Les Misérables

http://www.lesmiserablesfilm.com/splashpage/

Anyone who's familiar with me or my blog knows I am not a lover of musicals. Or Amanda Seyfried. As such, Les Mis was never going to be a barrel of laughs for me. Add into that the storyline of whores and soldiers during the French Revolution and you have a pretty dire prospect on your hands. But factor in a best friend who has loved the stage show since she was 5 years old and now you hopefully understand my motivations for seeing this new adaptation.

The story is relatively simple to follow. Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) was imprisoned 19 years ago for stealing bread to feed his sisters child. We meet him as he is being released from prison by the fierce lawman Javert (Russell Crowe). Shortly after his release and unable to find work Jean soon finds he must steal again, but an act of kindness from the man he wrongs leads him down a path he never thought he'd know. He breaks parole but becomes a better man in the new life he leads. We find him years later running a factory but still dodging re-capture by Javert. A woman working in his factory, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), becomes a whore through no fault of her own and he makes her a promise on her deathbed to take in her child, Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and care for her as if she was his own. A task he commits to until Javert discovers him and threatens to tear all of their worlds apart. 

Set to the backdrop of the French Revolution, the film features sumptuous costumes, stunning sets and all of the classic songs from the musical which, whether you've seen it or not, you'll find you somehow still know the words to I Dreamed A Dream, Master Of The House, On My Own and Do You Hear the People Sing? The film also features some new songs but these never quite fit with the originals.

The actors put their all into their respective roles but there is still something silly to me when they suddenly burst into song or sing lines that you feel should be spoken. I must admit though that I fell to pieces when Anne Hathaway sang I Dreamed A Dream. I'd heard that the majority of songs had been performed live on set when they were filming, and I must say that this worked perfectly in the case of this song as Hathaway's performance was so raw in this scene that you felt every emotion in the lyrics. I was literally sobbing when that scene came to an end and it took me some time to compose myself. The rousing cast numbers definitely made you want to join in and as such I think a singalong Les Mis would probably be very well received by fans.

Seyfried wasn't so bad and Eddie Redmayne who I'd previously thought of as being slightly creepy was similarly watchable. The most annoying performance for me was that of Russell Crowe. He was just too pompous as Javert and seemed to be shouting his songs. Definitely the least talented singer of the bunch but he tried and I give him snaps for that. 

I think if you're a fan of the musical, slightly curious or a fan of the actors involved then you definitely shouldn't miss seeing Les Mis. If you hate musicals or depressing films then avoid it like the plague! 7 out of 10. 

Viewing Date - 11th January 2013

UK Release Date - 11th January 2013

Cast Overview:

Hugh Jackman ~ Jean Valjean

Russell Crowe ~ Javert

Anne Hathaway ~ Fantine

Amanda Seyfried ~ Cosette

Sacha Baron Cohen ~ Thénardier

Helena Bonham Carter ~ Madame Thénardier

Eddie Redmayne ~ Marius

Aaron Tveit ~ Enjolras

Samantha Banks ~ Éponine

Daniel Huttlestone ~ Gavroche

Director ~ Tom Hooper

Writer(s) ~ Claude-Michel Schönberg (book), Alain Boublil (book and original French text), Victor Hugo (novel), Herbert Kretzmer (lyrics), Jean-Marc Natel (original French text), James Fenton (additional text) and William Nicholson (screenplay)

In Time

http://www.intimemovie.com/

When I saw the poster for In Time, my immediate reaction was that I didn't particularly want to see it. If you read my review for Red Riding Hood then you know my thoughts on Amanda Seyfried (and if you haven't, you should coz it's quite funny, even if I do say so myself). And if you've read my review for Friends With Benefits you'll know that that was the first time Justin Timberlake had made any kind of impression on me. But then I saw the trailer and I thought it looked interesting so I decided to give it a go.

In Time tells the story of Will (Justin Timberlake), your average 28 year old from a poor, working class family. The difference here is that this is the future and here, the currency is time, not money. Therefore you stop ageing at 25 and have one year to earn more time. If you run out of time, you die. Will has a chance encounter with a man who has too much time on his hands, literally, he's been alive for more than a century and now just wants to die. He gives Will his time, effectively taking his own life. Just when things are starting to look up for Will, his mother (Olivia Wilde), runs out of time. It's in this moment that Will decides to take matters into his own hands and find a way to give some extra time to those who need it most, the poor.

In Time, to put it simply, is a bit of a waste of time. I'm not sure I've ever seen a film with less of a purpose. There doesn't seem to have been any ultimate goal to this story. It just sort of meanders along aimlessly. We have the back story which I'm guessing is designed to make you feel something for the characters, a way of identifying with them despite the futuristic setting. The characters steal time from the rich and give it to the poor. A sort of modern day Robin Hood. But to what end? 

The purpose of the film is even more obscured by the fact that the film doesn't really know what it wants to be. A love story? Sci-Fi? A tale of one man's struggle? It doesn't really know and so it never really achieves any of these fully. And because the film doesn't know what it wants to be, neither does the audience. This undermines the ground work of trying to get us to identify with the characters in the first place. 

It's a pity as despite the less than impressive leads (side note to Justin Timberlake - you are terrible at conveying emotion. You need to learn how to cry if you want to be an actor), In Time does have some strong actors in smaller roles. Olivia Wilde, Cillian Murphy and Johnny Galecki (The Big Bang Theory) to name but a few. But there lies a problem here too. See, if everyone is supposed to be 25, why hire an actor like Cillian Murphy who, no offence, looks his 35 years. Or Johnny Galecki, who might not look 36 but he certainly looks older than 25. They should have hired actors who were all 25 or at least under 30, across the board. Instead, we have a mix of actors ranging from 21 to 36, making the older actors look even older compared to the ones who are actually younger than the 25 years they're portraying.

Regrettably, even the film's better actors can't save what starts as an innovative idea that turns into a boring mess of a film. One of my friends pointed out that there's a lot of running in this film. But where are they running to? Do we care. No is the unfortunate answer. 5 out of 10.

Viewing Date - 6th November 2011

UK Release Date - 1st November 2011

Cast Overview:

Amanda Seyfried ~ Sylvia Weis

Justin Timberlake ~ Will Salas

Olivia Wilde ~ Rachel Salas

Cillian Murphy ~ Raymond Leon

Vincent Kartheiser ~ Philippe Weis

Johnny Galecki ~ Borei

Matt Bomer ~ Henry Hamilton

Alex Pettyfer ~ Fortis

Director and Writer ~ Andrew Niccol

Red Riding Hood

http://redridinghood.warnerbros.com/

I'd been looking forward to Red Riding Hood since I saw the first trailer which included the words 'From the Director of Twilight'. It showed stunning visuals of trailing red capes across snow covered mountains and forests, lots of steamy sexual tension and a love triangle. My inner 12 year old (who is also a not so hidden Twilight fan) was squeeing with delight.

As it turned out, I wasn't meant to see Red Riding Hood on opening night, some point over the weekend for sure, but not opening night. I was meant to be seeing Your Highness, but the timing didn't work out and so Red Riding Hood it was. I wasn't fussed really as I wanted to see both films. Maybe Red Riding Hood slightly more owing to the Twilight fan within who was still squeeing away.

So off we went, my best friend, my cinema buddy and I. My best friend having already devoured the book of the film. Yes I did say book of the film. Rather than the other way around. Not that Red Riding Hood is completely new of course. It's based loosely on the fairy tale of Little Red Riding Hood who goes to visit grandma only to find that grandma has been eaten by the big bad wolf. Here Red is named Valerie. She lives in a small village and is in love with Peter, a woodcutter like Valerie's father. Knowing the life of a woodcutters wife, Valerie's mother has arranged for her to marry Henry, who's wealth will secure a good future for Valerie. If only this was the only drama going on in the village. But no! They also have to endure the monthly terror of the wolf that means they have to regularly sacrifice their best livestock to ensure it leaves the inhabitants alone. Until one day when the wolf kills an innocent girl, and the villagers decide it's time to end the wolf once and for all.

While watching the film I couldn't help but think it was a great coincidence that Catherine Hardwicke's next venture - after being replaced as the director of New Moon - was a film involving warewolves. It's as if she wanted to say "this is how I'd have done wolves, if I'd been allowed". And although I'm not New Moon's biggest fan I'm relieved she didn't do it. The wolves looked similar enough to the Twilight wolves that there was no cosmetic differences. Therefore I can't see what else Catherine would have brought to the film that Chris Weisz didn't. Other than dodgy wobbly hand held camera work (to indicate a watching wolf) which frankly I don't think New Moon particularly missed out on.

The acting was decent enough by the seasoned members of the cast - Burke, Christie and Oldman - but the script let them all down so much that you couldn't really say it was great. They simply did what they could with the material at hand. A pity then that the leading lady felt the need to let them all down even further with her truly terrible performance. She had one expression through the entire movie.

Shocked:

Upset:

Confused:

Afraid:

All emotions shared this same expression. I'm sure you'll agree that they're variations on a theme. 

While I'm not Seyfried's biggest fan I think I'd go so far as to say this was her worst performance to date. I can't say for sure that had she been better, the film would have been too, but I'm sure it would have helped. Cast wise, this leaves newcomers Fernandez and Irons and while both are admittedly very pretty, it wasn't enough to save the film from being a dreary, laughable mess.

My friend who'd read the book thought the film was quite good, so maybe it was just me. Or maybe the script doesn't seem so shocking if you've read the book? Either way, I'd say that this is not the kick off to the big summer movies I was hoping it would be. Rather it's one to avoid, at least if you've not read the book. 5 out of 10.

Viewing Date - 15th April 2011

UK Release Date - 15th April 2011

Cast Overview:

Amanda Seyfried ~ Valerie 

Billy Burke ~ Cesaire

Virginia Madsen ~ Suzette

Julie Christie ~ Grandmother

Shiloh Fernandez ~ Peter

Max Irons ~ Henry

Gary Oldman ~ Father Solomon

Lukas Haas ~ Father Auguste

Director ~ Catherine Hardwicke

Writer ~ David Johnson