2012: The Year in Film: "Les Miserables" Review

First, as a disclaimer, I'm probably in the .01% minority of American humanity in that I've read the Victor Hugo novel but never seen the musical.  (I was strange in my youth and enjoyed reading extremely long novels - the internet has nuked that ability into ash)  I do, however, due to years of involvement in choirs and such, have a moderate familiarity with the songs.  So I'm coming at this flick with a differing perspective than many. With that being said, adaptions of Broadway musicals aren't exactly huge business nowadays, but an adaption starring Hugh Jackman (Mr. Two-sides, your go-to Hollywood musical man) directed by Tom Hooper fresh off "The King's Speech" has as good a pedigree as any.  So how is it?

Les Miserables, roughly translated as "the wretched poor" or something similar, focuses on a convict, Jean Valjean, who has spent a solid chunk of his life incarcerated for a minor crime.  We follow Valjean through the years as he eludes the law (in the person of Javert), finds redemption, assumes a new identity and adopts a young girl.  The story culminates in the failed 1832 rising that was crushed by royalist forces.  Along the way we meet a number of poor and common folk struggling to carve out an existence in a climate of crushing social mores, extremely limited social mobility and shocking poverty.  I must say, there is something profoundly tone-deaf about rich white women loving a work decried in its day for being Revolutionary about the wretched poor and their struggles as if similar situations aren't somewhat mirrored today.  This film used the revolutionary technique of having the actors sing live as they act by using an earpiece with an accompanying pianist... allowing the actors to act while they sing rather than lip sync with separately recorded songs, as has been the technique in every other film musical.

The Good: Hugh Jackman gives the finest performance of his career.  Mr. Two-Sides was born to play Jean Valjean in a big screen production of Les Mis.  He brings the character to life and really takes advantage of the opportunity to act through song.  He's worth the price of admission alone.  Anne Hathaway really owns it.  Seriously.  She sets out to make a depressing character absolutely soul-crushing and completely succeeds.  Her rendition of "I Dreamed A Dream" is simply devastating.  Not exaggerating.  Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, even if they evidently were dressed by HBC's husband and using Ali G and Bruno's accents, still brought joy to their characters and were quite funny.  Eddie Redmayne was very good as young Marius.  What's most impressive about this film, though, is the production value.  It's sill recognizable as a broadway show, but everything is bigger and grander.  Some of the sets and shots are visually impressive and a joy to watch.



The Bad: It's become common place to bash Russell Crowe's singing.  I'm not going to do that... because Russell Crowe sang and can sing just fine.. the issue is that he can't sing and act at the same time.  And why should he be able to?  He's freaking Maximus.  Amanda Seyfried also is a rather poor singer with a weak, thin voice.  Helena Bonham Carter can't sing worth a darn and Sasha Baron Cohen needed to pick one accent and go with it.  With that being said, some difficulties with actual movie stars not being up to Broadway snuff isn't necessarily a horrible thing.

All in all, it looks great, it sounds (mostly) great, and there are some tremendous performances.  This is a timeless tale and one that deserves a big-budget treatment.  I'd say there's a solid chance this one will be getting some Oscar love in a month or so... it probably won't win in what's been a strong year for film, but Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman are all but assured noms.  Go see it, but be ready to bring some tissues.  Oh, and don't sit by old ladies that will hum along with the songs... that's just poor theater form.

7.5/10.