Review of the Reviews

         Not too long ago, I saw the movie Les Misérables in theaters. I remember seeing the actual musical when I went to London around 6th grade and hated it. But having just recently seen the cinematic version of the play, I was surprised at how well-made and interesting it was. I don't know whether it was the fact that it was a movie now instead of a play or that maybe I have a more mature mind set for movies like this. Regardless, I really did enjoy the movie.  The problem with this movie, is that it's a real hit-or-miss when it comes to entertaining its audience. I've watched a lot of musicals, so I was able to tolerate and appreciate this kind of style the movie dared to use. But for others, I can see why this movie may not be such a favorite as there is hardly any dialogue and the story is somewhat slow. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the reviews gave it a grade of 70% which is pretty solid.

Negativew: Anthony Lane

            Like I said, people either loved it or hated it. Anthony Lane of the New Yorker had no problem at all expressing his dislike for the film. He clearly understands the story and appreciates the art of musicals but his criticism went directly towards the director's way of the making the movie. He first attacked the main actors of the movie, Hugh Jackman and Russel Crowe, claiming their singing was "agonizing" even with their both credibly musical experience. Personally, I was rather blown away at the fact that Jackman, the same man who plays Wolverine in the X-Men series, could sing so powerfully. And same goes for Crowe, Gladiator, even if Jackman sang better. Anthony Lane's tone is quite sarcastic throughout the review especially when talking about the plot. It was as if he was criticizing the story itself and questioning its acclaim as a classic since it was published in 1862. He references the director's, Tom Hopper, last big hit movie The King's Speech and uses that to discredit Hooper's skills in making movies. He claimed the director shot some scenes and emphasized the music with awkward camera angles which he clearly thought was overrated. Throughout the review, Lane focused mostly on the plot, the director, and the actors in the movie.

Positive Review: Roger Moore

            Having said all that, Roger Moore of the McClatchy-Tribune News Service, had some complimentary things to say about the movie. In his review he summarizes the movie and goes on the individually express his open opinions about the stars and main roles of the movie and even the director. He talked about Hugh Jackman, Russel Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen, etc. not just because they are all stars, but because they excelled at their roles. His tone was very direct and positive and clearly showed his appreciation of the film. He also went on to compliment the way Hooper actually used the camera angles on the actors singing and also adored the fact that all the singing was live, on set. This was interesting since Lane had some distaste for such a style. Moore really focued on talking about the actors and the director and how well they did doing their job. You can tell he really liked the fact that he could rely on the cast as well as the director to recreate the classic musical into a movie.

            Although incredibly critical to the film, Lane did write of some truth that I agree with when he said, "Crowe launches into his lusty anthems as if a platoon of infantry, stationed in his immediate rear, had just fixed bayonets without giving sufficient warning." Russel Crowe is a phenomenal actor and probably a really talented singer, but just not a broadway singer. When I watched the movie, the look on his face as he sang didn't really show that much confidence as he was pretty stale in the eyes. Lane is right in that it seemed like he might have tried too hard trying to make his singing an "anthem" as if charging an army from behind. It was appropriate at some times, but just not most of the time. Moore wrote that a good actress in the movie was "An emaciated Hathaway is properly heartbreaking as Fantine." I have to agree with Moore because man, Hathaway really did go nuts on her part. I had to think twice when realizing this poor prostitute mother in the movie singing such a heartbreaking song was the same girl I saw in Princess Diaries. She sang with such emotion and voice that I think greatly helped the movie out.

 

            If I never say this film before, I would probably be convinced by Moore's review more because he wrote his review in way that was much easier to understand. He wrote also with more welcoming tone that made me more comfortable to read and pay attention to the review. I think that if a film review wants to win the reader over, it needs to talk about things that the reader can easily relate to. They need to talk about the past movies the director may have been involved in, the main stars and actors, and most importantly what they think of the plot and why they think that. The reader's want to know more about the movie and what better way to talk about a movie than the actual plot.

            If I were to a write my own review for this movie, I would definitely include the fact that they filmed in such a unique style mentioning the camera angles, effects, music, and the live recording. I would also talk about the main stars and their roles starting with Jackman, Crowe, and Hathaway. I would definitely include my comparison with the play and also talk about the music too since it is a musical. I would probably leave out things like themes of the movie or the political/historical message. I feel that the reader doesn't and shouldn't need to know about those things and should interpret those for themselves after watching the movie.