Les Misérables (2012)

4/5

Tom Hooper's Les Misérables is an utterly absorbing musical from beginning to end. I went into this movie knowing nothing of the story, having never heard a song outside of its trailer, and was entirely entranced and enchanted the entire time. If you know nothing about it, I recommend going in blind and letting it tell its own story instead of having me attempt to simplify it into 1-2 sentences here. Not that the plot itself is really all that special, there are just a few surprises pretty early on I was grateful to have discovered on my own.

The music is superb, with Anne Hathaway's heartbreaking rendition of I Dreamed a Dream utterly stealing the show. I honestly almost choked watching her sing; all I could do to breathe was let out shallow little gasps in between her bravura vocals. Hearing this performance is worth the price of admission alone. On My Own, performed by Samantha Barks, is a close second. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe give compelling performances as well, although I wasn't too impressed with their singing. This is apparently the first film to record music live on set on this large a scale, and I'm convinced that it's the way to go. It lets the actors emote a million times better than they could have in a sound booth 3 months before filming.

However, the movie has its flaws. It is paced like a musical rather than a film. Each song basically serves as a scene. Years pass in between songs and the audience is allowed a quick exposition of the intervening time before launching into yet another song. It's a little disorienting and unsettling. The camerawork is a little aggressive as well, almost taking on its own (unwanted) personality and characteristics. Still, I enjoyed the film greatly and felt it was a terrific introduction to the musical. Consider me a fan, because I plan on listening to the soundtrack multiple times before seeing it again in theaters in preparation for seeing it live on stage.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a fitting end to a rather bland film series. I'm sure the books are much more interesting (even the Wikipedia articles are far more interesting), but the movie versions just don't do it for me. They feel like simplified, truncated versions of something that might actually be good. They're made for people who have read the book; everyone else is cheated of truly experiencing the magic of the series. Nothing about these movies is thought out in a cinematic fashion, nothing is added or changed to make it fit better in movie form. It's a simple translation to a different format and that's exactly what it feels like.

That being said, the movie is fairly entertaining and enjoyable to watch. It's not a bad movie by any means. It's predictable with an appropriate amount of action to spice up the boring dialogue and plot, but being so predictable makes the whole thing advance at a laborious pace. You know what's going to happen next and you're just waiting for it to happen. Special effects were pretty crappy, acting was acceptable, and cinematography was stale. It's nice to see a finale to the series, but I think they probably should've just stuck with the written word. Obviously the fans will watch this movie no matter what I say, but nothing has changed with this movie to turn a newcomer into a fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is an all right movie, just like its predecessor. It is exceedingly and unnecessarily confusing for people who haven't read the books, even if you have struggled to keep up with the movies. (I have not even done that, as I just now realized that I have never seen the third, fourth, or fifth movie.) Unlike its predecessor, however, there is finally some content and plot progression. Even though the plot is mind-numbing, it piqued my interest enough for me to read up on characters' backstories on Wikipedia for a good 1-2 hours after the movie. Perhaps one reason I found the plot to be so lackluster is that I've seen it all before--only better--in a little fantasy series entitled The Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter seems to have borrowed so extensively from that franchise, in fact, that it also picked up the same plodding pace and heavy atmosphere.

The movie has more than its fair share of flaws. The mood seemed to jump from terrifying horror to child-like comedy at the drop of a hat. It felt as if a bunch of different people gave their input for each scene and the director didn't bother trying to unite it all into a coherent whole. The visual appearance of the film also suffered from poor directing choices. The action sequences were nothing more than poor special effects experiments. And during those CGI fiascoes, it was usually impossible to tell what was going on thanks to unnecessarily rapid cutting and equally unnecessarily close shots. And, for better or worse, this film is so much more "mature" (i.e., bleak and dismal) compared to the early Harry Potter films. All in all, I was appropriately planted to my seat while watching the movie, but mostly because it made me want to find out about all the good stuff that didn't make it into the movie. As for the film itself, I can only recommend it to people who are already die-hard Harry Potter fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/

The King's Speech (2010)

4/5

The King's Speech is about a king (Firth) with a stuttering problem who must give a stirring, patriotic speech to his citizens as Britain enters WWII. His wife (Bonham Carter) enlists the help of a peculiar linguistics coach (Rush) as a last resort. As far as plot goes, that's about all there is to it. Although it's a simple story, it is exquisitely told. With perfectly composed shots, precisely metered pacing, and superb acting, the film rises above its straightforward writing. Colin Firth is magnificent in his role, bringing sympathy without pity to a nuanced, intricate character. He manages to be both intelligent and tender, manages to instill both strength and levity. Bonham Carter and Rush do fantastic jobs in supporting roles to make the whole thing an acting powerhouse. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie doesn't stand out quite like the acting does. It's perfectly competent technically, but all you'll remember when you think back on the movie is how good the acting is. And it is really good.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is an all right movie. It's very confusing if you haven't read the books, or if haven't seen the other three or four or five or six or however many movies there were that preceded this one, or if you saw them but you don't remember them. I fall in all three of those categories, and it was very confusing for me. I'm not certain of the plot except that there are some wizards and some bad guys and they are fighting each other. Some people think that Harry is the "Chosen One" but others do not--I don't really know what that means though. Voldemort makes an appearance as the child Tom Riddle. Helena Bonham Carter is evil and can fly around as a cloud of smoke, along with some other people who are dressed equally goth. There's a vanishing closet that's really just a portal to another vanishing closet. That's all I can remember about the plot.

I think this movie was really just there for the ending (where something terrible happens, but I can't reveal what or I would "spoil" the movie). Every other part of the movie is essentially just buying time until what I assume will be a final battle between Voldemort and Harry in the last movie (which will be in two parts to milk as much money out of you as they can). It's just kind of simple, mindless nothing. Some of that nothing is boring, some of it is exciting, some of it is scary, and some of it is funny; it's all equally worthless though. I'm fairly certain you could have skipped this movie and gone on to the next one if you wanted. But the movie is an entertaining one. You probably will not be disappointed if you just want to waste 2.5 hours watching something fun.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

3/5

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is as weird and darkly comic as all his other movies. The plot follows the young Alice (Wasikowska) after being proposed to in front of a huge party by a wealthy lord named Hamish. She is a young independent soul who doesn't like corsets or stockings and certainly doesn't want to wed someone just because he is rich and she is getting older. But that is the option she is presented with, and the hundreds of guests in attendance seem to be pushing her towards the safe choice. She asks for some time to think it over. And with that time, she manages to fall down a rabbit hole and into "Underland," which she mistakenly calls Wonderland.

The movie is blandly quirky and innocently morbid, but somehow also reassuring and uplifting by the end. There were some funny moments (almost entirely involving Helena Bonham Carter) and some boring moments (almost entirely involved Johnny Depp). The oddness of the story didn't work for me. I found it neither charming nor endearing; it was just a charade to distract the audience from the simpleness of the story. And the visuals, while Burton-esque to a T, were filmed and/or animated poorly. Quite frankly, nobody understands 3D as well as James Cameron does right now. (That scene where Alice is falling down the rabbit hole made me almost vomit from nausea.) At first I thought Tim Burton just made bizarre movies for the sake of being bizarre, but now I'm starting to think that he doesn't really know how to make a movie that isn't bizarre. That, or he doesn't see the point in it. Still, this is a pretty entertaining movie. Watch it if you're a Burton or Depp fanboy, but don't expect anything grand.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

4/5

Sweeney Todd is yet another uniquely comic tale of the macabre from Tim Burton. And this time it's a musical! The plot follows Sweeney Todd in Victorian England as he seeks revenge on Judge Turpin for viciously sentencing him to prison and stealing his wife and daughter. The first thirty minutes were inexorably boring backstory that revealed nothing that wasn't in the two minute trailer. So why make it thirty minutes in the movie? (And I was less than underwhelmed by the ugly, "bad CGI" intro credits.) But I can forgive all that because the ending was absolutely amazing. It spiraled out of control while simultaneously tightening both the characters and story. It was Dickensian in the most perfect way possible.

The songs were a mixed bag for me. I was in awe at the beauty of "Epiphany" and the orchestral pieces, I loved the hilarious "By the Sea" and "A Little Priest," but the rest merely disappointed me. I found most of the singing acceptable but not exceptional, save for the young Ed Sanders's remarkable voice. (His acting could use some work though.) What Gretel brought to my attention is the fact that the singing is really well integrated with the speaking. It's a truly seamless and fluid transition. The acting and character development of the leads (Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter) were terrific, but I found most of the secondary characters to be rather flat and uninspired. Thanks to superb make-up, costuming, and set design, the trademark Burton look is brilliant--especially in comparison to the Broadway musical. All in all, a thrilling and exciting movie that I wouldn't mind seeing again. Highly recommended for Burton fans.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0408236/