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/

State of Play (2009)

3/5

State of Play is a fairly typical journalism thriller with far too many conspiracies and plot twists to be believable, but just enough to keep you from accurately predicting the ending. The plot follows two journalists (Crowe & McAdams) writing separate articles, one on a dual homicide and another on a political sex scandal following a fatal accident, that later become linked by a far-reaching corporation and its deception. But the real focus of the movie isn't the unbelievable ending, nor is it the military conspiracy, nor is it the political cover-up. It's about two people putting their life on the line for something they believe in: discovering the truth and letting everyone know. And because you see their willingness to sacrifice everything for their ethics, you empathize with them. And because you empathize with them, the tension is remarkably palpable.

The cinematography was fairly good, but not consistently impressive. The writing was full of newspaper clichés about being the first to print the breaking story, holding the press for the ultimate story, blah blah blah. Does that stuff really happen anymore? Does anybody ever care about being the first to print a story? Does it provide them with some sort of financial gain? I've never worked in a newspaper before, but it all just seemed so overplayed and unrealistic. It didn't make any sense. As far as movies go, it's enjoyable, entertaining, and extremely gripping, but it's nothing special. If you enjoyed the trailer, you'll enjoy this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473705/

American Gangster (2007)

3/5

American Gangster tells the story of Frank Lucas, the biggest, baddest, blackest gangster in 60's-era America, and Detective Richie Roberts, the honest cop chosen by the Feds to stop the growing drug problem. There were some things I liked and some things I didn't like about this 2.5 hour movie. So let me break it down to you by half hour episodes. In the first 30 minutes, we are introduced to the trite, hackneyed police corruption plot we've seen a million times before combined with the archetypal family man gangster. In the second 30 minutes, we are introduced to superfluous characters and side stories that take up too much time. The third 30 minutes contain periods of ferocity and tension punctuating the rather senselessly boring nothing that takes up the majority of the movie. The fourth 30 minutes we finally see a bit more excitement and character development. It starts to be more than random information being slowly revealed to us. We are actually engaged by the characters and their actions for once. The fifth 30 minutes are incredible. A truly powerful climax and a high-note to end the movie on. It almost makes up for the rest of the movie. Almost.

The movie is more than technically proficient, but less than necessary when it comes to storytelling. Why are we watching any of this? The one word to describe this movie would be excess. It's as if they had a solid story, and then decided to add junk on the sides. Ridley Scott should decide which story he wants to tell and tell it. He goes for the gangster building up his empire and the cop investigating the rising drug problem. They eventually intersect, so why not just start the story there? People keep asking, who is this guy? How does he do what he does? But we don't feel the same sense of wonder and awe that the rest of the characters do because we know who he his and we know how he sells better heroin for less money. The first hour and a half should have been cut, replaced by 15-30 minutes of more revealing storytelling from either Crowe or Washington's perspective. That would make this a much tighter, much better movie. Instead, it's a limp, overlong, unsuccessful attempt at an epic gangster movie in the vein of The Godfather.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0765429/

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

4/5

3:10 to Yuma is one of the most interesting westerns to come out since Unforgiven. It follows the story of rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) as he escorts the notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to a prison train, the 3:10 to Yuma. The cast was well-picked and the acting by Crowe and Bale was nearly flawless (and I traditionally do not appreciate their acting). The storyline entranced me from beginning to end. I kept trying to figure out what would happen and kept finding myself unexpectedly surprised. I loved how nearly every character got introduced and eliminated in measured amounts--very fitting of the genre. The character evolution of everyone except Ben Wade was mesmerizing. The landscapes were beautifully shot, the editing perfectly well-paced. And 3:10 to Yuma has an absolutely amazing score.

I really disliked the character of Ben Wade. Everyone else was really interesting and fascinating, but Ben Wade was just disappointing. I got really excited as the film progressed, because it seemed as if he was actually getting more and more evil. What most movies that try to humanize bad guys do is show his evil side first and then his human side at the end. This movie started out by flipping that, slowly increasing his brutality as time went on, but in the end it flipped back to his sympathetic side. Didn't really like that. Also, it kind of went crazy at the end and I didn't buy the shift in Wade's character. It felt like he did stuff out of character to fit the plot. How disappointing in an otherwise stellar movie. I highly recommend it though if you like westerns, because maybe you will take a different message out of the character of Ben Wade.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0381849/