Stars: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Helena Bonham-Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen
What I Liked
Powerful performances from the cast, particularly from Anne Hathaway
What I Disliked
The whole thing felt like a needlessly long music video; Hooper failed to create an atmosphere that engrosses its audiences. The whole sing-song conversations that felt over the top. Russell Crowe's singing.
Gist
Needlessly long and often coming across as over-the-top, Hooper's need to saturate the near three hours running time with closeups failed to engross the audience with the atmosphere of France in revolt. Thankfully, the cast delivers powerful performances, particularly from Hathaway and Jackman.
Jean Valjean (Jackman) was sentenced to 5 years of prison after he stole a loaf of bread. His attempt to escape slavery in prison lengthened it to 19 years. After serving enough time, he obtained a parole, but couldn't get any decent job and continuously gets discriminated because of his papers stating his previous incarceration. One night, he strayed onto a church where the Monsignor allowed him the night and some food. Valjean however thought it better to steal some of the church's silver instead and run off. But he got caught and brought to the church and was given a free pass by the Monsignor telling him that he should use this silver for a new chance at life. Moved by the priest's kindness, he promised to live a new life of helping others from whatever riches he gains from the silver.
Coming off as one of the, if not the, highest profile adaptations of the stage musical, Tom Hooper's Les Miserables features an ensemble cast comprised of Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, and Anne Hathaway to name a few. Hooper's Les Mis holds distinctions over other adaptations for being shot primarily using a Steadycam, allowing a more creative take on filming, and with the songs sung live on-set, while the orchestra was dubbed in post-production. Set in 1815 and succeeding years that ultimately lead to the June Rebellion--a failed rebellion lead by students, Tom Hooper's take on Les Miserables is supposedly intimate and as and alive as the stage musical is (or to replicate the experience of watching the musical). While his intentions were good, I do not believe that he was able to meet the goal of creating an intimate film, something that speaks to the soul. I will be frank early in this review that this movie drove me frustrated and sleepy. I just didn't understand the choices that Tom Hooper made.
First off, let me mention the few good things I can raise about this film: Anne Hathaway. Her overall screen time is less than 20 minutes for a film that goes on for 160 minutes. But those 20 minutes were put to good use. Her scene-stealing performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is so heartfelt and emotional even if I keep on getting distracted by the way it was filmed (but more on that later). She managed to put so much emotion and power into that song that you can feel the pain she is feeling. Things go downhill after that, though, and quite quickly.
Since I've picked on how Anne's performance was shot, let me start with that. The performance begins with Anne on a bed--after doing her first person as a prostitute. It wouldn't take long for the camera to slowly zoom in and present the whole performance close up. This works in a sense that you can see the pain on Anne's face. At one point you can even see the bloody gum where her tooth was plucked from. Anne at this point is very unsightly. And we are presented with this along with a very moving song of dreams lost. But! Where is she again? Is she wearing anything? Why does she keep looking that way or this way? What is in that space that she is looking at? What does her dress look like again? Oh wait, is she still wearing anything? The whole thing was shot at close up that you would soon lose interest at the pain that registers on her face and start feeling uncomfortable that you are confronted by an unsightly Anne Hathaway for two minutes non-stop: face to face. And there's nothing to distract you from that. Nothing but a black background which does not help you remember where she is. And no, the camera doesn't move around to show her back or her surroundings or her interacting with her surroundings. In fact, at one moment, when Anne looks up at the ceiling, the camera moves up with her head and we don't even get to see her neck anymore, just 5/6 of her face. You might not realize this on your first viewing, but I noticed this and wth, there was nothing interesting above, Hooper, just more darkness, to justify your taking away Anne's neck for like 5 seconds. I was actually afraid that the camera would go up higher and never come down because the scenes prior to this were so poorly framed. In fact, I felt like the whole I Dreamed a Dream was an overlong music video, reminiscent of Janet Jackson's Everytime.
Some may say in defense that the way it was shot and framed was perfect because the director wants us to focus on Anne's performance rather than what's on the background. But what about her body language? I wanna see that too. I wanna see her clench her fists in sadness and anger over her present situation. Was she pressing her fists to her chest or stomach in utter disgust? What about her feet, those can express displeasure, too, or disgust over what she has just endured. What a missed opportunity!
I think that Hooper chose to film a majority of the film (and almost all of the 50 songs) in close up because, perhaps to him, close-up meant intimate. Yes, perhaps, physical proximity might amount to intimacy, but no, not in this case. Unfortunately, the closeups eventually alienate the audience in a sense that it didn't bring the audience to the same environment as the characters. I felt that Hooper kept the audience as viewers in a separate environment and they don't feel like they can participate in the scene. They're just watching the faces and have no clear idea where they are exactly. Take this example. Didn't you feel engrossed in James Cameron's Avatar? With Avatar, we are given a clear picture of Pandora--a full exploration even. That movie wasn't just about its characters or their CGI faces, it was about their settings, too, their world, their culture. In Les Mis, we are only allowed to interact with the characters and are only given glimpses of France in revolt--why are even they in revolt, was that discussed or was it expected of the audience to have some knowledge in history before stepping in? And those glimpses are quite the odd glimpses, too: shots that are angled weirdly, like the picture below (compared with Winding-Refn's Drive):
Comparing those two, we are seeing France from Russell Crowe's chest. I am not sure what Hooper wants to present to his audience, too, in that shot: Russell Crowe, who is too far on the left, or France, which is too blurry and blocked by a Javert whose face is also poorly lit? In Refn's Drive, everything is clean. There are shadows, but we can see Gosling's face. We can also see Gosling and the whole environment in one glance. We can also see where he is and the park is allowed to play background by letting us focus on the center where our eyes are trained to be at often, with the peripheral vision capturing minor details as we focus on the center. Since the background also seems elaborate, we know where he can go if the deal goes wrong, we are allowed in to explore this place where the scene is happening. With Hooper's off-angle style, I felt confined, distracted, and asked to choose whether to focus on the sky or on Crowe because everything is big and competing for attention.
And this style pervades throughout the whole 2 hours and 45 minutes running time.
But don't get me wrong. Sometimes this choice works. Sometimes the off-angled camera takes gorgeous shots, especially when it lets go of the shallow focus (blurred background). There were some shots in the opening "Look Down" that looked fine--some even gorgeous, though much of it was devoted to Hooper experimenting with closeups and shallow focus. "Master of the House" plays it safer and was actually enjoyable. "Do You Hear the People Sing?" is another one that wasn't peppered greatly with closeups and poor angle. Again, another enjoyable part. But such things come rare in Hooper's showcase because he filled the whole thing with close-ups and weird angles that belong better to fashion magazines.
And shame! The set design is lush and grand even if I only catch glimpses of it--but ultimately not enough glances to make me feel everything. Same can be said for costume design, which I get to see chest up only most of the times. And worst of all, the performances--all great--easily negated by the framing choices, unable to involve the audience into the whole environment. Again, to me, the whole thing felt like a needlessly long music video filled with closeups (to focus on how pretty this new POP IT girl even at close up) and shallow focus; Hooper failed to create an atmosphere that engrosses his audience, and I almost fell asleep half way because I was tired of seeing closeups after closeups or shots from the chest and tilted weirdly. The whole sing-song conversations that felt over the top didn't work for me, too, which also contributed to the padded length of 2h and 45 even if Hooper had actually shortened some songs by a minute.
Maybe this treatment would work for some people. But in the group of 10 I came in with for this movie, at most only 3 were pleased or OK with the final result. The rest were severely frustrated and felt it was boring, and that's mostly because the movie couldn't immerse people properly since it kept throwing faces at its audience. On the plus side, this treatment allowed me to count Eddie Redmayne's freckles when I was ready to walk out.
Judgment: Hooper dreamed a dream, but to me it felt like a 3-hour nightmare. Do people need to watch this? For me, not really, but people would and I wouldn't try to advise them against it simply because this film is so current, it would be a shame to have missed it, kind of like the Avengers of period films. Even if only for the sake of discussion, people would watch Les Mis because it's an event, rather than a movie, though a pretty bad one at that. My suggestion to those people is to skip the theatre and get a copy, legally or illegally, I don't think it should matter, because once that I Dreamed a Dream performance of Anne hits YouTube, then you can skip the movie entirely and save 3 hours of your life. 2 out of 5 stars.
For this movie, I'm willing to pay: less than a hundred bucks, then I would walk out and ask for a refund.
First off, let me mention the few good things I can raise about this film: Anne Hathaway. Her overall screen time is less than 20 minutes for a film that goes on for 160 minutes. But those 20 minutes were put to good use. Her scene-stealing performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is so heartfelt and emotional even if I keep on getting distracted by the way it was filmed (but more on that later). She managed to put so much emotion and power into that song that you can feel the pain she is feeling. Things go downhill after that, though, and quite quickly.
Since I've picked on how Anne's performance was shot, let me start with that. The performance begins with Anne on a bed--after doing her first person as a prostitute. It wouldn't take long for the camera to slowly zoom in and present the whole performance close up. This works in a sense that you can see the pain on Anne's face. At one point you can even see the bloody gum where her tooth was plucked from. Anne at this point is very unsightly. And we are presented with this along with a very moving song of dreams lost. But! Where is she again? Is she wearing anything? Why does she keep looking that way or this way? What is in that space that she is looking at? What does her dress look like again? Oh wait, is she still wearing anything? The whole thing was shot at close up that you would soon lose interest at the pain that registers on her face and start feeling uncomfortable that you are confronted by an unsightly Anne Hathaway for two minutes non-stop: face to face. And there's nothing to distract you from that. Nothing but a black background which does not help you remember where she is. And no, the camera doesn't move around to show her back or her surroundings or her interacting with her surroundings. In fact, at one moment, when Anne looks up at the ceiling, the camera moves up with her head and we don't even get to see her neck anymore, just 5/6 of her face. You might not realize this on your first viewing, but I noticed this and wth, there was nothing interesting above, Hooper, just more darkness, to justify your taking away Anne's neck for like 5 seconds. I was actually afraid that the camera would go up higher and never come down because the scenes prior to this were so poorly framed. In fact, I felt like the whole I Dreamed a Dream was an overlong music video, reminiscent of Janet Jackson's Everytime.
 |
| First thing that comes to mind: what was the scary thing she saw that side of the screen, why can't the cameraman show it to us? |
 |
| The whole time Anne Hathaway was singing I Dreamed a Dream, I can't help but get reminded of Janet Jackson's Everytime, mostly shot shoulders up. |
Some may say in defense that the way it was shot and framed was perfect because the director wants us to focus on Anne's performance rather than what's on the background. But what about her body language? I wanna see that too. I wanna see her clench her fists in sadness and anger over her present situation. Was she pressing her fists to her chest or stomach in utter disgust? What about her feet, those can express displeasure, too, or disgust over what she has just endured. What a missed opportunity!
I think that Hooper chose to film a majority of the film (and almost all of the 50 songs) in close up because, perhaps to him, close-up meant intimate. Yes, perhaps, physical proximity might amount to intimacy, but no, not in this case. Unfortunately, the closeups eventually alienate the audience in a sense that it didn't bring the audience to the same environment as the characters. I felt that Hooper kept the audience as viewers in a separate environment and they don't feel like they can participate in the scene. They're just watching the faces and have no clear idea where they are exactly. Take this example. Didn't you feel engrossed in James Cameron's Avatar? With Avatar, we are given a clear picture of Pandora--a full exploration even. That movie wasn't just about its characters or their CGI faces, it was about their settings, too, their world, their culture. In Les Mis, we are only allowed to interact with the characters and are only given glimpses of France in revolt--why are even they in revolt, was that discussed or was it expected of the audience to have some knowledge in history before stepping in? And those glimpses are quite the odd glimpses, too: shots that are angled weirdly, like the picture below (compared with Winding-Refn's Drive):
 |
| The movie is chock-full of shots that attempt to overuse shallow focus to poor effect. The angle feels off and you don't exactly get a good idea of what the shipyard (is it even a shipyard) and if Javert is wearing pants. You also feel a tad shorter than Javert at this angle and feels awkward compared to: |
 |
| This. Winding-Refn frames this conversation scene perfectly in Drive. We are given an idea where THE DRIVER is and we are set to him on eye level, equal height. Making it feel more intimate and less alienating unlike Russell Crowe's. |
Comparing those two, we are seeing France from Russell Crowe's chest. I am not sure what Hooper wants to present to his audience, too, in that shot: Russell Crowe, who is too far on the left, or France, which is too blurry and blocked by a Javert whose face is also poorly lit? In Refn's Drive, everything is clean. There are shadows, but we can see Gosling's face. We can also see Gosling and the whole environment in one glance. We can also see where he is and the park is allowed to play background by letting us focus on the center where our eyes are trained to be at often, with the peripheral vision capturing minor details as we focus on the center. Since the background also seems elaborate, we know where he can go if the deal goes wrong, we are allowed in to explore this place where the scene is happening. With Hooper's off-angle style, I felt confined, distracted, and asked to choose whether to focus on the sky or on Crowe because everything is big and competing for attention.
And this style pervades throughout the whole 2 hours and 45 minutes running time.
But don't get me wrong. Sometimes this choice works. Sometimes the off-angled camera takes gorgeous shots, especially when it lets go of the shallow focus (blurred background). There were some shots in the opening "Look Down" that looked fine--some even gorgeous, though much of it was devoted to Hooper experimenting with closeups and shallow focus. "Master of the House" plays it safer and was actually enjoyable. "Do You Hear the People Sing?" is another one that wasn't peppered greatly with closeups and poor angle. Again, another enjoyable part. But such things come rare in Hooper's showcase because he filled the whole thing with close-ups and weird angles that belong better to fashion magazines.
And shame! The set design is lush and grand even if I only catch glimpses of it--but ultimately not enough glances to make me feel everything. Same can be said for costume design, which I get to see chest up only most of the times. And worst of all, the performances--all great--easily negated by the framing choices, unable to involve the audience into the whole environment. Again, to me, the whole thing felt like a needlessly long music video filled with closeups (to focus on how pretty this new POP IT girl even at close up) and shallow focus; Hooper failed to create an atmosphere that engrosses his audience, and I almost fell asleep half way because I was tired of seeing closeups after closeups or shots from the chest and tilted weirdly. The whole sing-song conversations that felt over the top didn't work for me, too, which also contributed to the padded length of 2h and 45 even if Hooper had actually shortened some songs by a minute.
Maybe this treatment would work for some people. But in the group of 10 I came in with for this movie, at most only 3 were pleased or OK with the final result. The rest were severely frustrated and felt it was boring, and that's mostly because the movie couldn't immerse people properly since it kept throwing faces at its audience. On the plus side, this treatment allowed me to count Eddie Redmayne's freckles when I was ready to walk out.
Judgment: Hooper dreamed a dream, but to me it felt like a 3-hour nightmare. Do people need to watch this? For me, not really, but people would and I wouldn't try to advise them against it simply because this film is so current, it would be a shame to have missed it, kind of like the Avengers of period films. Even if only for the sake of discussion, people would watch Les Mis because it's an event, rather than a movie, though a pretty bad one at that. My suggestion to those people is to skip the theatre and get a copy, legally or illegally, I don't think it should matter, because once that I Dreamed a Dream performance of Anne hits YouTube, then you can skip the movie entirely and save 3 hours of your life. 2 out of 5 stars.
For this movie, I'm willing to pay: less than a hundred bucks, then I would walk out and ask for a refund.
No comments:
Post a Comment