I'm Miserable, all right.

Let me state a few things up front.  I've never seen an "actual" stage production of Les Miserables. I've seen the show "in concert" @ the Hollywood Bowl.  I enjoyed it.  I like much of the music.  I'm not a die-hard fan.  I don't know the show super well.  I WAS looking forward to this latest film version of the Victor Hugo story.  The trailers looked appetizing and Hugh Jackman showed great promise.  All of this in mind, I didn't go in w/ huge expectations.  But what hopes I had, were dashed quite early.  Also--I have never claimed to be a good writer of movie reviews, so I make no promises that the rambling will be kept to a minimum.

Well.  Here we are.  Post-Christmas Day 10am showing.

Positives: Hugh Jackman was mezmerizing.  Oscar-nom clearly on his plate when the nominations are announced.  A win?  Certainly possible and well deserved if it comes to that.  Anne Hathaway was pretty outstanding.  But, I'm not sure if she's to blame for my next statement, cuz my feelings all became crystal clear while she was holding the screen.

I.  HATED.  THIS.  MOVIE.

Now.  Aside from the aforementioned Jackman and Hathaway, I found the remaining performances dreadful.  Even Bonham-Carter and Baron Cohen couldn't relieve the pain this film gave me.

Friends Lester and Serena have often called me out as being a "movie snob".  I don't think that's the case.  Certainly as I've matured, my tastes have progressed?  Narrowed?  We all know I'm a great big fan of dozens of really bad films.  I know they're bad.  I know they've been maligned.  And make note that most of those awful films were first seen in my youth.  There's your answer.  But as I age, it seems I can tolerate less and less of the crap that finds it way to us.  On the other hand, I've always made a case (in light of these "snob" accusations) that, "If the movie doesn't work, it just doesn't work".  I can't be called elitist just because the filmmakers have failed to impress me.

The film started on a high.  Jackman's presence was strong, intriguing and his voice--tremendous.  His song in the church following the episode w/ the stolen silver--it made me cry.  I settled in for a bawl-fest of epic proportions.

Somewhere in the first half hour (during "I Dreamed a Dream"--I mentioned Hathaway earlier) I was done.  I've experienced this many times over the last few years--a clear moment in a picture which fails to engage me--and I have shut down emotionally.  Any hope of connection is lost.  I can't think of anything @ the moment, but I'm sure there have been a few examples of when a film has brought me back.  But not here.

Russell Crowe and the rest of the cast (again, minus Jackman and Hathaway) felt like a troupe of high school performers.  Their voices (minus Crowe--who was straight out of the "Pierce
Brosnan in MAMMA MIA: THE MOVIE" line of actors who can't sing) were all fine, but no one was of interest.  There were even a few deaths (God help you if this is a spoiler) which I found myself thankful to see (small male child of the revolution--I'm looking at you).  I didn't care about anyone or anything.

The film failed to ever regain my attentions once they were lost.  And considering the film is well over 2 1/2 hours, you can imagine my pain when I went blank at the half hour mark.

I think the production looked cheap.  From the opening moments of the ship being pulled into port; and the obvious CGI there, I thought it all looked sort of homemade.

A big fail here was the lack of grit.  Sure, there were open sores on the suffering class, an escape into and through the sewers and blood in the streets...but it lacked a real sense of death and despair...and along those same lines, I never felt any danger for the characters (perhaps cuz I didn't care for them).

Also, the way it was shot I found completely uninspiring.  With the exception of the introduction of Bonham-Carter's character (the shots of her and young Cosette through the broken walls was cool), the close-ups were overdone.  I think I also expected this to look more "epic".  Even the sets seems kind of bland.

Eddie Redmayne (while cute as a button) has a horribly distracting habit when he sings (watch the film and you'll know).  While his voice was okay, I found his performance lackluster...and didn't believe for one second that he and Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) had any real connection.  Seyfried (whom I loved in MAMMA MIA: THE MOVIE) annoyed the hell out of me here.  But she did have two good notes in two songs, otherwise, the tinny-ness of her voice was uber-grating.

I think when all is said and done, I would have expected this to be the end-all, be-all version of Victor Hugo's piece and the Broadway musical which has garnered so many fans, but it was just not that good.  What bothered me further, was the fact that the other half couldn't enjoy it as he should/could have, since he was totally aware of my hatred as the film progressed (not that I said anything, but based on my body language which he knows so well after 13 years, it was pretty damn clear).  The other half was heard to say, "When the entire audience was crying and you weren't, I knew that the movie was doomed."

Big (huge?) thumbs down.