family friend Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) comes by and hints that he's looking for someone "to share in an adventure". Bilbo quickly rejects the offer, yet finds himself hosting an entire party of adventure-ready dwarves that very evening. Led by regal lord Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), the dwarves' intention is to travel to the east, to The Lonely Mountain, where a thriving city called Erebor once stood--a fine city by dwarf or any other standards, it was ruled by Thorin's grandfather King Thror. But the dwarves were forced to flee (those who survived, anyway) when a dragon named Smaug plundered and all but destroyed Erebor, but Thorin and his fellows swore they would return to retake the ancient city and its caverns full of treasure.

Though petrified at the idea of danger, Bilbo decides to accompany the dwarves (his mother's side of the family, the Tooks, have long been famous for their knack for adventure, after all). Though the adventure is often grim--the 15-person party faces heavy rains, murderous orcs, terrifying trolls and rumors of ancient evils regaining strength--they nonetheless find treasure, make an ally of sorts in the elf lord Elrond (Hugo Weaving), and learn of a secret passageway into Erebor that might allow them to avoid direct contact with the dragon. But then they're ambushed and ransacked by orcs, and Bilbo himself gets lost in the dark underground catacombs of the orc fortress. There he encounters a strange, murderous creature and accidentally runs off with something that creature holds dear...something called its Precious.

What Works?
Nobody does spectacle like Peter Jackson. From stunning landscapes to huge battles, pulse-pounding chases and epic panoramic shots that span miles in seconds, Jackson has put his epic touch all over this depiction of The Hobbit, just as he did so famously on his Oscar-winning LOTR trilogy a decade ago. Being a movie that needs to give people who haven't read the book (but may have seen the LOTR movies) some important info, Hobbit gets to open with an epic prologue that will teach even dedicated readers like me a lesson or two, but then it gets down to business. As a lifelong fan, I am pleased to report that all the most important scenes--"An Unexpected Party", "Roast Mutton", "Riddles in the Dark"--have been done great justice. Two songs from Tolkien's text (which is surprisingly full of songs) have been included, many jokes and nuances have been incorporated, and then one scene that is touched on, but quickly passed over, in the book gets my pick for the holy-cow-am-I-really-seeing-this, this-is-AMAZING movie moment of the year (two words: stone. giants.).

The visual effects are great, giving life and detail to three enormous, nasty trolls, all manner of hideously deformed goblins and orcs, and snarling, drooling wild wolves, and even a pack of giant eagles. The elf fortress of Rivendell remains a gorgeous sight, as does the quaint, rural countryside of the Shire. The Hobbit might lack the more adult LOTR's emotional complexity on the page, but it fills in the gaps with action, humor, some extra mythology, and some pleasing little nods to LOTR (Elijah Wood pops in and out of a few scenes, series vets McKellen, Weaving, Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee have a lengthy discussion in another, and, of course, the nefarious Gollum's key scene is given its due).

Even more than the Lord of the Rings movies, The Hobbit has a lot of ground to cover and a lot of people to introduce, so the acting isn't of utmost importance, but a few positive impressions are made. Ian McKellen is as good as ever as Gandalf, wise but weary, old but battle-ready. Andy Serkis (who provides the voice and movements for the motion-capture-animated Gollum) proves, again, that he may be the most invaluable person working in movies today. As Bilbo, Martin Freeman gets a little lost in the shuffle during group scenes with the dwarves, but the actor not only shows Bilbo's growth as an adventurer and a warrior but nails a few key emotional moments. Of special note is Richard Armitage in the meaty role of Thorin, proud warrior and heir to the lost dwarf throne. Other than a late misstep that involves a little too much sentiment, the actor brings this complex character brilliantly to life, showing all the nobility, courage, stubborness, pugnaciousness and pride that makes him such a daunting figure. It's a great portrayal, and I'm looking forward to seeing the character further develop in future installments.

What Doesn't Work?
The Hobbit isn't perfect, alas, but my complaints are small. The major detour Jackson and company take in including a character not in 'The Hobbit' text is a little distracting, taking away from the main action when the main action is plenty interesting. I wasn't surprised by the movie's length (in fact, I'd gladly watch the depiction of the entire story if it was all one movie, however long), but it did start to drag just a little bit in its last few scenes, when I knew it was ending. It took its time getting there, and it does so with a few over-the-top touches that, to me, felt fake (Thorin might come to respect and care for Bilbo as an ally and friend, but he would never hug him, as he does here).

Content:
As with LOTR, the real issue isn't language or graphic violence (though you do see a few decapitations), the issue is just intimidating content, like deformed and gruesome goblins and trolls, unexpected ambushes and creepy shadowy creatures (like the crazy-schizophrenic Gollum and the dark spirit Necromancer). But this is not (yet) as dark as The Lord of the Rings was at times.

Bottom Line (I Promise): What can I say? My favorite childhood story was made into a faithful and often delightful movie, with all the most important scenes given affectionate detail, plus some awesome battle scenes and breathtaking images. I'm happy.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Directed by Peter Jackson
Screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro; based on the novel 'The Hobbit' by J.R.R. Tolkien
Rated PG-13
Length: 169 minutes

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Grade: B+
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro, Jacki Weaver, Anupam Kher and Chris Tucker
Premise: Believing he still has a chance with his estranged (ex) wife, an optimistic man gets out of a mental hospital and tries to improve his personality by fostering a friendship with an odd young woman who lives down the street.

Rated R for language, intense emotional content and some sexual material

Picture this: a book you love is turned into a movie, and you're interested enough in the story and characters to see it, but you're terrified what they (the screenwriters and [producers) might do to change it. Then you see the movie, and you suffer that horribly awkward mental/emotional complex where you liked the movie, but it is (depending on the story in question) noticeably different from the book you came to know and adore, so it both does and does not feel like an accurate representation. Does that make any sense? Fans of The Hunger Games, Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings will know where I'm coming from. Twenty-four hours after seeing Silver Linings Playbook, screenwriter/director David O. Russell's adaptation of Matthew Quick's wonderful, offbeat novel of the same title, I'm suffering that very thing. It's like going through withdrawal--some of the book's characters, dialogues, plot points and themes were represented well, while other big changes were made that I'm not happy about (why didn't they just do it like the book did it?). And, of course, I wonder if Matthew Quick himself A) approved the script, B) will see the movie, and C) will like it.

Like I said, I've been through this before. I thought The Hunger Games movie was solid but was extremely critical of some of the Harry Potter flicks, and I read "The Silver Linings Playbook" just last week, bought it, and re-read it because I thought it was terrific, so of course it's fresh in my mind. Well, it has to be darn near impossible to make a barely-two-hour movie a fantastically accurate reflection of a 290-page book (let alone one in which the last third is mostly composed of letters written from one character to another), so I knew the challenges O. Russell's adaptation would face. Quick's novel uses a lot of descriptions in place of dialogue, centers around a very unconventional relationship, deals with some sobering/difficult issues, and ends on a note that both is and is not satisfying. As I expected, the movie is considerably more upbeat and a lot more accessible, increasing the amount of dialogue, upping the romantic ante and downplaying two of the major conflicts. Without giving away anything specific, I can also say the primary difference between the Silver Linings book and movie reflects the same  structural difference between the Two Towers book and movie. In J.R.R. Tolkien's text, the siege of Helm's Deep was a mere chapter; in Peter Jackson's 2002 film, it was half the movie. That's the key difference to the Silver Linings--an event that is important but not that important becomes the centerpiece of the movie, which requires a lot of tweaking of dialogue and smaller plot points and characterizations. It also necessitates a rather different ending. But if you haven't read the book, that means absolutely nothing to you, so...

Ultimately, though I've been wringing my hands over the differences between book and movie for the last day, I would say David O. Russell succeeded in doing what movie adaptations of books and other mediums always aim to do: respectfully acknowledge and reference the major characters, events, and themes of the original work while also creating some new life in a stand-alone project. Yes, O. Russell did it.

Plot: Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper) has been in a mental institution for eight months, fulfilling his end of the deal on a plea bargain that he entered after he beat the bejeezus out of a man his wife (Brea Bee) was cheating on him with. Turns out, this sloppy workaholic had also suffered from bipolar disorder his entire life and not known it. But after eight months of medication and open talking sessions and self-help slogans, he has a new, positive (some would say naive) lease on life, is in great physical shape, and is ready to go home. When his mother (Jacki Weaver) is able to get the courts to approve his release, he rejoins his family. He's not completely well, though. He's still obsessed with finding, and getting back together with, his ex-wife (who he doesn't really believe no longer wants anything to do with him). He doesn't believe a restraining order really means he can't go back to work at the high school where he used to teach as a substitute. And he also has "diarrhea of the mouth", wherein he says pretty much anything that comes to his mind (as one character puts it bluntly: "you say more inappropriate things than appropriate things"). He's also prone to tense, sometimes-violent tantrums. All these things stand in the way of his truly reconciling his relationships with his mother, his father (Robert DeNiro), his older brother (Shea Whigham) and his old best friend (John Ortiz), despite the help of a kindly therapist (Anupam Kher). He's also being occasionally dogged by a police officer (Dash Mihok) who knows he isn't in his right mind.

One night at a dinner party, he meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a friend's pretty but spacey sister-in-law who, it turns out, is nearly as blunt and socially awkward as he is. When Tiffany suddenly tries to seduce him, Pat turns her down out of respect for his wife (as he calls her; he still wears the ring, after all). But this interaction nonetheless gives him an idea: maybe his befriending this notorious, apparently-friendless girl (who has curiously started following him around on his daily runs around the neighborhood) could win him some brownie points with his ex, making him look like a kind, considerate guy. Though a dinner date goes badly when Tiffany explodes and begins shouting obscenities in public, she soon approaches Pat with an interesting offer: be her partner in an upcoming popular ballroom dance competition, and she'll put in a good word with his ex, whom she and her sister (Julia Stiles) occasionally spend time with. He agrees, and they're soon spending hours in Tiffany's personal dance studio, working on a routine. But Pat's unique relationship with the eccentric Tiffany soon raises a lot of uncomfortable questions with her parents, his parents, her sister, and his therapist.

What Works?
Since I read the book first and have a great amount of affection for it, of course it's easier for me to think of things I did not like about Silver Linings Playbook, but it nonetheless takes a lot of steps in the right direction. The pace is quick, the mood is much more upbeat, even playful (the book can be very somber as it explores Pat's honest, sometimes-depressing view of his life and relationships), and the big dance-off is a treat (it includes a classic yuk involving a lift gone very wrong).

This being a David O. Russell film, though (like I Heart Huccabees and The Fighter), the most important aspect of Silver Linings Playbook is obviously the actors and their portrayals. While a few of the characters get left out to dry by the transition to movie (particularly Pat's therapist), most of them are brilliant. I haven't seen any of Bradley Cooper's big movies to date (The Hangover, Limitless, The Words), but I was really impressed with his work here. From book to movie, the character has become a lot more outspoken and blunt and erratic, and Cooper gives it his all in a manic, determined performance. Robert DeNiro also does some of his most sincere work in years as Pat's sensitive father. Jacki Weaver is perfectly cast as Pat's sympathetic mother, and Chris Tucker has a few good moments as a buddy from the mental institution, but the real actor to watch is Jennifer Lawrence. I knew the Hunger Games star was one of the favorites in the Best Actress Oscar race for this performance going in (which didn't surprise me, as Tiffany on the page is one of the most complex and interesting female characters I've ever read), and Lawrence proves an absolute pistol. Shaking off the withdrawn sullenness that sometimes hindered her portrayals in Games and in last year's The Beaver, Lawrence makes Tiffany exactly who she's supposed to be, an unpredictable, self-centered and occasionally crude woman who tends to drive people away even though what she really clearly wants is to be loved and cared for. Screaming insults or self-degrading remarks at the top of her lungs or breaking down at mentions of her recently-deceased husband, Lawrence honors Matthew Quick's most poignant, memorable character.

What Doesn't Work?
Oh boy. The things I could say here...

Well, let me just put it this way. Though there were a bunch of differences in dialogue and event sequence and character importance, Silver Linings did the book impressive justice for two-thirds of its run-time. Though different, it was essentially on course. Then it completely deviated, started to come back, then deviated again (in my opinion, even though there was a major plot change, they still had a chance to return to the book's very particular brand of drama again, but they mostly missed it). I won't use specifics, but, in my view, the ending was a little cheap. Though it gets to the same ultimate destination, the movie goes for a more obvious and plain emotional payoff than Quick's gorgeous, emotionally-fragile writing. In fact, I'm extremely frustrated, because as good as Cooper and Lawrence are, their potential best dramatic moments are taken from them by this big tonal change, which ultimately leads to an ending that feels uncannily like a mushy Valentine's Day treat movie, as opposed to the grittier, more idiosyncratic nature of the happenings in the book.

On a completely subjective note, however, there are a few things I'd quibble about in any movie, like the plausibility that a man is able to publicly approach a woman with a restraining order against him to the point that he's able to whisper in her ear--with that Dash Mihok police officer watching. But I digress.

Content: As in the book, there are many uses of colorful language (like words that start with "f" and "s"), which is the main reason the film is rated R. There is a brief shot of a woman in the shower, an uncomfortable family tussle, some suggestive dancing and even some descriptive sexual dialogue, but, as with the book, there are no unnecessary romantic/sexual pit stops. This story is more focused and serious than that.

Bottom Line (I Promise): I love the book, and, though I could say a lot of things about how it's different, I enjoyed the movie Silver Linings Playbook. It does the book justice for the most part, but it does its stars even more (it's a must-see for fans of Cooper and Lawrence), and it leaves you feeling hopeful.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Directed by David O. Russell
Screenplay by David O. Russell; based on the novel "The Silver Linings Playbook' by Matthew Quick
Rated R
Length: 122 minutes