Category Archives: Film

Summer 2013 Action Movie Roundup

Posted on by

I’ve been to the movies a good amount this summer. At least, a good amount for me at this stage in my life. In high school, I used to go to the movies once or twice a week. Any movie. Even movies I didn’t really care about. And I’d regularly see movies three or four times in the theater.

Once, a friend and I went to see X-Men because we were thirsty at 11:00 at night and, for some reason I will never quite understand, decided going to the 24-hour diner was just too much effort.

Once, I went to see Titanic for the fourth time in the theater, by myself.

Oh, to be young and to have every penny you earn count as disposable income. Those were the days.

But I digress.

Nowadays, I only go to the movies when I really want to see a film on the big screen. Which means sometimes, I go months without a trip to the theater. But this summer, I’ve been going every few weeks. It seems Hollywood has gotten my memo about making more comic and sci-fi action movies, and they have decided this is a good plan. This pleases me greatly, because I love me some explosions.

I know. It’s shocking. Please try to contain yourselves.

For a little while, I thought I’d review each movie separately, then realized this was never going to happen. They are too many, and I’ve procrastinated too much. So instead I’m going to give you a one-paragraph mini-review on all the action movies I’ve seen, and let that be enough. Because I’ve already rambled on forever, and this is just the intro.

Here we go.

Star Trek Into Darkness

I was a huge fan of the rebooted 2009 Star Trek, so this sequel was one of my most anticipated films of 2013. Especially when I found out the villain would be played by none other than Sherlock himself, Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock is seriously one of the best shows I’ve ever seen. If you haven’t seen it…fix that). I’m pleased to say Star Trek Into Darkness did not disappoint. I absolutely adore every bit of casting in this franchise (Karl Urban as Bones is my favorite) and feel they do a fantastic job of capturing what was so amazing about the original Star Trek, while making it fun and accessible for a whole new generation of fans. Yes, there were a couple minor plot holes, and yes, I wish there were more Klingons, but as a whole, I thoroughly enjoyed Into Darkness and eagerly await the next installment in the reimagined Star Trek universe. Verdict: Must see. Must own.

Iron Man 3

As a huge fan of The Avengers, I was super-curious to see the first movie to kick off phase 2 of Marvel’s unprecedented multi-film lead-in to the Avengers sequel (P.S. If you want a recap of how all the movies leading to the first Avengers film tie together, this is the best one I’ve found). Call me crazy, but I’m one of the only people I know who merely liked the first two Iron Man movies. I know, most people think they’re the best, but I just thought they were okay. But. BUT. I absolutely LOVED Iron Man 3. The writing is brilliant. Not only does Tony have to deal with the after-effects of the events in Avengers, but the writers figured out a way to make a billionaire superhero, with a supersuit and limitless resources, vulnerable. No small task. And don’t even get me started on the genius that is how the villain is handled. And the women! Pepper Potts! I don’t want to spoil those of you who haven’t seen it, but suffice it to say, Iron Man 3 blew me away with its awesomeness. As with most comic movies, there are some plot holes, but I didn’t even care. See it. You’ll be glad you did. Verdict: Must see. Must own.

Man of Steel

Man oh man, Man of Steel, I wanted to love you so bad. But sadly, despite some undeniably excellent casting in Henry Cavill as Superman, and despite some rather impressive special effects, I just couldn’t get behind this movie. Mainly because it decided it would just be an alien/explosion movie, with a superhero, and not a SUPERMAN movie. There were so many missed opportunities. No Kryptonite. No intriguing dichotomy between mild-mannered Clark Kent and Man of Steel Superman. No playful banter between Clark and Lois Lane. And then we get into the things that are just plain wrong for Superman. Superman would never cause so much senseless destruction. Superman would never stand by and watch someone he cared about die, out of fear for himself. And Superman would never do…the thing he does in the end. I can’t say I hated Man of Steel — as an alien action movie with a superhero, it was fine. And it was wonderfully acted, and certainly had its moments of explosion-y greatness. But as a Superman movie — which is why I saw it in the first place — I was disappointed. Verdict: Wait for DVD. Or skip entirely.

The Wolverine 

After suffering through the travesty that was X-Men Origins: Wolverine, I was nervous about this movie. I love X-Men. I love superheroes and comics of all shapes and sizes, but X-Men has been my favorite for decades. I even collected the trading cards as a teenager. Yes. I was that kid. And while the most recent X-Men movie, X-Men: First Class, was amazing, I can’t ignore that films like Origins and The Last Stand also exist. So really, going to an X-Men movie is a crapshoot. However, I was pleasantly surprised by The Wolverine. It had a creative, engaging story with some awesome new characters and loads of slice-and-dice Wolverine action. I had a couple complaints — one of the villains is horribly cheesy and totally unnecessary, and some of the plot is convoluted, and the movie kept insisting on reminding me that The Last Stand actually happened and wasn’t just a bad dream — but while I was watching, I had an enjoyable experience. None of my problems were large, and none of them occurred to me until after the movie. (Well, except for Viper, the aforementioned unnecessary villain. All of her screentime was stupid.) It’s not my favorite X-Men movie, but I enjoyed it, and it was far from being the worst. Verdict: Worth the price of the ticket.

Pacific Rim

I wasn’t planning on seeing this movie in theaters. I wasn’t planning on seeing it ever. The trailer looked awful, like a Transformers/Godzilla ripoff, with nary a plot or interesting character to be found. But then all of Twitter and Tumblr started gushing about how awesome it was. I had friends assure me it was better than the trailer. I became curious. So I went. And holy cow. The trailer doesn’t even begin to do it justice. Yes, there are very large robots fighting very large monsters, which is a common trope in Japanese cinema, but it’s much more than a monster/robot action movie. It has a fabulous, diverse set of characters and explores a variety of relationship dynamics. It has a creative premise and a solid plot. And yes, it has giant robots fighting giant monsters, and that is awesome. No, it’s not going to win any Oscars or redefine the future of American cinema. But it was a thoroughly entertaining and exhilarating roller coaster of a movie that far exceeded my expectations. Verdict: Worth the price of the ticket, bordering on must see. Will probably own.

So there you have it, folks. My take on the big action blockbusters I’ve seen this summer. I also want to take a moment to give a shout-out to Now You See Me, which I didn’t include above because it’s not an action movie, but I did find thoroughly enjoyable. It’s everything I wanted in an adrenaline-fueled magician heist movie. I don’t think it’s in theaters anymore, but once it hits Redbox, check it out.

How about you? See any good movies this summer?

Film Review: The Great Gatsby (from someone who isn’t a fan of the book)

Posted on by

I have a confession to make, and some of you aren’t going to like it.

I…didn’t really like the novel The Great Gatsby.

Wait, no. Those words are in the wrong order.

I really didn’t like the novel The Great Gatsby.

I know, I know, I’m supposed to like — nay, love Gatsby. It is, quite literally, The Great American Novel. I love to read. I’ve always been a book person. Book people love this book. My friend Kelly wrote a lovely blog post on exactly why I’m supposed to love this book.

But I do not love this book.

So when I saw it was being made into a movie, I had mixed emotions. On the one hand, I was less than enthused at the prospect of revisiting this story I kind of hated. On the other, I adore Baz Luhrmann’s directorial style (Moulin Rouge is one of my favorite movies, ever ever ever), and the cast was phenomenal. So while buzz built and the bookish world worked themselves into a frenzy, I sat in the background quietly, figuring I would probably catch it on Blu-Ray, just so I could see if director + cast made up for my aforementioned story issues.

Besides, sometimes movies are expensive and I am poor. And if I chose to see Gatsby and that somehow meant I couldn’t see Iron Man 3 or Star Trek Into Darkness…well…

But, as it so happened, I was out for dinner with friends the night Gatsby premiered, and they asked if I wanted to go see Gatsby with them after dinner. I gave the reasons why I couldn’t — I had no money, I didn’t like the book, I hadn’t planned on seeing it…and they turned around and said it would be their treat, and they hadn’t read the book and therefore I was allowed to hate it, and wasn’t I just morbidly curious to see if I disliked the movie as much as the book?

Well, when you put it that way.

By the way, I have some fabulously awesome friends, who do things like offer to treat me to a movie I have warned them I may hate, just so we can spend more time hanging out. They make me a happy hobbit.

So, how did it measure up, given my feelings toward the source material, and my artistic feelings about the actual way the movie was made?

Let’s start with the positives. I still adore Baz Luhrmann’s style. I realize he is a very love-him-or-hate-him director, and that the way he tells stories can be a bit…

In a Baz Luhrmann movie, you’re going to get garish colors, anachronistic music, characters that are more caricatures, and some dizzying camera work. If you’ve seen Moulin Rouge, Romeo + Juliet, or even Strictly Ballroom, you probably know this. Gatsby is no different, and while I may not love the story, I do love the way the story was told. It’s not necessarily true to how the story is told in the book. It’s overly stylized and energized. But personally, I like that.

Then there’s the acting. Now brace yourself for a bit of a shock, but I have recently learned that there are people in the world who do not like Leonardo DiCaprio.

I know. Just let that sink in for a minute.

To be clear, I am not one of them. My feelings toward him are all positive. They have been since his Romeo + Juliet and Titanic days, and have only grown fonder since films like Inception and The Departed. And Gatsby was no exception. He did a great job portraying the titular obsessive billionaire, in turns charming and creepy. This probably won’t be the role that finally lands him his elusive Oscar, but for me, he was the character I enjoyed the most on the big screen.

I tend to have mixed feelings about Tobey Maguire in most of his roles. I feel like he tends to do a better job than I expect (so maybe I need to raise my expectations), but he’s pretty much never the actor I picture in my head when I think about a character (Ahem. Peter Parker, anyone?). Likewise, he was not who I imagined when I pictured Nick Carraway. But to be fair, I’ve never had a solid mental picture of Nick Carraway, because he is such a passive character (more on that in a bit). So no actor would have made me think, “YES. THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.” I think the best I could have hoped for from Nick Carraway is that I didn’t utterly despise him. And that’s…about what I got.

In other roles where I have seen Carey Mulligan (Doctor Who, Never Let Me Go), I have always found her to be lovely and sweet, but also sad. She carries it in her eyes, and even when she’s playing a generally happy character (like in Pride and Prejudice), it always seems to me that she’s got some sort of hidden melancholy that motivates her. This is actually perfect for Daisy Buchanan, who on the surface is a vapid and flippant trophy wife, but underneath is full of sadness and regret. My feelings about the character aside, I thought Mulligan’s portrayal of her was perfect.

The supporting cast — Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan, Isla Fisher as Myrtle, Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan Baker — all embodied their roles perfectly. For me, the acting was the other major highlight of this movie.

As far as an adaptation goes, Gatsby is close. There are changes, obviously. There are always changes, and I learned long ago that true book purists are never happy with film adaptations, because they always change something. I didn’t think the changes hurt the overall tone and message of the story. But there are others who disagree. Movie Nick Carraway is in a sanitarium after his encounters with Gatsby have concluded, whereas in the book, he is merely the narrator, and it is never implied that he became a morbid alcoholic afterward. And while all the big elements of the ending are the same, one thing is added that changes the tone of the scene. And of course there are other changes, scenes missing, subplots and subcommentary eliminated. But again, this didn’t bother me.

Now let’s get into my issues, which are not so much movie issues as book issues. And my opinion is unpopular, and I know that. I know the book is a commentary on the elusiveness of the American Dream, capitalism, idealism, truth, and love. It’s well-written. It’s intelligent. Cognitively, I know all these things.

But the reason I don’t like it is that even in satire and social commentary, I need characters I can root for. Or at the very least, a character. But Gatsby gives me none of this. All of the characters are despicable, and do despicable things. Gatsby is charismatic and charming, but also dishonest, deluded, and obsessive. Daisy is effervescent and empty, and ultimately abhorrently selfish. Nick is in turns passive and enabling to the point of utter frustration. I can’t get behind any of the main characters, and the supporting cast is, at the very best, only slightly better (and often times much worse).

It’s not that I can only like stories with likable characters and a fluffy plot — hopefully you know by now, that’s not it at all. But I need balance in a story. If the story is peppered with examples of humanity at its most vile, selfish, and shallow, I need at least a few moments of beauty and compassion and generosity to balance it.  And Gatsby has always been lacking in this area. It does it consciously, wrapping the ugliness of the characters’ souls in glittery packages, so that the reader can see the blackness under the beauty.

The movie actually attempts to soften the blow a bit. Gatsby wasn’t as destructively obsessive. Daisy wasn’t as harmfully selfish. Tom wasn’t as  loathsome and wicked. The characters are humanized just a bit — mostly through the charisma of the actors themselves — but it’s not enough to make me want to ever give them time out of my life again. I don’t want to spend time with these people. I don’t want to sympathize with them, and I don’t care when bad things happen to them. And if I’m going to read a book, or watch a movie, I want to care. I want to invest a part of myself in the story.

Gatsby has never given me an opportunity to do that. I knew this going in, and I was curious to see if the movie would change that. It did, to a certain extent. I liked it more than the book. But that’s like saying I like stuffed mushrooms a little more than sauteed mushrooms. Really, the problem there is I don’t like mushrooms. And although I love me some cheese and breading, the underlying problem that keeps me from enjoying it is that under the coating of things I enjoy, it still tastes like mushroom. And that’s my issue with Gatsby. It tastes like mushroom. Glittery mushroom.

Ultimately, I’m glad I saw The Great Gatsby. It confirmed that this simply isn’t my kind of story, and it never will be, no matter how lovely the writing, the colors, the costumes, the direction. I can enjoy the way the story was told, but I don’t enjoy the story. There are many who do, and I don’t begrudge them that at all. Enjoy art, in whatever form you prefer. If you believe Gatsby is the greatest novel ever written, or that the film adaptation is brilliant, more power to you. The beauty of art is that it’s subjective, and there will never be anything everyone universally agrees is great. There are people who despise Van Gogh, who loathe Harry Potter, who think Citizen Kane is a snooze-fest and Mozart was a hack.

And that is fine. Because I’m over here in the corner, stuck in my unpopular belief that Gatsby…is just not that great.

Film Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Posted on by

It probably comes as no surprise to you that I was super excited about the first installment in Peter Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy. I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy and am a card-carrying member of the “I know each extended movie was four hours long, but I still wish there had been more” camp. Plus I love the book of The Hobbit, and am a huge fan of the original animated version. And also — Martin Freeman! Could there be a more perfect Bilbo Baggins?

So despite all the hubbub leading up to the release — Three movies! 48 frames per second! 3D! Elijah Wood returns! — I couldn’t wait to see it.

Now, one piece of controversy I can’t weigh in on is the 48fps 3D. We saw the plain ol’ 24fps 2D version. BUT The Husband went back a week later to see the 48fps 3D with his dad, and came back telling me it was life-changing and the single awesomest thing he’s ever seen in a theater. I asked him, “what about the people who say it makes it look like obvious sets and makeup and detracts from the magic of the world?” And his response was, “I have no idea what those people are talking about, but I feel sorry for them.” So I guess that’s our official family stance. If you disagree, you have to take it up with The Husband. Who won’t engage, so really, it’s probably best if you just rage silently.

Anyway, how about the movie itself? How does it stack up to LOTR, and how closely does it follow the book? And how did Jackson stretch an only moderate-length novel into three epic films? Is it a case of gratuitous money-grubbing?

Well, honestly, as a direct comparison, if I think back to how I felt the first time I saw Fellowship of the Ring and compare it to how I felt after The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the honest truth is I liked Fellowship more. HOWEVER. That doesn’t mean I didn’t like The Hobbit. it just means the films are different — as they should be, because the stories have a vastly different feel, despite sharing a director and a fantasy world — and that I find the beginning of Frodo’s story a bit more compelling than the beginning of Bilbo’s.

But for what it is — an adaptation of the first third (ish) of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, I think it succeeds. The casting of the new characters — Bilbo in particular — was spot-on, and much like with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, believing the characters played a huge role in accepting the fantastic story. Freeman’s Bilbo, in particular, was fabulous. He completely embodied the homebody hobbit and made me root for him in spite of the fact that Bilbo (in a that often goes unnoticed) is not heroic. In the book in particular, Bilbo pretty much never voluntarily goes into battle or stands up for his companions unless it somehow serves his own self-interest. Now in the movie, this is changed a bit, and although it made me tilt my head and go, “huh, that wasn’t in the book,” I understand why film-Bilbo needed to evolve a bit more than book-Bilbo. Some things work on paper that just don’t translate to screen. But Freeman made these changes seem totally organic to the character Tolkien created, and I think they worked.

The returning cast members — most notably Ian McKellen’s Gandalf and Andy Serkis’ Gollum — easily slipped back into their old roles. Kudos to the makeup department, because they made me believe that Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, and Hugo Weaving hadn’t aged at all. It helps that Elijah Wood hasn’t aged since he was about 15, but that’s beside the point. And they even made Ian McKellen look younger than he did 10 years ago. I tip my hat to them. That is no small task.

Aside from Freeman, the new cast members all performed admirably. The standouts was Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the motley crew of dwarves that Gandalf assembles. This film fleshes out Thorin’s back story a lot more thoroughly than the book does (using supplemental materials written by Tolkien), and I found it really interesting to learn about why he was the way he was. We don’t get a very in-depth a look at all the dwarves, as the film decides to highlight just a handful of them. I imagine that different dwarves will be highlighted in different films, so that by the end, we’ll know a good amount about each of them. I don’t mind this approach, as it would be really hard to get a close look at all 13 dwarves and still have anything resembling a story in just one movie.

As for the differences from the book, there was actually very little in the way of actual change. Most of the elements in the film that aren’t found in The Hobbit are chinks of back story that Tolkien himself filled in in his other writings. So they’re not changes, or additions, to the story. They’re just parts of the story that give context to what’s happening, and tie it into what happens in LOTR, that people who have only read The Hobbit wouldn’t know about. In my opinion, that doesn’t make them gratuitous or indulgent. They’re part of the story. Have been for decades. They’re just not the first book. So I appreciated them. Now, there are a few legitimate changes to the story. As I mentioned before, Bilbo has a bit more of an arc. There’s some fighting in places where there isn’t fighting in the book. The order of a couple minor events is switched around. But there weren’t any changes that I felt hurt the story, or marred the integrity of what Tolkien wrote.

And this film is overall more lighthearted and — occasionally — silly than LOTR. It’s received some criticism for this, but honestly, The Hobbit is a much more lighthearted book than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It’s got singing. It’s got something resembling slapstick humor. It makes bodily function jokes. If anything, the film toned most of this down from the book (for example, the goblins aren’t singing when they chase the dwarves into the trees. Good call, Jackson, as a song there may have diminished the intensity of that scene — but if the song had stayed in, at least he could say it’s in the book). So yes, the tone is different, which means it’s enjoyable in a different way. It’s still a spectacular fantasy adventure set in Middle Earth, but they come in all shapes and sizes. Kind of like dwarves.

Bottom line: I really enjoyed An Unexpected Journey. Was it the overwhelming awe I felt after Fellowship of the Ring? No, but that’s okay. I enjoyed the story and appreciate the way it was told. I loved the characters and look forward to getting to know them better. And I am still nothing but excited for future installments.

Throwback Thursday (January 24) – Throw Momma From the Train

Posted on by

ATTENTION! Next week, Mandi and I will be hosting a Throwback Giveaway! That’s right, you will be able to WIN THINGS! I’m not telling you what yet, but they will be awesome. Trust me, you want to enter.

But here’s the catch: You will have the best chance of winning if you participate in Throwback Thursday. And comment on other people’s Throwback Thursday posts. And yes, you can do this after the giveaway goes live, but EVEN OLD THROWBACK THURSDAY POSTS WILL COUNT AS ENTRIES. In other words, browse your bookshelf or DVD collection, find something you loved, and HOP TO. RIGHT NOW. Get a leg up on the slackers.

Throwback Thursday is a weekly meme hosted by The Housework Can Wait and Never Too Fond of Books.

It’s the nature of book blogging to focus mainly on new releases, but there are thousands of great books out there that haven’t seen the “New Releases” shelf in years. We hope to be able to bring attention to some older titles that may not be at the top of the current bestseller list, but still deserve a spot in your To-Be-Read pile.

You don’t have to be a book blogger to participate! You can put up a Throwback Thursday post on your non-bookish blog; or if you don’t have a blog at all, just use the comments to tell us about a book you remember fondly.

And NOW! We’re expanding! Throwback Thursday is no longer limited to just books! Throwback Thursday is dedicated to shining the spotlight on any book-related old favorites that need to be remembered.What’s your favorite classic television show or movie adaptation? What about your favorite song? Was your favorite toy a character from a book?

Here’s how it works:

  • Pick any media (or non-media item) released more than 5 years ago. Remember to keep it book-related!
  • Write up a short summary (include the title, author, and cover art, if applicable) and an explanation of why you love it. Make sure to link back to The Housework Can Wait and Never Too Fond of Books in your post.
  • Link up your post at The Housework Can Wait or Never Too Fond of Books.
  • Visit as many blogs as you can, reminisce about books you loved, and discover some “new” books for your TBR list – or some other classic!

Feel free to grab the Throwback Thursday button code from the sidebar to use in your posts.

Thanks for participating, and we look forward to seeing which books you choose to remember!

My Throwback this week is…

Throw Momma From the Train, starring Danny DeVito and Billy Crystal (1987)

 I am classifying this under the category of “bookish” because although it is not actually based on a book, it is about a frustrated author suffering from writer’s block as he attempts to write his first novel, while making ends meet by teaching a creative writing class. That seems pretty bookish to me.

Also, it’s an excuse to talk about this movie, which is one of my favorite movies ever. EVAH.

Here’s the gist of it. Larry (Billy Crystal) has lost his writerly spark, as his first novel was stolen by his ex-wife Margaret (played by Captain Janeway) and subsequently hit the New York Times Bestseller List. He wants to write a new novel, but he’s too consumed by bitter thoughts of Margaret to make any process. This bitterness bleeds into all aspects of his life, including the adult writing class he teaches. In the class is Owen Lift (DeVito), a mild-mannered wannabe writer who lives with his cantankerous Momma (played by Mama Fratelli). Owen has attempted to write a murder mystery, but it sucks. Larry advises him to go see a Hitchcock thriller to try to get the feel of the kind of story he wants to tell in his head. Owen decides to see Strangers on a Train, and comes away with the notion that what Larry was really telling him was that he wants Owen to kill his wife in exchange for Larry killing Momma.

And what follows a hilarious tale of attempted murder and unlikely friendship.

I love this movie so much it’s ridiculous. Maybe you aren’t into black comedies from 1987, and that’s fine. But if you want something to make you laugh and provide you with an arsenal of quotable material (seriously, my husband and I quote this movie to each other all the time. It’s also the source material for the header on my Tumblr #shamelesstumblrplug), this is the movie for you. Or if you’re a frustrated writer who sometimes harbors violent urges (which…I think…is most writers).

This is a blog hop! Link up your Throwback Thursday post below!



Film Review: Les Miserables

Posted on by

I think it’s safe to say that of all the movies released in 2012, Les Misérables was one of the ones I was most anticipating. This is for a few reasons:

1) I love the book

2) It contains my favorite villain of all time

3) I love the musical, and have seen it (I think) five times on stage. I’m not entirely sure. I stopped counting after a bit.

4) The production value looked incredible, like it could finally convey the visual scope of the story along with the emotional scope.

5) Anne Hathaway

After seeing it on Christmas day (and crying for a solid two hours), I came away with mixed feelings. Overall, loved it. I thought it was gorgeous, well-acted, and mostly well-sung. It hit all my emotional buttons, and was one of those movies I wanted to talk about (and did) for hours and days after.

But there were also some places where it fell short. And as a die-hard fan of the musical, I had a hard time just shrugging those things off. And disclaimer: I’m both a lifelong fan and a musician, so I may be drifting into “things no one cares about except me” territory. You’ve been warned.

First off, the casting for this film obviously, with a couple exceptions went in the direction of “well-known actors who can sing,” rather than “well-known singers who can act.”  In some cases, this was fine. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen may not have had the vocal range of their stage counterparts, but their characterization of the Thénardiers (who are pretty much the comic relief of the story, and not the vocal heavy lifters) was so spot-on that I overlooked their “singing.” Then there were surprises like Eddie Redmayne as Marius (I know that his head-shaking vibrato bothered some of my vocal-instructor friends, but I honestly didn’t notice it until someone pointed it out) or Anne Hathaway (who deserves all the awards. All. Of. Them. But more on that later). And Hugh Jackman, who did not have the vocal quality I expect for Valjean (“quality,” in this case, meaning timbre, not excellence), acted the part amazingly and sang it…well. His voice didn’t have the weight or the almost transcendent quality of Colm Wilkinson’s Valjean, but for those who have not had the music memorized for the past twenty years — which, let’s face it, is most of the movie-going audience, and I’m a bit of an anomaly — I don’t think this would be a disappointment.

But in a couple cases, I really, really wish they had gone with seasoned Broadway actors over A-list Hollywood. The main example is Russell Crowe as Javert. Don’t get me wrong, Russell Crowe is a fine actor, but he didn’t do anything acting-wise with the character that a stage actor couldn’t have done, and the singing was just not up to par with what the role requires. Here’s the thing with Javert. His character has this huge presence, both in the show and in Valjean’s life. He carries this tremendous weight of responsibility everywhere he goes, and his songs are meant to convey that. So it’s actually important to the character that he has a strong, solid baritone voice. Having to strain for the notes, or struggle for breath, weakens the character. It’s not just about how it sounds on the recording; I feel the character of Javert was done a disservice by having anyone less than a professional singer try to pull it off. Compare, for example, Russell Crowe singing “Stars” to Philip Quast (who many consider the definitive Javert) on the same song, and notice how much more gravity Quast’s version has. And as Javert is normally my favorite role in Les Mis, and has my favorite songs, having to hear Crowe sing out-of-breath and through his nose was…a disappointment.

And then there was Amanda Seyfried as Cosette, who had the look and the range, but not the support. I’m not sure if hers was a problem of casting, or just a casualty of the decision to film all the singing live. I think she would be highly benefited from a studio recording and some heavy filters. She also had kind of a Snow White vibrato, which can get grating after a bit. But this didn’t bother me as much, because honestly, Cosette isn’t anyone’s favorite character.

I loved Samantha Barks’ Eponine and Aaron Tveit’s Enjolras. These are both Broadway actors who were cast in principal supporting roles, and both were amazing. I thought they may have actually been holding back a bit so as not to stick out compared to the Hollywood actors, but any time either of them opened their mouths, I was transfixed. Enjolras is my second-favorite Les Mis character, and Tveit seriously broke my heart with his conviction. Actually, all the scenes with the students made me have ALL THE FEELINGS. Probably because the students were, again, cast with stage actors instead of movie actors.

Let’s talk for a moment about Anne Hathaway. She is the huge, glaring exception to the “they should have cast singers” feel I have about this. Because she was amazing. And really, she sang her songs beautifully. She’s on screen for maybe 15 minutes, but they were the 15 minutes that stole the film. She did Fantine’s signature song, “I Dreamed a Dream,” (which you may remember from the trailer) in one take, in extreme close-up, and it’s phenomenal. I’ve never seen anything like it on film, or stage, and she deserves every award she’s nominated for. Heck, they should dream up some new awards and give them to her, just so she can have more awards. She’s that good.

Okay, getting off casting, let’s talk about the production. It’s gorgeous, in the way that “gorgeous” can sometimes mean “disgusting.” I mean, Les Misérables is very appropriately titled. Most of the characters are, indeed, miserable. So there are some truly terrible settings: the shipyard where Valjean is incarcerated, the Thénardiers’ run-down inn, the docks teeming with bottom-dollar prostitutes, the sewers, the bloody barricade. So while some places, like the church where Valjean gets his second chance, or the garden where Cosette meets Marius, are objectively beautiful settings, most of the film is in a much grittier world. But the grit is so artistic and real that it’s also beautiful.

And as far as the emotion and the story-telling, Les Mis succeeded. Beyond succeeded. It really told this amazing story, spanning both cities and decades, wonderfully well. It broke my heart again and again and again (which is what I was expecting — this is not exactly a “pick-me-up” kind of show). I started crying at the first scene between Valjean and the Bishop (probably less than 15 minutes into the movie) and did not stop until the end.

They changed some things from the stage show. Some songs were cut entirely, nearly every song was truncated in some way and much of the transitional music was eliminated (it was done well, though, and unless you have the show memorized, you won’t notice). The order of a couple songs was changed around, and at the end, they eliminated a character from the final song (it works). But it all worked for the film, and the story, and even as a musical purist, I didn’t have any problems with it.

Overall, I’d highly recommend this movie to both lifelong fans of the story or musical, or those who are new to it. It’s amazing. Yes, you have to overlook some “meh” singing, but really that turns out to be a little thing in the overall scope of the film. If you’ve been on the fence about this one, go see it. You’ll be glad you did.