Les Misérables? More like if I see one more close up of a weepy face, I'm gonna punch a baby.

Back in the good ol' days of 2006, a local high school put on a production of Claude-Michel Schonberg and Alain Boubil's Les Miserables. I knew little to nothing about the content of the play, but I had a couple friends who were cast members and I told them I would come see it. Naturally, I arrived late to the show, thinking it started later than it actually did, but I was able to catch the second half of the show. Despite having little to no idea about who the characters were or what the nature of the story was, I was captivated. The power and beauty of the music and performances were mesmerizing and through the years I have held the memory of this show - Still the best high school production I have ever witnessed - near and dear to my heart. Over the years, I've always wondered what the rest of the story was. The play is so beloved and well-known and my limited experience with it has only further enforced why this is the case. So it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to Tom Hooper's cinematic adaptation. Boy, oh boy, was I disappointed. As far as I can tell from the film on display, Les Miserables may very well be a captivating tale of love, courage, forgiveness, and redemption; I can't say for sure though. Not when the tale is so poorly rendered. Despite a strong, moving performance from Anne Hathaway, the rest of the film seems hopelessly lost in a state of limbo, a direct result of mediocre performances and abysmal direction.

I have never been the biggest fan of Hooper's directing. The King's Speech was a fantastic film, but in it Hooper showed that he hadn't the foggiest idea how to tell a story visually nor even how to frame a shot. Here, Hooper not only continues to display his complete lack of understanding regarding visual language, but his directing choices for each musical sequence are so stale and uninspired it's baffling. Every single musical sequence mimics the one preceding it: Close up of actor over-emoting with every note that blasts from their vocal chords; wider shot of actor standing in an awkward position; cut back to close up; maybe throw in a two shot to compensate two people singing together...but not for too long!! Who needs two-shots when you can resort to the handy dandy shot/reverse shot technique, showcasing both performers' nose-hairs in suffocating close-ups!! Oh, and maybe throw in an uninspired crane shot for good measure. That'll make everything seem infinitely more epic than it actually is. Honestly, I didn't think it was possible to shoot a movie comprised almost entirely of close-ups, but Hooper seems dead set on proving it with uninspiring results.

The cast appears to have been told to belt out every single song/emotion with everything they've got, leaving no room for subtlety or subtext. The extreme amount of bombastic emotions dulls the senses after a while and, after being bombarded with so many close-up's of so many weeping faces belting their hearts out, it's hard to feel anything for anyone. The only true standout performance here is Anne Hathaway's. Hers is the only one that feels genuine as opposed to manipulative. It's a shame she's only in the film for 20 minutes or so. Even so, her performance is so strong that her presence is felt over the remainder of the film's near three-hour running time. It may be why so many people have been tricked into thinking the film is spectacular, but, rest assured, it is no such thing.

The rest of the cast performs as if they were just shown early footage of Hathaway's performance and were fearful of losing their Oscar attention. As a result, everyone over-emotes to the point of parody and rarely does a single moment contain an ounce of truth. Hugh Jackman is decent as Jean Valjean, but the storytelling and direction do him no favors and this fascinating character's journey carries none of the impact that it should. Samantha Barks as Eponine is also sweet and sincere, despite the fact that she has little to nothing to actually do. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter also provide some sparks of life as Monsieur and Madame Thenardier. The rest of the performances range from non-existant to downright dreadful. The worst showcases of acting are Eddie Redmayne as Marius and Russell Crowe as Javert. Redmayne resembles an overgrown choir boy desperately trying to prove he is a singing prodigy the likes of which the world has never known. With every single note he belts out, his lip quivers as if it's possessed. It moves more than he does, actually, and it got to the point where I just wanted to slap him. Crowe may be even worse. His performance is stiff and his singing sounds more like a man with a cold than a force to be reckoned with.

Oh, yeah! Amanda Seyfried is in this movie too!

...

Anyway, where was I?

Oh, right!!

Les Miserables is overwrought with pandering, manipulative direction that ensures its audience is well aware of their heartstrings being desperately tugged on. (A tip from the Tom Hooper school of direction: If you want to elicit further sobs from your audience, be sure to insert a shot of an adorable orphan boy with a single tear rolling down his cheek) The main story is a resounding cry for the beauty of life and love, but everything about this production is passionless and dull. Every emotion is played as broadly as can be and the more it's beaten over your head, the easier it is to become indifferent to it all. Needless to say, the only tears I shed were those of unmitigated boredom.

For any fans of this film, (And I've seen many who seem to be under the impression that its release is some form of the Second Coming) I ask you to consider this: Are you truly a fan of the work being done here or are your fond memories of the musical dominating your common sense? No one will fault you for admitting you were disappointed. Admission is the first step.

As for me, I'll be more than happy to stick with my fond memories of the second half of that high school production I saw long ago - A performance which, with a miniscule fraction of the budget of this overblown big screen iteration, ends up being vastly superior and infinitely more moving.


FINAL RATING: 2/5