The film follows the Broadway arrangement to a near T, with the occasional lines of dialogue added in - most likely to cater to a wider audience not familiar with the non-stop singing the show generally provides. For the sake of time, I will assume everyone is fairly familiar with the plot, so we can simply jump into a more critical review.
The film's one true strength is the cast, as nearly every actor carries their own, with particular praise to Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Eddie Redmayne. We have heard the Oscar buzz surrounding Hathaway's brief performance for some time, and yes, she delivers, but did she only take the part in hopes of winning gold? 'I Dreamed A Dream' occurs in one continuous take, and Anne surely jumps from emotion to emotion, sure to win hearts of audience members all over. Hugh Jackman, likewise, delivers a strong performance, with his first 10 minutes of the film some of the strongest of his career. It is Eddie Redmayne, surprisingly, that steals the show, with a purely naturalistic style of acting and true power behind every moment he is on screen. Personally, he was the true star of the film for me.
Acting aside, my main flaw with the film is found with the camera work. I had heard poor reviews going in, but their arguments were truly justified. People go to the cinema for the escapist qualities it provides; able to transport them into a world unlike their own. Hooper, however, finds himself lost in the cinematic translation. Many of the songs are done in one continuous shot, solely as a closeup on the actor's face. This heavy-handed approach is too much for a film already overflowing with emotion. We do not need to see every tear drop to feel the actor's work - body language can sometimes be just as powerful, though it is lost as we instead have uncomfortable shots of faces that seem never ending.
The musical on stage has a smooth flow and timeless feel, but the film seems to fall back on this version a bit too much. Again with cinema, there is the power to jump through time and space, and there was undoubtedly a lot of creative choices that could have been made with the story's execution. Instead, the film becomes predictable and formulaic only because of it's already iconic structure.
I know this film is expected to rake in Oscar nominations come Awards season, but I personally believe it only deserves a small handful. There is nothing terrible about the film, but the faults are blatant enough to strike a chord. Russell Crowe, paired against Broadway stars like Jackman, sings like a drunk karaoke singer. Not terrible, but not on par with the other actors of the film. Helena Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen are lazily typecast as the inn keepers, bringing nothing new to their respective roles. Samantha Barks, reprising the role she played on stage as Eponine, is effective but alarmingly thin - to the point of being distracting. Her waist is one that will defy science for years to come, I'm sure.
Les Miserables could have been the film of the year, but as with all films built up by hype - the realization will never match the expectations. I know many people have found this film to be everything they hoped for and more. Myself, I think the hype has killed the film I dreamed...
(Awards potential: Best Actor (Jackman), Best Supporting Actress (Hathaway), Best Supporting Actor (Redmayne), Best Editing, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)
No comments:
Post a Comment