Shawn Eastridge's Fantastically Spectacular Favorite Movies of 2012 Part 1: The Not-Sa-Good's

Greetings readers!!!!

2012: What a year! There were triumphs and tragedies. Laughs and tears. Freaks and Geeks. And so on and so forth. 2012 may go down in history as one of the biggest years cinema had to offer. You've got your long awaited superhero team-up movie, the conclusion to Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight saga, Ridley Scott's long-awaited return to science fiction, and even new tales from Middle-Earth.

It's not too much of a stretch to say that the geeks have inherited the earth by this point. Or, at the very least, the entertainment industry.

Per usual, some of the finest films released this year didn't reveal themselves in all their glory until the very end, but boy oh boy, they were oh so fine and worth the wait, weren't they?

Anyway, this list marks the beginning of my three-part saga, which will conclude with a rousing battle at Hogwarts and my top ten films of 2012. But, before we can get to the greats, we have to trudge through the disappointments and the worst of the worst.

Let's push off, shall we?

THE NOT-SA-GOOD'S OF 2012:

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
What a complete disaster. Few films pack such a wallop of disappointment as Christopher Nolan's final Dark Knight chapter. Though many of you out there are still hopelessly clinging to the notion that this was a satisfying conclusion, the filter of insurmountable expectations blinds you from the undeniable truth: The Dark Knight Rises just plain sucks. Big time. Characters are butchered beyond recognition, plotlines are undercooked and illogical, and the action is just about as dull as can be. The whole thing is even more disappointing when one considers the massive talents behind the camera. What could have possibly inspired them to be so uninspired? For shame, Mr. Nolan. For shame.

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
Peter Jackson, the brilliant filmmaker who guided The Lord of the Rings into the ranks of cinematic masterpieces, proves once and for all that George Lucas syndrome may actually be contagious. This first installment of a proposed trilogy based on J.R.R. Tolkien's flimsy novel does little to nothing to illicit excitement for its two remaining entries. It's overstuffed with mind-numbing plotlines and superfluous characters whilst containing none of the majesty or grace of the trilogy that preceded it. It's nothing more than a dreadful bore and such a crushing disappointment.

LES MISERABLES
One of the most overblown productions I've ever had the misfortune of seeing is undermined by some truly horrific direction. With the exception of Anne Hathway's performance, there is nothing moving or awe-inspiring about this mediocre take on a spectacular musical.

ON THE ROAD
Jack Kerouac, one of the 20th century's greatest and most influential writers, gets a mellow, uninspired adaptation of his most famous novel. Visuals aside, performances are disinterested and its script/direction have no grasp of what it was that made the Beat Generation so fascinating. What we're left with is aimless wanderings and empty philosophical ramblings that don't hold the slightest bit of wax of a candle to Kerouac's genius.

PROMETHEUS
Ridley Scott's Alien prequel manages to rip off just about every single Sci-Fi and Horror cliche imaginable, resulting in a final product that is neither exciting nor frightening. Prometheus is uninspired, convoluted storytelling at its finest.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
Well, I do unfortunately find myself in the minority here, but I find Silver Linings Playbook to be trite, contrived, and boring. It features two great performances from Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, but, other than that, it doesn't aspire to be much more than misguided sitcom drivel.

ZERO DARK THIRTY
I don't know if any movie released in 2012 bored me to the extent that Zero Dark Thirty did. For nearly two hours, we are treated to a cyclical series of events that involve fruitless searching for Bin Laden, endless interrogations of hostages regarding his location or people who might know his location, lots of walking through hallways, and oodles upon oodles of sitting around in offices, staring at computer screens. There are no characters to invest in, no storyline to follow, and the outcome of the whole ordeal is already known to us, so there's not much suspense either - At least, not until the final glorious thirty minutes. ZERO DARK THIRTY is anything but a great flick and doesn't even stand in the same league as Bigelow's previous outing The Hurt Locker.

AND WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS THE WORST FILM OF 2012? DO YOU REALLY NEED TO ASK??

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN PART 2
What you see before you, ladies and gentlemen, is no optical illusion, but an actual character in this travesty. Every moment he is on screen fills me with the strangest combination of sexual desire and revulsion the likes of which I have never known in all my life. I have yet to win a staring contest with him. If I ever did, I am certain it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes...

The final nail in the coffin that is Twilight proves once and for all that this so-called saga is nothing more than a money-grubbing slap in the face to anyone who has the slightest trace of intelligence or even a minimal regard for artistic integrity. This series stands tall with Transformers as what is quite possibly the lowest of low points for modern cinema.


COMING SOON: THE HONORABLE MENTIONS & SHAWN'S TOP TEN OF 2012!!

This is Not a Film, but it may be some kind of masterpiece

THIS IS NOT A FILM

The man in the picture above is esteemed Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi. In 2011, he was condemned to house arrest and facing a potential six-year prison sentence due to the Iranian government's proclamation that he was creating anti-Iran propaganda in his films. He is also facing a potential twenty-year ban on filmmaking, giving foreign interviews of any kind, or even leaving the country. As he awaited the results on an appeal for his case, he switched on a video camera and began to record a day in his apartment. And so begins This is Not a Film: a powerful rally for artistic freedom and a fascinating look at one artist's fight to hold onto his dreams.

Throughout the course of the film (Or non-film...whatever we're calling it), we pay witness to Panahi's life - His conversations with lawyers, family, neighbors, etc. When his friend and colleague Motjaba Mintahmasb pays him a visit, Panahi hands over the camera and, with screenplay in hand, begins to dictate to us what his next feature would have been if that pesky Iranian government hadn't gotten in the way. He interjects with location scout footage and shows off headshots of the various actors he had planned to cast. He also traces out a floor plan on his living room rug representing the apartment location he had originally intended to use. He describes everything with a youthful energy and even takes the time to explain how an actor can bring something to the role that wasn't in the script (He shows footage from one of his earlier films in which an acting noobie gives a very natural performance). Throughout the rest of his day, he appears to engage in a regular routine: Watching movies, watching the news, discussing his sentence, watching the fireworks outside (And filming them with his iPhone), all this while taking care of the family's pet iguana.

It may not seem like much is happening, but what we are seeing in This is Not a Film is nothing short of extraordinary. The fact that Panahi was able to perform a quiet rebellion of sorts and express himself artistically despite the limitations placed on him is astonishing and should cause all aspiring filmmakers who do nothing more than sit on their asses all day as they wait for a great wave to sweep them to fame and fortune feel awfully ashamed of themselves.

It may not be conventional storytelling, but This is Not a Film serves as a resounding protest against artistic oppression and this alone makes it an admirable effort in every conceivable respect. My best wishes to Jafar, his family, and friends. I hope he finds his way to freedom soon.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

Zero Dark Thirty manages to enthrall my boredom like no other!!

Greetings, reader!!

Have you pondered many a sleepless night away with questions about America's hunt for Osama Bin Laden? Have you always wanted to learn more about the men and women who devoted themselves to finding Bin Laden and bringing him to justice? Would you like nothing more than to watch these men and women spend countless hours staring blankly at computer screens, scanning hostage torture footage, and endless conversations in which the people being interrogated send their questioners on wild goose chases by providing them with minimal information regarding Bin Laden's whereabouts? If these are the things that strike your fancy, then the first two hours of Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty will feel heaven sent. If, however, you are more inclined to desire anything remotely captivating in your filmgoing experiences, say a storyline worth following or even characters you can connect to, you may want to keep looking. Bigelow's follow up to her Oscar winning The Hurt Locker is a dreadful bore, an exercise in tedium unfolding at a glacial pace that makes 2001: A Space Odyssey look like Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit astonished at the near universal acclaim Zero Dark Thirty has been receiving. I don't think I've ever been so bored in a movie theater this year and I've seen The Hobbit. Sure, Bigelow's direction is solid enough. The film is shot with a 'fly on the wall' urgency that desperately attempts to distract us from the glaring fact that not much is happening in the first couple hours of its two and a half hour running length. There's practically nothing to connect to during this time. The plot and situations are a cyclical series of events that are sluggish beyond all belief. Nearly every scene features someone sitting in an office, walking down a hallway, or an interrogation which recycles the same exchanges over and over. They look a little something like this:

Interrogator: "Where is Osama Bin Laden?"

Terrorist: "You will never find him."

Interrogator: "Oh yeah?" *TORTURE* "How 'bout now?"

Terrorist: "Okay, okay, I'll tell you the truth. I don't know where he is, but 'so-and-so' might."

Interrogator: "Thanks, bro."

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

And speaking of torture, I'm not sure why this film is garnering up so much controversy about its supposed 'explicit' torture scenes. It's disturbing, yes, but pretty tame in terms of its graphicness. Even Casino Royale had a torture scene more painful to watch than the ones on display here. Come to think of it, the only torturous thing about Zero Dark Thirty is its running length.

Between brief moments in which I desperately tried to fall asleep, I managed to take notice of the decent, but overall unimpressive performance of Jessica Chastain as Maya, the agent in charge of tracking Bin Laden down. Now, make no mistake, Chastain has oodles of talent; anyone who's seen her in Tree of Life or Take Shelter can attest to that. She's honestly one of my favorite actors working today. Her performance here, though, is mostly monotone. She gets a nice little moment in which she yells at a superior and another random outburst of emotion at the film's close, but for the remainder of the film, she spends her time staring blankly at computer screens, terrorist hostages, colleagues, and maybe a wall or two. When she's given dialogue, she recites it with all the enthusiasm of a high schooler being forced to read passages outloud in their English class. Other performances in the movie are mostly anonymous thanks to a boring beyond all reason screenplay by Mark Boal.

A couple of terrorist attacks are peppered throughout the story, probably in the hopes that the viewing audience will be jarred from their napping, but there is very little in the way of actual suspense, emotion, or thrills. That is, until the film's climax, which involves Seal Team Six's assault on the Bin Laden hideaway. This twenty to thirty minute sequence is easily the strongest of the entire movie. Bigelow shows off her knack for crafting high wire tension and one finally recalls why people consider her to be talented. Truth be told, even with the minimal screen time they received, I cared more about the soldiers involved in the attack than anyone else I'd been forced to spend time with in the preceding two hours. It's a glimpse of another better movie and it's a shame it's not the one we got to see.

FINAL RATING: 2.5/5

Two Reviews for the Price of One!! Django Unchained and Lincoln!!

DJANGO UNCHAINED
Is there a filmmaker working today who is more creatively unhinged than Quentin Tarantino? I can't possibly ever believe it. Time and time again, Tarantino has proved that he is a cinematic prodigy; one of the finest writers/directors of not only our generation, but of all time. It's difficult to pick a single favorite from his rich, spectacular filmography, which includes the likes of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Inglourious Basterds. He may have a miss every so often (Death Proof, anyone?), but even those can't keep him from churning out the goods year after year. And yet, even with these masterpieces under his belt, nothing he has made may quite measure up to his latest work: The unrestrained and downright balls-to-the-walls insane Django Unchained. His Spaghetti Westernizing of slavery in the 1800's is revelatory and there is no doubt in my mind that Tarantino has delivered yet another masterpiece.

The thing that really makes Tarantino a great filmmaker is the way he upends the conventions of any well-known genre and reshapes them to be completely fresh and original while still being instantly recognizable. Django contains all the traits that make his films such a joy to watch and here he cranks them up past eleven (Spinal Tap would be envious). Every single frame of this film is bursting at the seams with action, clever dialogue, suspense, humor, and, naturally, a kick-ass soundtrack. It's filled to the brim with filmmaking fervor and with every twist and turn, one can picture Tarantino bouncing around with excitement as he inspires unbridled glee from his viewing public, the kind of glee that only he is capable of producing.

As always, Tarantino has filled his roles with another perfect cast. Jamie Foxx is Django and he has never been so purely awesome. Christoph Waltz also makes a welcome return to the Tarantino universe as the bounty hunter who takes Django under his wing, serving as his friend and mentor and guiding him on his quest to reclaim his wife from the evil Calvin J. Candie, played with sinister perfection by Leonardo DiCaprio. Other supporting cast members include Tarantino regular Samuel L. Jackson as Candie's wickedly funny house servant Stephen and the lovely Kerry Washington as Django's long lost bride. Both are naturally spectacular.

At nearly three hours long, Django never once drags, nor does it overstay its welcome. It is endlessly entertaining, providing a thrilling story with rich, well-drawn characters spouting razor sharp dialogue. In all honesty, if the film had been another hour longer, I wouldn't have minded in the slightest. It really is that fantastic. There are very few things in this world as thrilling as watching a master filmmaker in complete control of their craft. With Django Unchained, Tarantino continues to prove himself as a cinematic force to be reckoned with. This talk of an early retirement better be codswallop or I shall make it my life long duty to force Tarantino back into action. Let us hope that the writing/directing bug never ceases to pester him. For as long as Quentin Tarantino is making films, the moviegoing world will always have something to rejoice.

FINAL RATING: 5/5

LINCOLN
God, I love Steven Spielberg. Say what you will about his career as of late, but one thing cannot be disputed: The guy knows how to make great movies. His latest film Lincoln is a passion project of his that he's reportedly been working on for the past decade and his affection for the material and the man at the center of it all is rather apparent. Still, it's not every man who can take a story about politics and elderly gentlemen sitting around large desks discussing them and make it captivating for a general viewing audience. But, Mr. Spielberg is no mere man and, once again, he has made a deeply felt work that not only ranks as one of 2012's best, but one of Spielberg's finest films in his more recent years.

Lincoln tells the story of our legendary 16th president and his tireless attempts to pass the 13th amendment, which will guarantee the abolishment of slavery once and for all. Spielberg weaves this tale with the greatest of ease. Working with a phenomenal script by Tony Kushner, he manages to combine fascinating drawn out political debates with humor and, above all, a strong sense of humanity. Fascinating is a word I never thought I'd ever use to describe a political debate, but that's part of the genius of this film - It manages to enthrall despite it's potentially dry subject matter. Most importantly, it never loses its focus on its characters and it is they who provide this film with its much-needed heart and soul.

Great direction aside, it's the performances that really make Lincoln shine. The cast is chock full o' talent, showcasing some of the finest performers of all time doing what they do best. It goes without saying that Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal as Abraham Lincoln is magnificent and mesmerizing. His resemblance to the historical figure is uncanny to the point where if you replaced his profile with the real Abraham Lincoln's on a five-dollar bill, I doubt many would notice the difference. His heartfelt, powerful performance helps steer the film to greatness. Equally as spectacular is Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. Jones brings his standard, always welcome world-weariness to the role along with a wicked sense of humor that makes this one of his best performances to date. The supporting cast also includes the likes of Sally Field as the strong-willed Mrs. Lincoln, David Strathairn as Secretary of State William Seward and James Spader as Republican party operative William N. Bilbo. Even Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who's been popping up everywhere, makes an effective, if all too brief, appearance as Lincoln's son Robert.

Lincoln is virtually flawless and if there's any fault with which it can be attributed, it's the inclusion of a short sequence involving its title character's tragic assassination. These shockingly abrupt scenes contribute nothing to the final product and actually serve to diminish the overall impact of the film's ending. But, despite this minor defect, Spielberg proves once again why he is arguably the greatest filmmaker of all time. His mastery of the craft is impeccable and along with deeply felt performances and a strong sense of humanity, the ballots are in: Lincoln is magnificent.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Shea's Review

      It's never a good sign when I show up on this blog. Everybody knows a movie has been very naughty and above all, disappointing when I come around. Sadly, the latest pre-installment/literary amalgamation in the Lord of the Rings universe has certainly been both those things. With a superlative cast, excellent craftsman such as Andrew Lesnie, Dan Hennah and Howard Shore behind the camera and a story crafted by one of the greatest storytellers of the last generation and perhaps all time; what could have possibly gone wrong?  Peter Jackson, the golden child of Middle Earth and the inducer of many a sticky trouser within the realm of geekdom, resumes his directorial duties and seeks to lead casual patrons and Tolkienites alike back into the familiar throes of a not so nostalgic Middle Earth. For most people there was a quiver of joy resonating from somewhere most uncivil when they heard the announcement that "The Hobbit" was to be given the same big screen treatment as its older brothers. For anyone with an education and the faintest whiff of common sense, there was a quiver of disgust. The prospect of yet another profitable franchise was the only motivator which propelled the fabled hills of the blessed Shire back before our eyes. And when the project's reins were offered to the architect of the original series he politely, yet firmly, denied. In fact he had to keep denying them, he grabbed prospective director after prospective director and pushed them in front of himself as if to say "Take anyone but me!"The studio searched high and low across all the land for a worthy successor but found no one. For a time Jackson thought he had escaped when Guillermo Del Toro was assigned to the rank of captain but alas, fate tugged him in a different and more prudent direction.

      When Del Toro jumped ship, the studio swung their large, lidless eye; wreathed in flame, back to Jackson. And that's what we, the audience, were left with. That lack of fervor shows in the final product. His frustration with the original source material is the root of the film's problems. The filmmakers attempts to rememdy that insecurity by borrowing and swapping passages and subplots from other sources such as "The Silmarillion" and "The Lord of the Rings" appendices were earnest but tragically futile. The numerous and varied influences cause the film to wobble onward with no clear tone or pace; wracked by lengthy scenes of exposition and superfluous details that are shoved through, kicking and screaming, in order to lend a few more minutes to the alreaday astronomical running time while we crawl oh so slowly towards that friggin mountain where that friggin dragon is lying with all their friggin gold.

      Pacing aside (for now) we turn to casting and performances. For many people, one of the film's bright spots was the role of Bilbo Baggins, portrayed by an ever boyish Martin Freeman. I happen to disagree with those people. If they had described his performance as stuttering, externality based and a shadowy pastiche of the turn offered to us by Ian Holm as the older, more poised and less flinchy Bilbo then I would heartily agree. The films 1st act campiness is bolstered by Freeman's befuddled blinking as a series of saturday morning cartoons roll around his house, devouring his food, singing and tracking mud on the carpet. By the time he settles down in the 3rd act the pace has gone horribly amiss and then abruptly ends after the most pathetic excuse for an emotionally satisfying climax I've seen in a movie this year. I originally liked Freeman in the role of Bilbo when he was announced for the part but ultimately he lacked the determination and focus to hold down the role with any kind of consistency. Whether this was due to poor direction or something else entirely is irrelevant.

      Instead of Freeman I found the breath of fresh air to be in the performance of Richard Armitage as "Thorin" the proud young Dwarf Heir/Prince/King. He harnessed all the steely reserve of a scorned Tom Cruise, the focused and totured intensity of Liam Neeson, all the while maintaining just a touch of Tom Hanks naive, yet earnest idealism. It was by no means a perfect performance, there seemed to be an internal conflict on how exactly his character should arc. If the film had maintained a consistent and traditional pace it might not have been so difficult. As it stood though, characters who dramatically and precisely arced through Tolkien's book were forced to complete an entirely new arc in just the first 3rd of that book in order to facilitate the studios desire to make 2 more movies. I hardly blame Armitage for his frustration and potential confusion when weighing how to handle that role.  Much like a high-school reunion I wouldn't absolutely hate going to, all the old familiar faces have returned and waste no time at all in filling their roles with the effortlessness of a well worn leather glove. Ian Mckellan, Cate Blanchet, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis, and Hugo Weaving bring their A-Game. They are, no question, the backbone of the film. But it's so strange to see them in this setting, where their most dire conversations take place while discussing the rebirth of a great evil, hinting morbidly about the return of Sauron. If I hadn't already seen Lord of the Rings then I might, perhaps, be intrigued by this great returning evil that they whisper so loudly about while taking special care to never look at each other unless rebuking or being rebuked.

      The trouble is that none of it matters. Even with actors giving above adequate turns in their roles at the end of the day it's just a bunch of whiny dwarves forever moaning about their gold and the fate of their stupid mountain home. Calm down. So the dragon wants to sleep in your gold for 60 years, big deal. I've seen middle earth 4 times now for a grand total of 10 hours and I've seen about a dozen different mountains that are just as big as your old one. Go live there. The stakes are so miniscule when compared to the original series and it feels insulting to have the studios earnestly believe that this story is worth my time and money. Looking beyond the filmmaking mistakes there is simply a lack of interest or gravity in the story, it has nothing to offer me in the form of emotional engagement and thus I don't feel compelled to watch each frame as it passes meaninglessly in front of my face. It's as if Peter Jackson were a small child pulling you by the hand to his room where he can gleefully show you his toys and neat-o Hot Wheels collection. That's all well and good  Mr. Jackson, but we've moved on now.

      The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is nothing short of standard and imprecise. Nothing outstanding yet nothing too terribly abhorrent. I elected to NOT see the film in 48fps because I came to the theater to see Middle Earth and not an NBC Soap Opera set. Being one who has shot footage at this speed before I could not consciously give my money to watch a film that employed that particular technique. I did, however, get to watch it for free in 3d IMAX after the 2D screening was too full. The 3d was unnecessary and there were many sweeping shots that were panned to quickly in order to take full advantage of 48p causing the shutter to blur in a rhythmic glaze across the scene. In all their rush to push technology forward they forgot the bread and butter of their trade and committed the most atrocious crime that a talented artist can perpetrate in this industry..........they were mediocre. There were no balls to the wall, there was no risk. Just a half baked gamble tied to a dead-weight story all thrown together by a man who was loathe to be there from the beginning.

      You don't have to be a scientist or even a sub-par filmmaker to see why this is a poorly made movie. I long to see the day when a studio discovers that you can't just take a previously successful franchise, throw money at it and receive gobs of money in return. But for now the general viewing public disappoints me and thus we will continue to have sub-standard movies such as this, of which I shall continue to have to pay money and see it just to say I've seen it and have an opinion.   

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

Capsule Reviews!!! Life of Pi; The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey; Silver Linings Playbook

My goodness, I've been behind on my reviews!! This simply will not do. To make up for a complete lack of reviews over the course of the past month, I've decided to give you three for the price of one post!! This week we have Life of Pi, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and Silver Linings Playbook. Enjoy!!!

LIFE OF PI
I've never had the pleasure of reading Yann Martel's highly acclaimed novel, but if it's anything remotely as revelatory and moving as Ang Lee's adaptation, I shall have to look into rectifying that immediately. Life of Pi never aspires to be anything less than one of the most beautiful films ever made and it succeeds. Following the story of Pi (Suraj Sharma), an open minded young man who's a self-proclaimed Catholic Buddhist as well as a Muslim. His father owns a zoo in India and is highly cynical towards religion. Naturally, his son's fascination with all facets of the subject frustrates him to no end. Pi's father decides to move the family zoo to Canada and, during their journey, a massive thunderstorm hits, sinking the boat and leaving only Pi and a few of the zoo's inhabitants, including a vicious Bengal tiger named Richard Parker, as its survivors. And so we pay witness to an incredible tale of survival, courage, and friendship all wrapped up in a universal question: "Does God truly exist?" And if this film is the best argument that one can muster for proof of the existence of God, then God must be rather pleased.

From beginning to end, Ang Lee's adaptation is a visual masterpiece with a profound soul. Its beauty knows no bounds and presents images so stunning that your jaw grow weary of hitting the theater floor. The cinematography by Claudio Miranda is nothing short of majestic. I had the pleasure of catching the film in both 2D and 3D and this is one of the few times I will recommend seeing the 3D version over the 2D. Like Avatar and Hugo it was clearly designed to be viewed in this way.

Performance-wise, everyone is strong across the board - Especially Suraj Sharma as our hero Pi. He practically carries the entire picture on his shoulders as most of the picture involves him acting opposite animals. Speaking of which, I'm not sure which animals were digital as opposed to real-life; the visual effects are easily the best of the year (Eat your heart out, Hobbit) and some of the best I have ever seen.

The effects may make it a front-runner for the Oscar come awards season, but its heart and soul are what make it a transcendent, meaningful work of art and one of the finest pictures of 2012.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Peter Jackson's first installment of his new money-grubbing Hobbit trilogy. Based on Tolkien's fun, flimsy novel, An Unexpected Journey is certainly flimsy, but not much fun. The Hobbit is a short, simple narrative, but Jackson has seen fit to stretch it out over the course of three films, the first of which is nearly three hours long. Jackson adds additional subplots that may or may not be in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings (I haven't bothered to check), but none of them enrich the story. With the addition of many superfluous storylines, the tale loses its sense of innocence and simple fun and adventure.

That's not to say the movie is a complete failure - It most certainly isn't dreadful. It's just that for every strong moment (Usually taken directly from the source material) there are two to three moments serving as attempts to pad out the mind numbing running length and only serve to weigh the whole thing down. These additional fun-spoiling moments are not actually taken from the book on which the film is based. This is one case where sticking to the simpler source material may have resulted in a more enjoyable film.

Thankfully, Martin Freeman provides some joy and levity with his excellent performance as Bilbo Baggins. This performance is mostly lost amidst the extraneous plotlines and boring supporting characters. Maybe I'm stretching a bit to suggest that a movie entitled The Hobbit should have focused on its title character a bit more? Other performances fall into their regular paces including a welcome return for Ian McKellen as Gandalf. However, due to the massive amounts of characters and dull plotlines, there's not much to invest in emotionally. As a result, the stakes don't ever rise to be much more complex than your average video game - Though, truthfully, video games these days are actually more thoughtful and entertaining than this lameness. It's a bit insulting that New Line/Warner Bros/MGM want us to dish out the $$$ for three separate tickets to a trilogy of films that could easily have been one.  

It's disheartening to think that the same minds who created the cinematic masterpiece that is The Lord of the Rings went into creating this drivel. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey may not the most disappointing film of the year (Hello, The Dark Knight Rises), but for the first time in my life, the prospect of returning to Middle-Earth is not something I'm anticipating with much excitement.

FINAL RATING: 3/5

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
Silver Linings Playbook is this year's The Descendants. For many, that may be enough cause for celebration. For me, it means I must be submitted to another sitcom episode that fancies itself to be a whole lot deeper and more meaningful than it actually is. In my review for the 2011 film directed by Alexander Payne and starring George Clooney, I wrote, "I went into [The Descendants] with high expectations, considering all the acclaim it had been receiving and its best picture nod, but what I witnessed was a cliche-ridden story so full of contrivances and obvious story beats that I couldn't help but be deeply disturbed at all the high praise it's been receiving." The same thing, sadly enough, applies to Silver Linings Playbook, which, while it hasn't officially been nominated for Best Picture, is certainly one of the front runners for a nod.

Performances are strong from Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, but the screenplay by David O. Russell is a shallow jumble of one predictable moment after another. My eyes rolled so much that if the only way they could have gotten more of a workout would have been if the film had been in 3D. Thank God it isn't; Russell's direction is headache inducing enough as it is. Every character introduction is graced with a dramatic push-in to close up and the chaotic editing is so confounding that I found myself wishing I was watching Quantum of Solace. Okay, I'm exaggerating. But only a bit. This might actually be the worst directed film I've seen all year and this is a big shame since I've been a fan of Russell's other works, especially The Fighter and I Heart Huckabees.

The whole second act is a dreadful bore, but things wrap up nicely for a wonderfully contrived dance competition, which results in every character getting exactly what they want to the point where I was half expecting to hear an audience laugh/applause track. On second thought, a laugh track might have made the movie more entertaining. At the very least, it would have easily drowned out the sound of my annoyed sighs and groans.

FINAL RATING: 2.5/5