Les Miserables

I would have to say I'm fairly familiar with Les Miserables as a stage musical, (I played in the orchestra for a production about 6 years ago.) so I had high expectations for this new film version, but I was also apprehensive about certain aspects. There have been many mixed responses to the film from patrons and critics alike, but I was overall incredibly pleased with this movie. 
I found Tom Hooper's direction lovely and very appropriate for a movie-musical, for the most part. There is a scene transition towards the beginning that took me out of the world for a moment, which I wish hadn't been so fantastical. I also found the camerawork during "Bring Him Home" somewhat confusing. Movie-musicals (or movie-operas, in the case of Les Mis) are tricky endeavors for filmmakers, because the audience is reminded that what they are watching isn't quite real every time a character breaks out into song. On the other hand, one of the benefits of transitioning a musical to film is the closeness of the audience to the cast. When in a theater, the distance of audience members from the cast means that actors have to make everything "bigger" from their facial expressions and gestures to the volume of their voices and film eliminates that necessity. This element especially I think was very well handled by Hooper and the cast. During many songs, particularly "I Dreamed a Dream," the camera holds on a close-up of the actor's face, letting them use subtlety in beautiful ways and bringing the audience into the story more. Most of the tears I shed while watching the film (and there were many) were because I was face-to-face with the suffering of the characters. 
Going back to "I Dreamed a Dream," Anne Hathaway got a lot of criticism initially for her take on this iconic song, in large part because she isn't belting it to the back of a packed theater, but barely able to get out the words, breaking down in every way. I found her performance absolutely magnificent throughout, but during this song, I was utterly captivated. 
Someone else getting a lot of criticism for their performance in this film, at least from theatre-goers, is Russell Crowe. I didn't hate his performance, but it is markedly different from his cast mates, and I think this stems from their different backgrounds. Russell is a film actor and a rock singer. He's never done a musical before, movie or stage, and I think this lack of experience with the genre shows and has caused some to call his performance "wooden" or "lackluster." Even in film, audiences expect "big" performances from actors in musicals and Crowe delivers a lovely film performance, which is much "smaller" (meaning more precise, subtle, etc). Unfortunately it just doesn't quite mesh with the performances from the other actors who all have some sort of theatre or movie-musical experience. 
Hugh Jackman is incredibly powerful as Jean Valjean, even though "Bring Him Home" is a tad out of his range. He, like Hathaway, plays the songs with overwhelming emotion and it works. Eddie Redmayne was a wonderful surprise as Marius, with an angelic face and voice. His performance of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" will haunt me for days. A friend of mine complained about the vibrato in Amanda Seyfried's voice, saying she "sounds like a lamb," but I replied "at least she hits the notes," because, to her credit, she does hit the notes and they are not easy ones. The rest of the supporting cast are all really magnificent. Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche is outstanding and I only wish so much of his part hadn't been cut. Samantha Barks's experience as Eponine shows and she makes the transition from stage to screen beautifully. Colm Wilkinson (the original stage Valjean) has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance as the Bishop. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter are expertly cast as the greedy, conniving Thenardiers. My personal favorite is Aaron Tveit as Enjolras. I've long been a fan of his stage work and he is just heartbreaking perfection from beginning to end in this film. If anything pulls me back to the cinema to see this movie again, it'll be his performance. 
The film also includes a new song, "Suddenly," from the original composers. At first, I was up-in-arms against the addition of a new song, but I thought it worked quite well in the film, not at all out of place amongst its brothers. And after all this, there is the story of Les Miserables itself, a tale of the still-relevant struggle between the miserable poor majority and the powerful wealthy minority, of love of all kinds, of faith, of good and evil and the gray area between them. A tale, simply, of life, beautifully told.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I was lucky enough to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at the midnight premiere this morning in all its 3D 48fps glory. I have to say up front that I loved the film. Here are the reasons why:

• The acting in this film is superb, especially Richard Armitage as Thorin & Martin Freeman as Bilbo. The audience can see Bilbo's thought process on Martin's face, can see the courage he possesses, even as the character is discovering it, and it's absolutely wonderful. Armitage does an excellent job of balancing Thorin's inspiring leadership and Dwarvish pride. (Also, his rumbling, melodious singing voice might have been the highlight of the score for me.) Of course, returning cast members Sir Ian McKellan, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, and Elijah Wood deliver stellar performances as well. Lee Pace and Benedict Cumberbatch also make brief appearances in this film and I, personally, can't wait to see more from them in the next two installments.
• Speaking of the score, Howard Shore knocks it out of the park. Again. I downloaded it from iTunes as soon as I got home from the theatre, after 3am this morning. It was worth it.
• There was less included in this film than I thought there would be, yet at that same time, there was more, if that makes sense. In other words, the end of this film is earlier in the story than I expected, but there is more back story. I think it's a pretty perfect combination actually. If there's one thing Peter Jackson (& his writing partners) does well, it's end a film.
• Now, in regard to the visual effects: There's a heated debate over Jackson's decision to shoot in 48fps (frames per second), which is double the fps of most films. Those against it say that the extra frames per second give the film a feeling similar to HD television and declare that this feeling takes away from the mystical quality of a fantasy film. I was wary going into the theatre. I'm not a big fan of 3D, in any case, as it tends to be used mostly for cheap thrills (and it gives me a headache). While this film does have a couple of obvious 3D gags to throw at the audience, for the most part, I thought the 3D was more like that of Hugo (the gold standard in 3D technology, in my opinion), in that it was mostly environmental and aesthetic, used to bring the audience into the story instead of taking them out of it. As to the 48 fps, I found that the hyper-reality it lends was completely appropriate for telling this story. The Hobbit is a much lighter tale than The Lord of the Rings and the high visual quality and clarity afforded by the extra fps delineates this film from those in a very visceral way. It is, after all, a children's fantasy adventure. 
• The only criticism I have to offer is this: With thirteen dwarves running around, it becomes difficult to tell them all apart at times, even for those of us who are already familiar with their names and characters. Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili, and Bombur are all easily identifiable, but not enough time is spent introducing the others to the audience and therefore they tend to get lost in the shuffle a bit.

With an awards season as densely packed with quality as this one is, it's doubtful that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will come away with many big awards, but it is definitely worth seeing. There is battle violence, so bring younger children at your discretion, but I think The Hobbit is an excellent movie for children of all ages.