Saturday, February 23, 2013

A miserable movie













The novel by Victor Hugo is brobably the most adapted book ever written, with hundreds of theatre, radio, TV and cinema versions from all over the world dating from the 1800's to today. Now I of course haven't seen all of those adaptations, but from the movies the 1934 one was quite ok and I kind of liked the 1998 version, but really I just wonder what the hell can anyone add to that story anymore. Well it turns out not much, except for a great cast. But the cast really is almost worth the whole movie. Hugh Jackman is great, Russell Crowe is good as well even though he can't sing that much, Samantha Barks was surprisingly good and pretty much everyone in the movie brings out a great performance. But there's one above everyone else and that's Anne Hathaway, her performance is just about as perfect as one can be. Too bad she's gone after the first 30 or 40 minutes and even though the rest aren't bad either, but you just feel the level going down from there on. Then the music, just about every line in this movie is delivered by singing. Now I'm not a big fan of musicals as they tend to take me out of the movie as it's not realistic in any way, but that being said, I don't hate them. But as the music here isn't exactly diverce, it gets rather boring towards the end when there's only an occasional word or two which aren't sung. After about 2 hours I was basically begging for some normal dialog between the characters, but no chance of that.

I didn't like the camerawork, the shaky cam tried to get some sense of realism to it, but really most of the time it was just annoying as it kept reminding you that you are watching a movie, the complete opposite of what it usually tends to do. Also the framing was simply boring, every single scene was framed with either closeups or some weird angle which left you just wondering why the hell was that angle chosen and does the cameraman have some sort of a balance disorder. And when I say closeups, I mean about 95 percent of the shots in this whole movie. Sure that brings out the emotions from the actor, but I guess they don't know what establishing shots mean or that you really need some diversity for it to keep it interesting. This is painfully obvious at some of the most powerful parts of the story where the movie takes out the scope of things by just giving you a face. Now that's a real problem as this story is really epic and demands some bigger scale to things, you'd expect that a big Hollywood movie would bring that, yet the movie manages to look small, kind of like a small theater play. Another problem is that every scene is built to maximize intensity and thriving for the biggest possible emotional impact, unfortunately that makes the movie annoyingly monotonious. It seems that the director doesn't even know what subtle or nuanced mean. So when you finally get to the end where you'd supposed to feel deeply for the characters, I found myself not giving a damn and just hoping this stupidity would be over. In the light of all that the fact that Tom Hooper gets so much acclaim for the direction of this is just criminally wrong.

In the end this movie was only worth the watch to see Anne Hathaway's performance, but unfortunately even as brilliant as it was the rest of the movie isn't worth it. And it's really a shame that those great performances by Hathaway, Jackman and Barks get wasted in a movie like this.
30%


No comments: