Les Misérables (2012)

It wouldn't be exactly true to say that I don’t like musicals. I loved Oliver when I was younger, and still very much enjoy Chicago – both the film and the show. Keep me clear away from Andrew Lloyd Webber though – stupid melty-face toad man! Les Misérables is a very different style to most others (as far as I’m aware). It’s not a play with a bit of music added in for fun and good measure – everything is sung, as it is with an opera, which is fine I suppose but it does take a bit of getting used to.

My prejudices against this film going in were not, therefore, entirely musical-related. It was more the cast. Specifically Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried. Especially Amanda Seyfried. Between them they’ve been in so many bullshit films that I’ve had to endure hearing about (even if I haven’t actually seen most of them) and I resent them for bringing them into my life. Examples include: Red Riding Hood, Dear John, Bride Wars, Letters to Juliet, Valentine’s Day, and Becoming Jane. What a load of crap.

By contrast Les Mis also features some very lovely people: Eddie Redmayne, Helena Bonham Carter (even if she does play the same character as she does in many of her other films), and Hugh Jackman. There’s a fantastic collection of films that they’ve participated in: The X-Mens, Fight Club, Glorious 39, Twelfth Night, The King’s Speech, My Week with Marilyn. Real films that, even if they don’t suit everybody, at least weren’t written by Nicholas bloody Sparks.

An exception can be made for The Dark Knight Rises, which is obviously a fantastic film, and which doesn’t suffer too much for including Hathaway. I’m not sure she really adds anything though.

The presence or otherwise of Russell Crowe doesn’t really bother me. He’s one of those actors that has completely passed me by. Obviously I know very well who he is but of his reasonably lengthy film list, I’ve only seen Gladiator (once, a while ago), and Robin Hood. I might perhaps have seen A Beautiful Mind, or the beginning of it at least, but I can’t really remember it. Maybe I’ll try that one again.

Anyway… luckily for me aforementioned annoying actresses appear only very briefly. I am also forced to completely retract anything negative I have ever said about Anne Hathaway’s ability to sing. As much as everyone’s gone on about it and she’s nominated for an Oscar and all, I didn’t really believe she’d be anything other than adequate. I was very wrong. While her general acting is nothing to write home about, that Dreamed a Dream song is amazing. Whether it’s her singing, her facial expressions and body language, or the cinematography throughout, it’s a very powerful part of the film and, while I won’t admit to breaking down into hysterical tears, I was very impressed at the song’s strength.

I’ll let it be known at this point, that I don’t cry at films, not even Titanic. In the whole history of my film-watching I have cried at only 3 (that I remember). The first is a pile of rubbish and I don’t know what came over me – I blame teenage hormones. I won’t mention the film by name but suffice to say it starred Mandy Moore. One other is still my favourite film of all time: The Secret in their Eyes – it’s amazing and twisted and clever and everyone should watch it!

Film no. 3 I have to confess is Les Misérables. There was a reasonably steady stream of tears going by the end. Clearly it cheats by the strong use of music and everyone dying but the fact still remains that I apparently cared enough to display outward emotion and that deserves some serious praise.

Amanda Seyfried is just as annoying as I expected, but she doesn’t feature much so never mind. Actually, that was a point I found quite amusing. The character Marius (Redmayne) falls in love with the cute, blond Cossette (Seyfried) and fails to return the (probably more sincere) love of Éponine, the daughter of his landlord. Éponine is played by Samantha Barks who, after a brief look at her IMDB page, appears to have first appeared on the I’d Do Anything talent show. Maybe Webber does have a use after all as Barks is magnificent and easily outshines Seyfried. What is Marius thinking? She’s definitely someone to look for in future films.

I also think a lot of the credit for the success of Les Mis should go to director Tom Hooper. Not only did he direct The King’s Speech which is clearly marvellous, but he also (apparently) directed some Byker Grove episodes back in the day – what a hero! In the wrong hands this could have been an overly sentimental disaster but it’s not. Well, it’s obviously overly sentimental – it’s a musical – but it’s human and more believable than I think any stage production would be able to make it. I’m clearly biased though.

Django Unchained (2012)

You know what you’re getting yourself in for when you watch Tarantino. There’s mostly a lot of ridiculously amazing violence, a fantastic soundtrack, and a less than linear story. That’s also pretty much what you get with Django Unchained.

Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave in the pre-Civil War deep South, is unexpectedly bought and freed by German ex-dentist Dr Shultz (Christoph Waltz). Shultz needs his help to kill three brothers, wanted dead or alive by state authorities, and so claim their bounty.  Realising they make a good team, Schultz and Django spend the winter together bounty hunting with glorious style. Django is, of course, a natural with a gun and soon can imagine a future when he will have enough money to do whatever he wants with his life.

What he wants is to find and rescue his wife Broomhilda, whom he was separated from by evil plantation owners after they tried to run away together. Rumour has it that she’s now at Candie Land – one of the largest plantations in the area, owned by the mean and ruthless Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Candie spends a large portion of his time and his wealth buying and selling ‘mandingo’ fighters – black slaves who fight to the death for the entertainment and gambling pleasures of rich white men. Django and Shultz, realising that they’ll never manage to persuade Candie to sell Broomhilda if they ask directly, pretend to be interested in buying themselves a mandigo fighter, with the hopes of casually buying the pretty German-speaking slave as well while they’re there.

There are so many positive things that I want to say about this film, beginning with just how cool Jamie Foxx is. I realise now that I’ve never actually seen him in anything, although I first heard of him because of Ray and how awesome that’s supposed to be, and heard his name mentioned every now and again in connection with various films that I’ll never watch (Miami Vice, Valentine’s Day, Horrible Bosses). I think he’s brilliant.

The sleekness, cleverness, and overly-elaborateness of the bounty hunting plans by Shultz is also a joy to behold. Even if things go wrong, he remains calm and cool and just deals with it, with undeniable style. I know I’ve ranted on before about watching a smooth plan just work well and how good that is to see.

Leo. I will always love Leo, and I would like to make completely clear that this is not because of some silly teenage girl crush based on Titanic and Romeo and Juliet. That boy can act. Despite being nominated a few times, he’s never won an Oscar, or apparently any other important award, but surely has deserved some for some of his roles. What’s Eating Gilbert Grape being a prime example. He’s awesome in this too, and very nicely dressed as well.

Samuel L. Jackson. He’s so good!

The violence. It’s brilliant, and (mostly) comically OTT. There are a few moments with the brutality of the white slave-drivers where you really have to brace yourself for what you’re watching or look away if you really can’t take it, but I hope that these small parts don’t put anyone of seeing it. It’s worth it, even if it is uncomfortable.

The only bad thing that I can possibly say about this is Tarantino felt the need to appear in it, as he so often does. He managed to resist for both Kill Bill films, so why start again? He cannot act, and he’s very annoying, but never mind eh?

Overall – this film is gob-smacking, cool, and everyone in the world should watch it. Unless you really really don’t like violence – then you probably won’t like it.

Mirror Mirror (2012)

2012 was apparently the year for Snow White. Four different versions were released in various forms including Snow White and the Huntsman with the ridiculous Kristen Stewart. I was shocked to see that it was nominated for two Oscars when so many fantastic films seem to have been overlooked, but apparently they’re for costume and visual effects so that’s ok.

Mirror Mirror’s cast is not quite as star-studded as Snow White and the Huntsman’s, but still features some pretty high profile names. Julia Roberts is the evil Queen and Sean Bean the King. Armie Hammer (The Social Network) plays the prince and is horribly saccharine throughout, and the Queen’s aid is Nathan Lane who, for all his many film at TV appearances is still probably best known as the voice of Timon from The Lion King. As far as I’m concerned anyway. Lily Collins, who plays Snow White, has been in absolutely nothing of note except The Blind Side (The Priest and Abduction don’t really count as films of note as far as I’m concerned). She is ridiculously annoying although pretty enough in exactly the right fairy-tale way so she’s reasonably suited for the role. Especially in such an annoying film.

Because oh my God it was annoying! Notwithstanding a perfectly acceptable train-her-to-be-a-fighter montage in the middle (who doesn’t love a good montage?) the whole film is ridiculous. Not ridiculous in a good quality B-film kind of way – no, no – that was what I was hoping to find, but in a way that made me that close to giving up on it after about half an hour. Being mostly about The Queen rather than completely concentrating on Snow White, I imagine it was designed as some kind of final ego boost for Julia Roberts before everyone completely forgets about her and moves on.

Oh yeah, and Snow White starts singing some kind of Bollywood number at the end. That was unnecessary! Maybe kids will like it.

My lasting impression: Oh Sean Bean! What have you become?

Like Minds (2006)

As with many films on my watch list, I first heard about Like Minds by seeing a trailer on a DVD. It caught my attention by the presence of Toni Collette whom I at least think I like, even if I usually find that I actually don’t (she is, incidentally, the weakest part of this film), and because it seems to mostly be about two boys who are, frankly, evil. And I love watching cold, deliberate evil. It’s a similar style to We Need to Talk About Kevin – that completely self-aware, could-not-give-a-shit attitude that’s very impressive and powerful. It’s the reason why I like bad guys: Chuck Bass, Heath Ledger’s Joker, Gollum (no, wait – scratch that).

This film’s examples of evil incarnate are Alex Forbes (played by Eddie Redmayne – My Week with Marilyn, Les Misérables), and Nigel Colbie (Tom Sturridge – The Boat That Rocked, On the Road). Both actors are fantastic and play calm and twisted very well.

Like Minds follows a criminal psychologist Sally (Collette) as she attempts to uncover the truth about the murder of schoolboy Nigel. Alex, arrested for the murder, swears he didn’t do it despite compelling evidence to the contrary. As Sally talks to him and probes deeper into his thoughts and memories, we gradually discover more about the boys’ relationship over the past few moths, and how dark and sinister the whole affair actually is.

As I said above, for me Collette is the weakest part of this film. She’s mostly fine but it’s ruined by one moment with a particularly exaggerated gesture that immediately made me think of About a Boy where she does exactly the same thing. There’s also a bizarre moment where Sally breaks into Nigel’s house without any kind of warrant or apparently telling anyone where she’s going. Not Collette’s fault – that’s more to do with the writers but it bothered me and I don’t see why she couldn’t do everything properly. I know films like to make the main character go all maverick and everything but she’s not really the main character – just a vessel through which the real story is told (sorry Toni). All in all I much preferred the flashback parts of the film to the present day parts.

Despite sounding rather negative, I found the whole film very compelling. It’s a mystery and a thriller and incorporates obscure Christian history and inherited mantels. A bit like The Da Vinci Code but better (despite being less thoroughly researched).

It’s also given me more of a reason to see Les Misérables, as if Hugh Jackman wasn’t enough. I’ll see if when the time comes whether or not the presence of Hugh Jackman, Eddie Redmayne and Helena Bonham Carter together are enough to outweigh having to sit through Amanda Seyfried and Anne Hathaway attempting to sing.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I am not one of the many people in the world that have been waiting for The Hobbit film since God only knows when. Nor was I even particularly interested in it during most of the build-up. That is, until I saw the trailer for the first time and realised quite what the release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey meant – more Lord of the Rings! It includes the same actors as the LOTR, reprising their roles from the trilogy, and the music’s the same. It was the music that got me – it contains the same themes and is in the same style and suddenly I was eagerly anticipating the release of this film. Because I love Lord of the Rings. Completely, stupidly love it. I’ve seen all three God knows how many times, I’ve done the thing of watching all the extended versions back to back, know most of the actors’ names, and memorised a decent quantity of the script.

So obviously I read the books, or rather book. Once will do – I can hold my head up high and say I’ve read it but never need to worry about it again. I didn’t go on to read The Hobbit though. That is something I’ve rectified, I’m currently reading it and I made sure I’d read at least enough to cover the first film before I went. But possibly that’s what ruined the film for me.

It looks phenomenal – there’s no two ways about that. I felt compelled (unlike with most films) to splash out and watch it in 3D, and in the high frame rate that everyone keeps banging on about. The end result is gob-smacking. The hills and the mountains look ridiculously good and the depth given by the 3D made me completely forget I was watching a film. In a good way.

The problem with 3D is when there’s action; or close-ups. My eyes can’t keep up and it goes a bit too blurry for me to remain in my disbelief-suspended film-watching mode. Which is mostly why I don’t normally watch non-animated films in 3D. I don’t know if there’s technology that needs improving there, or just that my eyes are crap, but it spoils it. If it wasn’t for that then I would call the visuals pretty near perfect. 

Incidentally the HFR didn’t bother me at all. Maybe it needed a little getting used to but probably no more than normal 3D would have done.

I had a slight worry about Martin Freeman being Bilbo. He didn’t seem right for it at first but I will hold my hand up and confess I was completely wrong – he did a very good job and it worked really well. It is, of course, always nice to see Ian McKellen and again, Andy Serkis produced a crazy-good Gollum. What I wasn’t expecting was to recognise so many other faces. LOTR didn’t contain that many well-known actors and although it was natural that a few more would jump on the Tolkien band-wagon faces such as those belonging to James Nesbitt (Cold Feet, Bloody Sunday), and Aiden Turner (Being Human, Desperate Romantics) were a surprise.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but my number one pet hate with adapted screenplays is when they change the book. Obviously you have to change the book a little – miss bits out, possibly re-order some stuff so it makes sense for the screen, but don’t just make things up. Especially for absolutely no reason. The slightly altered ending of the American version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo springs to mind as a pointless, completely unnecessary change. I won’t mention anything specific about The Hobbit because someone geekier than me will point me straight to the part of the Silmarillion, or the precise LOTR appendix from which it was taken but suffice it to say, enough was different to the book to make me really quite annoyed by the end. And not in a slightly rolling the eyes kind of way. Properly annoyed.

But I’m ignoring that. It’s more Lord of the Rings and I’m determined to love it in the end. I’ll watch it differently next time, and not just because I won’t have the fancy-pants technology.