Ocean's 8 (2018)

Film: Ocean's 8 (2018)
Stars: Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Mindy Kaling, Sarah Paulson, Awkwafina, Rihanna, Helena Bonham Carter, James Corden
Director: Gary Ross
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

While I don't have the free weekend I was expecting, I do want to get a few reviews that have been sitting around my "To Do" list out in the next few days, so expect a couple of peaks at movies you've probably already discussed, but I still want to put on the record.  The first of these reviews is Ocean's 8, the recent spinoff of the Clooney/Pitt/Damon revival of the Rat Pack pictures (man, originality is dead, ain't it?) which gives the franchise an entirely female remake as Sandra Bullock (playing Debbie Ocean, sister to George Clooney's Danny Ocean) takes over as the heist ringleader, this time attempting to steal a diamond necklace from the Met Gala.

(Spoilers Ahead) There are only a few genres I'd genuinely say that I like pretty much every time, but heist pictures are probably toward the top of the list (for the record, film noir, westerns, and anything where Vincent Price plays a villain would be the rest).  There's something wonderful about seeing the intricacies of a con being perpetrated, and indeed that's the best part of this film.  These are talented actresses, and even the ones that aren't known as great actors (specifically Awkwafina and Rihanna) are compelling enough presences offscreen that they're fascinating to watch, and as a result seeing them sashay around pickpocketing, wearing crazy-awesome couture...it's a dream.  Plus, it helps that everyone here is genuinely funny-the Ocean's pictures are about the comedy, and that was why in my opinion the remakes genuinely were better films than the originals with Sinatra & Martin, a clear case of the original not being that great (it was just cool).

This is to say that I'm usually pretty forgiving with heist pictures, but Ocean's 8 can only stretch that love so far by casting actors I admire and being in a genre I am susceptible to before I have to admit-it's not very good.  I know there was a lot of conversation about this coming from the stars of the film (Mindy Kaling and Cate Blanchett, specifically), decrying male critics for not understanding the audience want for a film like this, and while I am a male critic, I will say that I'm pretty much the target for this as a gay man; I get far more excited seeing Cate Blanchett or Anne Hathaway's name on a call sheet than George Clooney or Matt Damon's.  The problem here isn't the actors, it's that the script is too soggy, routine, and bereft of intimacy to really have us care about any of these characters.

That feels like the only way to really explain how, say, Bullock, who is consistently one of our most charismatic modern movie stars, seems to be on auto pilot most of the film.  Perhaps they should have figured out a way to get Clooney to cameo (I was so sure that'd happen), because she tows the line pretty hard between mourning and revenge, and as a result her Debbie is kind of a downer, and it makes the film heavier than it needs to be.  The comic relief is supposed to come from her motley crew of performers, but they're a mixed bag.  While some are fun (I loved Rihanna's energy as Nine-Ball, even if she's given virtually nothing to do except be Rihanna), Helena Bonham Carter doesn't feel like a person that could exist in reality.  Of all of the characters, her Rose is the one that should be WAY more fun (kooky designer completely out-of-her-element), but in order for her to be this successful, she'd surely have to know how to deal with diva actresses.  That every time she speaks it feels like there's a tick-tick-tick going on in her head, as if HBC herself is wondering whether or not she should be surprised or pretend to be surprised by what is happening, is staggeringly bad, particularly from an actress who is more-than-capable of landing a strange character.  The only supporting player that's truly fun is Anne Hathaway, who is doing a marvelous sendup of the Hatha-hater character people invented around her, and pretty much steals the movie as a spoiled, air-headed actress.

Without more commitment to the characters from the writers or actors, the film falls apart.  It's still fun in doses, and there are some great lines here-and-there, and these stars are too big of STARS for this to be a complete slog, but honestly you leave almost instantly forgetting this existed, and if you remember it all you just recall the lost potential.  Ocean's 8 is a paint-by-numbers heist movie with a world-class cast, which is a damn pity in a summer that has been too generic at the movies.

Suffragette (2015)

Film: Suffragette (2015)
Stars: Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Natalie Press, Anne-Marie Duff, Romola Garai, Brendan Gleeson, Ben Whishaw, Meryl Streep
Director: Sarah Gavron
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I remember the first time I grabbed a sign and stood up in a protest.  It was a thrilling experience, toward the beginning of my college career, and it was over the Iraq War.  I stood on a busy sidewalk, standing there with a few fellow classmates, insisting that people who supported us honk, which a lot of them did (I also heard a lot of "if you don't like America you can leave" and a few less printable words hurled in there too-if you've protested before you know that both sides come out in those instances).  It's something, I think, few people in their lives sort of feel-protesting is something that is frequently done by the young, and even then it's become less common when you can simply cast out a Facebook status and consider your civic duty served.  I kept thinking this with a bit of anger and wonder while watching Suffragette, a film that shows the power and incredible danger that has gone into protesting, and in securing freedoms for women around the world.  The film, particularly taken in light of the recent push for equal pay and better healthcare for women (and on the precipice of the first American woman to be a major party's nominee for president), is a hugely important reminder of the sacrifices that people gave for freedom and equality before, and a reminder that doing nothing is perhaps the greatest slap in the face of all to those brave souls who said a stern-lipped "not anymore."

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows figures both real and fake in the fight for women in Britain in the early 1910's.  Our central figure is Maud (Mulligan), a woman who lives her days working in a laundry in extraordinarily harsh conditions, living only for her husband and son Georgie.  We learn as the film goes on that her life has not been easy, with her parents dying very young and her boss repeatedly raping her when she was a girl.  She notices a coworker Violet (Duff) is involved with breaking windows in hopes of continuing Emmeline Pankhurst's (Streep) movement to get women the vote.  As the film progresses, Maud finds herself wrapped into the idea of equality and the suffragette movement, joining Violet and their leader Edith (Bonham Carter) in increasingly violent acts in order to gain the attention of the press, Prime Minister, and King George.  This comes at great personal sacrifice, with her husband throwing her onto the streets and giving up her son Georgie (whom she has no legal right to) up for adoption.  The film ends with the famous death of Emily Davison (Press), when she threw herself in front of King George V's horse in order to show her "Votes for Women" banner.  The film ends rather well over the credits, showing us how many (and when) the countries did eventually grant the votes to women.

The movie is deeply moving based solely on the subject matter.  There was a moment late in the film when Mulligan has gone through a rather impressive soliloquy that the audience erupted in spontaneous applause, one of the few times outside of Milk I have actually heard that happen.  The film is gut-wrenching when you think about the personal and professional sacrifices women had to make just to create equality, and you leave in tears.  I found myself crying, in fact, in the most random of places more out of shock compared to the disregard people hold for their personal freedoms and civic responsibilities today compared to what, 100 years ago, women had to bleed, endure prison, lose their families, and even die to ensure that they were treated equally.  It made me want to get on a soap box outside the theater admonishing any person who didn't vote in last week's election because they "weren't informed" or "were too busy."

Those sorts of reactions, though, weren't necessarily at the movie but just at the realism on-display, as the film itself is just fair.  The film's camerawork is jittery in the worst ways, particularly in the action sequences where I had to close my eyes the camera was moving so ferociously so as not to get motion sickness.  Even the talking sequences were such short cuts and close-ups that I couldn't help but wish Gavron had hired a better cinematographer and editor.  The performances were pretty good, though again fairly uneven in my opinion.  Carey Mulligan is a marvelous actor, with a collectedness and soothing voice that cannot be denied, but we rarely get to know what is in her heart as the film progresses, and as we start hitting more and more radical methods of gaining the King's attention, we stop seeing her grow properly as a character.  The rest of the cast is given ample opportunity to shine, but none of them take to the characters with anything other than saintly fervor.  Meryl Streep, in a deeply climactic scene (she's only onscreen for roughly three minutes) is brilliant in a fiery moment of terrific stunt casting (you need someone instantly recognizable to live up to the hype the film has given Pankhurst, and it's a very thrilling moment in the movie), but it is indeed merely a cameo.  Worst of all is Brendan Gleeson's villain, who is probably true-to-life in some aspects (chauvinism got and gets this bad, I would assume) but we see almost no humanity in his Inspector Steed.

As a result, I think the film is probably a 3-star endeavor because when you're getting the emotions I felt out, there's clearly something working there and Mulligan is solid, but I can't help feeling like a more introspective story would have added layers to this film (or at least a less erratic cameraman would have made the first hour more pleasant).  It surely would have helped its awards chances.  At least those are my thoughts-what about yours?  Have you seen Suffragette, and did it embolden you politically like it did me?  What role would you like to see the extremely versatile Mulligan taken on next?  And why do people think it's socially acceptable to skip out on voting?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Nobody Out-Crazies Ophelia

My brother-in-law is playing Ophelia right now in a production of Hamlet, and so in honor of him, I created this conversation amongst some legendary women who have also played the role.

"So you're playing Ophelia!  That's wonderful, you know I was nominated for an Oscar for the role..."

"Honey, you don't want to talk about Oscar with me..."

"I had to play opposite Mel Gibson-I SUFFERED for my art!"

"Hey ladies-I also played Ophelia!"

(Awkward Stare)

"Just keep smiling and she'll go away..."

OVP: Cinderella (2015)

Film: Cinderella (2015)
Stars: Lily James, Cate Blanchett, Richard Madden, Helena Bonham Carter, Stellan Skargard, Derek Jacobi
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Costume Design)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

First off, I want to apologize for the enormous gap in writing this week-I had a really long week with a number of dear friends getting laid off at my company, and as a result I haven't felt inspired to do much of anything, much less discuss the minutia of past Oscar contests and wondering what the the hell Hillary was thinking with that email account.  However, I am back and we are back to daily posts, and I figured what better way to get back in the groove and lift our spirits than a fairy tale?

(It's one of the most famous stories of all time-why would you need a spoiler alert?) The film takes place in a kingdom far, far away, where a young girl, perfectly coiffed and raised by two indecently kind parents...you know what?  You know the story, there's no need for a recap.  Perhaps the first real problem with Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella may be that it seems wholly unnecessary-the film isn't something like Maleficent, where we're seeing the story from the angle of the Wicked Stepmother nor is it particularly focused on an origin story like the upcoming Pan (does it feel weird to anyone else that there's a Joe Wright film that doesn't star Keira Knightley?) nor is it like one of the recent Snow White remakes, played for either low comedy (Mirror Mirror) or gritty realism (Snow White and the Huntsman)-this is a straight-forward retelling of the Cinderella story, something that we already have in its pristine animated glory from sixty years ago.  In many ways, as a result, this feels more like a cash-in on the Disney Princess craze that has been sweeping the country for the past decade (more than usual, even) and less like something you should actually give part of your paycheck toward.

Not that there aren't nice touches-Cate Blanchett as the Wicked Stepmother is of course the obvious attraction here, complete with nasty laugh and perhaps just enough backstory (her fairly warranted jealousy against her stepdaughter) to give us some context as to why she is so cruel to our heroine.  I love the ways that she tosses away lines, her NIDA-training mixing with a delicious bit of camp, and Sandy Powell as her costume-designer knows how to have fun with this, putting Blanchett in gaudy but totally believable gowns throughout the film, frequently making her seem like some sort of demonic Wallis Simpson-style figure in the film.

No one else can really compare to her, not even Helena Bonham Carter who plays her role exactly how you would expect HBC to tackle such a role (you half expect Johnny Depp to pop up as one of the coachmen during that scene, which is too-close-to-Burton-for-comfort).  At least she has some life in her.  Lily James, on the other hand, is saddled with the most boring of Disney princesses, and the script makes her too focused on being perfect and not on the slightly less-feminist but certainly more compelling (narratively-speaking) "someday my prince will come" aspect of this girl.  The reality is that Cinderella is a story that demands you to believe in fairy tales and that all can be swept away with a glass slipper, but James is trying to make Cinderella be about kindness and goodness being their own rewards and as a result she becomes just as ridiculous as her two stepsisters.  The same could be said for Richard Madden's Prince Kit, who is also ridiculously beautiful and insanely altruistic, and both only come alive when they are flirting in the woods or while waltzing through a ballroom.  When they're pontificating to no one in particular (really the fourth wall line is so thin here to the children in the audience they might as well stare at the camera), the film feels uninspired and listless.  With the two central characters hampered with such timid performances, you get a film that lacks a center, and as a result this feels pretty pointless on-top of the fact that it's adding nothing to the "pumpkin coach" canon.

Those are my thoughts on Kenneth Branagh's latest (did anyone else not realize he was directing until the credits?).  What are yours?  Did you enjoy the latest fairy tale from Disney?  Do you wish they'd maybe tackle something that's a little less obvious like Mulan (which could be a giant battle sort of situation) next?  And what did you think of Blanchett, James, Madden, and Carter?  Share in the comments!

Emmy Predictions: The Miniseries

This Thursday the Emmy nominations will be announced, and all of the internet will be abuzz over a series of snubs and "how did that get nominated agains?"  More than all other awards shows, the Emmy awards bring out something collectively in the internet that is both exciting (I love when people get into awards shows) and infuriating.  Entertainment Weekly, for example, is at its most annoying during the Emmys, as they will somehow celebrate every single nomination that's just been announced and yet list another thirty people that should have been nominated.  A dirty little secret of awards shows?  Not everyone can get nominated, because there is a finite number of slots available.  That's what makes it an honor just to be nominated.

Anyway, that's my annual diatribe against the Emmy awards.  Since the nominations are this Thursday, I figured now was the perfect time to start predicting, and I wanted to start with the Miniseries/TV Move nominations not because I get a chance to see all of them, but because they feature movie stars, and potential future EGOT winners.  These are always my favorite parts of the telecast because you get to see cinematic stars whom Oscar hasn't courted in a while come forward and get some rewards.  Without further adieu, then, let's start discussing them.  Below I'll number the predictions from most to least likely to score a nomination.

Miniseries

1. Fargo
2. American Horror Story: Coven
3. Luther
4. The White Queen
5. Dancing on the Edge

The Lowdown: The really stunning thing about this category (aside from the fact that it exists again-miniseries and TV movie no longer are competing against each other) is that HBO has absolutely no horse in this race.  With True Detective competing in the Best Drama Series category, HBO has no candidates to run, so instead this is a PBS/BBC and FX dominated field.  I still don't 100% get how Luther gets to qualify here since by all normal accounts it's an actual, regular TV series, but it seems it's eligible so I say it's in.  The only real names that could show up that aren't on this list are The Hollow Crown (which seems old hat and doesn't seem to have garnered a lot of goodwill...plus it's pretty old, even by Emmy standards) and Bonnie and Clyde (which came and went with little fanfare).
The Winner?: Predicting winners before you even have the nominees is a fool's errand, and I normally don't do it, but I figured that in the miniseries/movie categories, at least, you can make some solid guesses.  Fargo seems to have sucked up most of the buzz in this field, and without an HBO juggernaut to stop it, should be the victor, giving the Coen Brothers a great chance to add an E to their EGOT chances.

TV Movie

1. The Normal Heart
2. The Trip to Bountiful
3. Sherlock: His Last Vow
4. Killing Kennedy
5. Clear History

The Lowdown: The top three seem near certain-they have that right mix of prestige, star quality, and press that the Emmys require in a category like this.  However, this isn't a three-wide field, and so I have to dig a little deeper.  There is no part of my body that doesn't hate myself for predicting an adaptation of a Bill O'Reilly book in this category, but Killing Kennedy has enough press and this isn't a particularly robust field for TV Movie category.  The final nomination could go to Lifetime's A Day Late and a Dollar Short or yet another BBC adaptation with Burton and Taylor, but both of those films seem more likely to land their lead actresses nominations than get in the top prize.  Instead I am guessing that HBO, with no pony in Miniseries, doubles down here and gets the final nomination with Clear History.
The Winner?: A closer field than Miniseries, the top three on this list all have arguments to lend toward themselves.  The Normal Heart is HBO and will almost certainly lead the nominations, though it's reviews were hardly universally positive and Ryan Murphy doesn't usually sail at the Emmys.  The Trip to Bountiful is a very tiny production and essentially just a filmed play.  And Sherlock: His Last Vow is one of a series (and Cumberbatch is coming back for another film, as was just announced).  At this point The Normal Heart seems the victor, but that could change if it gets a frostier than anticipated reception from the Emmys, or if one of these other films over-performs.

Actor (TV Movie/Miniseries)

1. Billy Bob Thornton (Fargo)
2. Mark Ruffalo (The Normal Heart)
3. Martin Freeman (Fargo)
4. Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock Holmes: His Last Vow)
5. Chiwetel Ejiofor (Dancing on the Edge)

The Lowdown: This is essentially a six-man race for five slots.  With the exception of Ruffalo and Thornton, any of the remaining three could fall to Idris Elba in Luther, but I just can't quite pin whom it would be.  Freeman is the main lead in the biggest contender of the year, Cumberbatch is a burgeoning movie star who is probably not long for television, and Ejiofor was just the lead in the Oscar Best Picture nominee.  Ejiofor's film is the smallest of the bunch, arguably smaller than Luther, and is probably the most vulnerable, but I think Elba is going to be one of those snubs everyone complains about.
The Winner?: I cannot help but think that, after years in the cinematic wilderness, Billy Bob will be welcomed back with open arms and not only an Emmy, but a Golden Globe and SAG Award later this year for his critically-acclaimed work in Fargo.  He seems more Emmy's speed than Ruffalo, and Fargo has to win an acting trophy somewhere.

Actress (TV Movie/Miniseries)

1. Cicely Tyson (The Trip to Bountiful)
2. Jessica Lange (American Horror Story: Coven)
3. Helena Bonham Carter (Burton and Taylor)
4. Rebecca Ferguson (The White Queen)
5. Whoopi Goldberg (A Day Late and a Dollar Short)

The Lowdown: Of all six races, this one certainly seems to be the most competitive.  In addition to the five women above, you could easily make a case for Sarah Paulson (coming off of both a major role in the Best Picture winner and back-to-back Emmy nominations) and Minnie Driver (it may be Lifetime, but the Emmys could want to celebrate her recent success on About a Boy as well).  I am skipping them both in favor of Ferguson (who is the title character in her film) and Goldberg (who is a much bigger star than either of these two), but honestly any combination of these four women for those final two slots would make sense.
The Winner?: None of these women have that obvious contender vibe that usually comes with a winner here.  Claire Danes, Kate Winslet, and Julianne Moore all had a stampede through the awards shows aura to them, but that's not the case here.  I sort of wonder if they'll go repeat (Lange again?) or prestige (Tyson winning for the role that won her a Tony).  This is one of those categories I'm going to wait and see which of the final four women get in (Ferguson could theoretically pull a Kelly MacDonald and win here).

Supporting Actor (TV Movie/Miniseries)

1. Matt Bomer (The Normal Heart)
2. Martin Freeman (Sherlock: His Last Vow)
3. Jim Parsons (The Normal Heart)
4. John Goodman (Dancing on the Edge)
5. Frank Langella (Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight)

The Lowdown: The biggest question with TV Movie and Miniseries acting categories is usually whether the Emmys are going to favor their big stars or over-nominate their favorite films.  This can lead to a situation like Mildred Pierce where EVERYBODY gets nominated or one where we see favorite names like Goodman and Langella.  At the moment I'm favoring the big name theory (with Alfred Molina in Return to Zero just out of reach), but if they go the smaller name route, you could see Denis O'Hare in American Horror Story or especially Colin Hanks in Fargo get nominations.  Colin's father Tom has won five Emmy Awards in his career, but has never even been nominated for acting on television, so this could be the place where he actually one-ups his pops on the awards circuit.
The Winner?: It feels like Bomer will be the victor here-he's got a showy role, and more importantly, is a television staple that hasn't received much awards-love throughout his long career on cable.  This would be a great way to reward a solid TV player, and a gay actor playing a gay part (classy!).

Supporting Actress (TV Movie/Miniseries)

1. Julia Roberts (The Normal Heart)
2. Kathy Bates (American Horror Story: Coven)
3. Ellen Burstyn (Flowers in the Attic)
4. Alison Tolman (Fargo)
5. Jacqueline Bisset (Dancing on the Edge)

The Lowdown: Acceptance speeches matter more than you would expect during the run-up of an awards season, and Bisset's famously awful one at the Globes makes me wonder if she'll get skipped entirely at the Emmy Awards (she's near certain to lose, even though she's an icon who has never won an Emmy).  I'm keeping her in for now, though, because that Globe win was still a win, and she is very famous.  Most of her competition is set in stone: Roberts "slumming it" in television is a guarantee for a nomination (and likely a win), and the Emmys can never get enough of Kathy Bates or Ellen Burstyn so they're also nominated.  Tolman's role is integral to Fargo and though she's not as famous as her potential competitors I think that should be enough.  Other names that could take out either Tolman or Bisset include Angela Bassett in Coven or Janet McTeer in The White Queen, though I'm intrigued to see if the push to get Audra McDonald nominated for The Sound of Music will pay off. McDonald was easily voted best-in-show in her film and the movie itself was a HUGE ratings hit, even if it was critically-lambasted.  Will Emmy want to acknowledge one of the biggest events of the television year, particularly since it was on network television?  We'll see, but this is its only shot at a high-profile nomination.
The Winner?: At this point Roberts is the clear on-paper frontrunner, though part of me feels a little bit like this is a leader who could get toppled.  If Alison Tolman manages a nomination (not even close to a certainty), she feels like the sort of supporting player who would get enough "Should Wins" from the press to actually translate into a surprise win.  Emmy skipped Roberts once before for Guest Actress at the peak of her fame to go with a character actress (Debra Monk)-could history be repeating?

And those are my Miniseries/TV Movie predictions.  We'll hit Drama and Comedy later this week before the Thursday announcement, but in the meantime-what do you think will be nominated for Miniseries/TV Movie?  Who are you rooting for?  Share in the comments!

OVP: The Lone Ranger (2013)

Film: The Lone Ranger (2013)
Stars: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Ruth Wilson, Helena Bonham Carter
Director: Gore Verbinski
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Going to a film that you're supposed to hate is like going on a date that your friends are forcing you to attend.  You do it because you have to for some reason-maybe to be polite, maybe because the date is part of the OVP-whatever the reason you begrudgingly shove the DVD into the player or you head to the bar and then, suddenly, something weird happens.  You kind of like it.  That was the case for me when I saw The Lone Ranger for the first time-I genuinely didn't hate it, and was absolutely certain that I would.

This was weird for me because, quite frankly, the film looked awful from the trailers and the reviews agreed with that point.  The film was a giant flop, one that threatens to stall out Johnny Depp's career and has put yet another nail in the Armie Hammer leading man coffin (do you think he and Taylor Kitsch just sit around staring in mirrors wondering how men that are so pretty just can't seem to sell tickets to movies?).

However, I just didn't see the movie everyone else did.  Sure, the film occasionally veers into the cloying or cartoonish-the scenes with Depp as the world's oldest indian are pretty stupid and I thought a couple of the earlier jokes with Depp's character seemed eye-roll worthy, but overall, this is a fun adventure film.  The movie tells the tale of the Lone Ranger's origins, and like all origin stories it is tried-and-true territory, but that's not to say that it isn't fun.  Depp occasionally shows the reason why we loved him so much in movies like Pirates of the Caribbean (for the record, this film is enjoyable-that film is classic Errol Flynn quality moviemaking), and Helena Bonham Carter hasn't been this amusing in a long while.

Even more than the acting, Gore Verbinski has gotten superb at crafting action sequences and keeping the plots of his movies speeding along.  Like Pirates, this movie has a largely paint-by-numbers plot but still keeps the movie going with terrific sight gags and breathtaking action sequences.  The best moment in the film (and surely what won it a Best Visual Effects Oscar nomination) is toward the end of the film with an absolutely jaw-dropping sequence of a train chase through the backdrop of the American West.  In the hands of a lesser director (cough, Michael Bay), we'd simply marvel at the brilliant effects, but Verbinski keeps heart-stopping action and you get caught up in what will happen next.  Verbinski and most directors of large budget films get dealt a tough hand when the audience is aware of exactly what will happen in the end of the movie (the Lone Ranger will surely ride again, with Tonto by his side), but a good director will be able to help you forget about this, which Verbinski does.

The film also spends a good deal of time paying homage to great westerns before it-you frequently see visual allusions to Little Big Man and The Searchers, and the plot is heavily similar to Once Upon a Time in the West, perhaps the greatest western ever made.  This occasionally feels like a bit of a retread, but Hollywood films so frequently borrow from each other (and the films/filmmakers that Verbinski is emulating are so damn good) that it's hard to fault the moviemakers.

Honestly, and I do mean this honestly-did the critics truly just pre-judge this movie and not actually see it, or give it a chance?  Because that's the concern here.  I mean, we're not talking about a Wizard of Oz level film where it is absolutely a masterpiece but the film-reviewing community says it isn't, but I feel like the movie, which was terribly-marketed and probably needed less reliance on its "we're-tired-of-him" star Depp, was judged ahead of time.  The film's stars, director, and producer have all stated that they thought the film was unfairly maligned, and I'm on their side here.  The movie is not great (too repetitive, some comic bits fall-through), but it's hardly a bad movie, and definitely one worth renting if you have the chance.

What were your thoughts-did you think this film was unfairly attacked?  If so, what do you think the cause was?  And do you think it deserved its two Oscar nominations?  Share in the comments!

OVP: Supporting Actress (2010)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2010)

The Nominees Were...

Amy Adams, The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter, The King's Speech

Melissa Leo, The Fighter

Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit

Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom

My Thoughts: Putting together the pictures of the actors that got nominated, more than any other category, points out some of the oddities of the Supporting Actress awards.  It's an extremely bizarre circumstance to put veteran character actors Jacki Weaver and Melissa Leo next to household names like Helena Bonham Carter and Amy Adams, and even weirder, the 14-year-old first-timer Hailee Steinfeld.  That is the fun of the Oscars though-every year a new crop of nominees, every category five people that will forever be linked in the public consciousness.

Best Supporting Actress, far more than any of the other acting categories, tends to like to nominate two actors from the same film.  In fact, had Samantha Barks or Amanda Seyfried made it in for Les Miserables, it would have been five years in a row with two nominees from the same movie.  With The Fighter, Amy Adams was enjoying her second round of competing against a costar (her first being for Doubt against Viola Davis).

Critics and I generally disagreed on this role.  On paper, this is a textbook example of a girlfriend role, a role that even at its most generic is favored with Oscar (literally anyone could have done what Minnie Driver did in Good Will Hunting, for example).  The question with a stock role becomes how much does the actress rise above it, and here is where I disagree with the consensus.  Most of the Oscar pundits out there felt that she was doing something sweeping and mesmerizing here, but all I could see was the stock, stand-by-your-man even when you have to leave for a few scenes character.  Yes, there are occasionally sparks-I love the way she acts when Mark Wahlberg is initially trying to pick her up, and the way that she handles his ever multiplying sisters, but as the film becomes more generic and traditional, she loses her speed and starts to become generic and traditional as well.  Adams is an actress that generally hits either home runs (Junebug) or strike outs (On the Road), and this seems to be just her getting on base.  It hits, but it doesn't do much more than that.

Her costar, however, gets into the end zone (I'm aware that I'm mixing sports metaphors, but this is an Oscar blog, not ESPN-what do you expect?).  Melissa Leo just two years prior upset to score an Oscar nomination that put her next to Meryl Streep, Angelina Jolie, and Kate Winslet.  With this surprise nomination follow-up (proving you never can tell who will be the one-and-done nominees and who will be back for seconds), she made another huge impression.  I love the way that her Alice can fly off the handle and manipulate a room by pretending not to know what's going on; that's the proclamation of the shrewd-pretending to know what she doesn't.  She can turn her charm on-and-off, so much so that you can't tell whether she loves her son or how her son makes her feel.  Leo has gotten a boatload of work since winning this Oscar, but I'm hoping that someday someone gives her something once again worthy of her-despite being a late-bloomer, I maintain she's one of the best actors of her generation, and this was just another brilliant installment in her career.

Helena Bonham Carter, on the other hand, probably needs to get a little choosier with her scripts.  Unlike Leo, she's got the credits to land great gigs with Grade A directors, and she even gets top billing.  However, since her Merchant Ivory days stopped, she's been intent on playing clown-makeup villains in Tim Burton films and trying her hand at musicals (neither of these are her strong suit).  She's best when she's trading on that classically beautiful face in period pieces, even if The King's Speech may seem otherwise.  The problem with her role in this film is that she has little to nothing to do.  This is the Colin and Geoffrey show-they're Groucho and Harpo and she's stuck playing Zeppo.  This isn't to say that she doesn't get a one-liner every now and again, but in a category known for scene-stealing, making a couple of off-the-cuff asides does not qualify as scene-stealing, nor does it qualify as great acting.  Bonham Carter needs heartbreak, needs angst, needs something to drive her through to a good performance, and the role of Queen Elizabeth gives her none.

Jacki Weaver pulled a Melissa Leo this past year and ended up getting a surprise second nomination (and is apparently set to star in a CBS sitcom as sexy Jake Lacy's mom, so I'm on-board).  Her first was a tough get (you know that Mila Kunis was right behind her), but it was completely earned.  Her Smurf is a cunning, calculating mother that knows exactly where she's headed.  She has her favorite children, she knows how the game is played, and she thrives off of not pulling out her trump card too often.  It is only toward the end of the film that we see her emerge, the true genius in this criminal operation, and strive off of the baser need to survive.  It is during these scenes that Weaver uses everything at her disposal, including that Cheshire Cat grin, to make the characters on-screen squirm and the audience churn uncomfortably in the same we did when faced with Mrs. Danvers or Noah Cross.  It's not just the line delivery on "you've done some bad things sweetie."  It's also the way she says it with a wide smile.

The final nominee is Hailee Steinfeld, an actress who unlike the other four nabbed her Oscar nomination extremely early in her career.  I always wonder what adult actors in Hollywood think of child stars like Steinfeld or Abigail Breslin or Saoirse Ronan or Quvenzhane Wallis.  Are they jealous of their quick and somewhat inexplicable fame, or do they pity them, knowing that for every Jodie Foster there's a dozen Corey Haim's?  This thought has nothing to do with her performance, but it is something to ponder.

Her performance is solid, though calling it supporting is about as far as you can stretch the imagination-she's in nearly every scene, and is in more of her movie than leading nominee Annette Bening is in hers (had Mila Kunis gotten in instead of Steinfeld, this would have been 5/5 on true supporting performances).  She has great repoire with Jeff Bridges, and gets better as the film goes along-the Coen Brothers know how to get solid performances out of unconventional performers, and as the film goes and she gets deeper and deeper into the chase for her father's killer, her performance lifts.  It never hits the heights of Weaver or Leo, but that's batting in a league no one should be expected to be performing at, even if you're an Oscar nominee.  For Steinfeld, her pluck, guts, and solid charm carry her through, and if you confuse it for great acting, you could be forgiven (but it's not quite at that level).

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes managed to make room for Mila Kunis (side note-while Kunis wasn't great by a long shot, she's such a fun celebrity and has such potential that I wish she had landed a nomination, if only because she would have gotten better parts; also of the six real contenders, she was better than Bonham Carter, Adams, and probably Steinfeld), and skipped Steinfeld.  The trophy, though, was all about Leo.  The SAG Awards also gave Leo their big trophy, but instead skipped Jacki Weaver (again, favoring Mila Kunis).  It was the BAFTA Awards, however, that decided to shake things up quite a lot-only Adams and Bonham Carter were included, with Made in Dagenham's Miranda Richardson, Another Year's Lesley Manville, and Black Swan's crazy mother Barbara Hershey all getting citations.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: Like Supporting Actor, there are a few candidates I'd clearly want to cut, and thinking back on it, there are two rather easy nominees I'd want to include amongst the actual lineup.  The first would be Dale Dickey in Winter's Bone.  In a film that has its share of terrifying creations, none is quite as nerve-wracking as Dickey-she's so confident in this performance, and her character is exactly the type where you can't tell how far she'll go-will she kill someone on-screen, or is she just extremely rough around the edges?  The second, and even better prospect was Lesley Manville, whose drunk, lonely middle-aged woman in Another Year was so beautiful, and I partially think that she got skipped over because no one was quite sure if she should be in lead or supporting.  I tend to favor supporting, and she easily should have replaced her fellow countrywoman Helena Bonham Carter.

Oscar's Choice: This was the only race that was considered somewhat close headed into Oscar night, with Leo's bold (some would say tacky) campaign putting her under scrutiny.  Had the balloting taken place a couple of weeks later, I think we would have seen Steinfeld upset in a "let's give True Grit something" sort of campaign, but Leo lucked out by getting her bad press later in the season.

My Choice: If you can't tell, it's between Weaver and Leo, and I'm going to go with Weaver, who has the more memorable character and the bigger surprise factor.  I will say that Melissa Leo is probably my second favorite of all of the nominees in every category, so she should take pride that she could have won Best Actress from me, but there's no beating Weaver in Animal Kingdom-one for the ages.  Steinfeld, Adams, and Bonham Carter bring up the rear.

There you have our five supporting ladies-were you on the Academy's side with Leo or my side with Weaver (or did you turn to one of the other three?).  Do you also have trouble getting what was so special about Adams work in The Fighter?  And will Mila Kunis ever come this close to Oscar again?

Also in 2010: Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Film, Animated Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2010

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2011

OVP: Costume (2010)

OVP: Best Costume (2010)

The Nominees Were...

Colleen Atwood, Alice in Wonderland

Antonella Cannarozzi, I Am Love

Jenny Beaven, The King's Speech

Sandy Powell, The Tempest

Mary Zophres, True Grit

My Thoughts: Oh, you knew at some point I'd be forced to put opposing pictures of Helena Bonham Carter, considering how her two films dominated the Oscars in 2010, so I figured it would be most appropriate here, when you have two queens, steeped in their regalia, as the top contenders.

It's hard to say which costumes Bonham Carter would be more at home wearing.  The King's Speech, after all, speaks quite a bit to her roots.  The costumes on display in that film hearken her Merchant Ivory past, though they're a tad later chronologically than those wore in A Room with a View.  One sort of suspects that the Costume branch of 2010 was up a crick with only one significant period film, usually their favorite, to fall back upon, and so this nomination was a gimme even though there's a very "been there, done that" sort of attitude with the costumes.  They are subtle, unlike Atwood's, but they meld almost too far into the background.  I started to suspect that perhaps Beaven, who was in fact Merchant Ivory's go-to designer and won an Oscar for her work with Bonham Carter in A Room with a View may have picked up some of her old designs and pushed them through here, at least that's how it appeared.  All-in-all, fine, but not exciting.

Colleen Atwood's work is rarely what you'd call old-fashioned, but her work in Alice left something to be desired.  She of course has a wide (some would say gaudy or at least far too neon) color palette to be working with, but again, there's an ostentatious nature to this work that left me feeling more in a ghastly rather than amazed mood.  Bonham Carter's queen, Depp's ragamuffin Mad Hatter, Anne Hathaway's atrocious sugar-y look all seem overbaked and overdone.  She can still amaze (I love some of the dresses that Mia Wasikowska dons, as well as her battle armor), but I know she can do better, and, more importantly for the OVP, Oscar definitely had stronger choices in 2010.

One of those choices is Atwood's partner in crime Sandy Powell.  Interesting fact-Powell and Atwood have competed against each other six times at the Oscars, and every time that it's happened one or the other has won.  There has never been a year where one hasn't won without the other being nominated, and in the years where they both were nominated, no one has beaten them both (though Alexandra Byrne had to have gotten very, very close).  Either way, if you forced me to choose, Powell and her fine meld of the modern and the classical generally are my favorite of the two, and in 2010, despite Atwood being one of the Oscar frontrunners and Powell getting in based on it being a weak year and perhaps a little because of the streak (he said with an awards-loving giggle), I still favor Powell.

The Tempest, which we just discussed yesterday, is not a good movie, and perhaps is even a lesser film than Alice (it's a hard toss between two very different flicks), but the Costume work in it is lovely.  Powell knows how to sell a signature look, and I loved the combination gown/tunic that Helen Mirren is wearing, covered in a swath of blues, teals, and greens showing her connection with the sea.  The men as well get colorful, rich wears and we even get to see a scene where the clothes, hung on a line, are shown as if it's a fashion show within the movie.  In a film that thrives on the natural melding of colors (think of all of the whites, blues, burgundies, and plums that populate the rock-addled sequences), Powell creates a collection that stimulates but doesn't distract the eye.

Mary Zophres is the only one of the designers to be a bit hampered by dressing men, rather than women.  Men onscreen, unless you have the advantage of dressing during Elizabethen times or backstage at a drag show, don't have as many choices to work with as you do with women.  There's of course our young supporting actress, but unlike her red carpet presence (remember how Hailee Steinfeld always ended up on the best-dressed list?), she's fairly limited in her apparel here.  I have to say that while I admire the authenticity (notice how Steinfeld's clothing is slightly too large for her), I'm not wowed here.  I know that part of a costume designer's job is to make sure that the clothing fits the film, but when you're giving out an Oscar, you need more than that: you need it to match the movie and be a visual stunner.  Sandy Powell does that, Mary Zophres doesn't get there.

Antonella Cannarozzi also does it.  Her work in the underrated (it was critically-acclaimed, but not enough people saw it, so I'm going with underrated) I Am Love has a couple things going for it that Powell also had: both a rich color palette (both oddly have the city of Milan featuring heavily in their plots, now that I think about it) and an iconic fashion muse (for Powell it's Mirren and for Cannarozzi, the sublime Tilda).  Cannarozzi knows how to make Swinton (and the rest of the cast, but let's be honest, you're spending every second focusing on Tilda) look effortlessly flawless.  Look at the cuts of the gowns.  You half feel like you're in an issue of Vogue, except the fashion doesn't go provocative or hyper-modern, but instead stays clean and flawless.  It's as if the world has been populated by Dior and Valentino and a dozen other similarly-minded designers.  More than Sex and the City and its sea of shoes, this is the fashion world that we are desperate to live in (but like Sex and the City, you can't afford it).  In a film that's a beautiful triumph, Cannarozzi's designs may be the crowning achievement.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Costume Designers Guild splits its categories into Fantasy, Contemporary, and Period, so we've got a lot to cover.  In Fantasy, Alice was the victorious one, beating out The Tempest and the skintight jump suits of Tron: Legacy, which missed out with Oscar (though getting to do Garrett Hedlund's inseam is probably a far greater reward).  For contemporary, none of the films went on to succeed with Oscar (the Academy, even in a year short on supply, favors time travel for Costume work), but chose everything from the hooded sweatshirts (The Social Network), tailored suits (Inception), more expensive tailored suits (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps), and risque costumes (Burlesque) before finally deciding on the tutus of Black Swan.  And finally, for Oscar's favorite category, Period, they chose The King's Speech (the victor), True Grit, and (making all of us feel old by considering the 1990's period) The Fighter.  The BAFTA Awards chose to give Atwood their prize as well, nominating The King's Speech and True Grit to go with the unique Black Swan and Made in Dagenham, one of the few other period offerings of the year.  Overall, I think that sixth place was probably a race between Black Swan (which was accompanied by quite a bit of controversy over who actually did the designs, which probably cost Amy Westcott her first Oscar nomination) and Made in Dagenham, and considering this branch's relative disregard for Box Office (they regularly nominate films that have flopped), my gut says it was Dagenham that was the odd film out.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Westcott may have been embroiled in a scandal at the time, but I still think that she should have been included.  Her color choices with Lily and especially Nina in the film were wonderful, and in addition to the Makeup work in the film (which should have won), Westcott should have gotten a nomination to go with the film's considerable nominations haul.

Oscar's Choice: In a year that I've already pointed out wasn't the greatest, I suspect this was a tussle between Atwood and Beaven, with the huge girth of clothing in Alice just slightly taking out the sweep of The King's Speech.

My Choice: Though I admired what Sandy Powell did in The Tempest, once again I'm going to give her second place as Cannarozzi's work in I Am Love is too epic and breathtaking to ignore.  After these two, I'd go with Beaven, Atwood, and Sophres bringing up the rear.

After that designer marveling, if you have thoughts to share, please do.  Tell me: what was your favorite of the five nominees?  Which wardrobe would you most like in your closet?  And if given the choice to design, would it be Helen Mirren, Tilda Swinton, or Helena Bonham Carter whom you'd most want to be your muse?

Also in 2010: Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2010

Past Best Costume Contests: 2011

OVP: Les Miserables (2012)

Film: Les Miserables (2012)
Stars: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Eddie Redmayne, Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks
Director: Tom Hooper
Oscar History: 8 nominations/3 wins (Best Picture, Makeup*, Actor-Hugh Jackman, Supporting Actress-Anne Hathaway*, Original Song-"Suddenly," Sound Mixing*, Art Direction, Costume)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I will start with the confession that multiple reviewers seem to be sharing about this film, in that I've never seen this musical either on stage or on a taped version on PBS.  I have received a copy of the book for Christmas, but have not had the chance to read it, primarily because it's 1500-pages long and that's not going to happen in the course of a week.  Sure, I knew a couple of the songs-I do write recaps of Glee, so I knew a couple, and I don't live under a rock, so I know of Susan Boyle's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream."  But what I have to say is that I don't have a built in love for the musical-I had to pay attention to learn character's names, I did not sing along to "Do You Hear the People Sing," in fact the only person I know for certain was in the original Broadway run of the show is Judy Kuhn (and I'm a bit of a Broadway nerd, though this is clearly a blind spot).  So I went in with blinders on and as few preconceptions as I could muster.

(Spoilers Ahead) For those of you, who like me didn't know the story, it's obviously based on the novel by Victor Hugo and the musical by Schonberg/Kretzmer.  It tells the story of a man named Jean Valjean (Jackman) who went to prison for twenty years for stealing a loaf of bread for his sister's son during early 19th Century France.  Valjean tries to steal from a church, and instead of being re-incarcerated, he is given silver to start a new life as an honest man.  This would go well (he becomes an employer of the poor, and makes an honest and rather comfortable life for himself), if not for Inspector Javert (Crowe) spending decades trying to pursue him and re-arrest him for breaking his parole.

The film, of course, is also about the after-effects of the French Revolution, and when France briefly returned to a monarchy, and the people uprising against the King and nobility.  This features primarily in the second half of the film, where thanks to the death of one his employees, a woman turned to prostitution named Fantine (Hathaway), Valjean is now the caretaker of a young woman named Cosette (as an adult, played by Seyfried), who has fallen in love with a young revolutionary (Redmayne).  All the while, Valjean is still being pursued by Javert, who is aging far better than Valjean, for the record (the makeup team seemed to spend all of their time on Jackman, it seems, and completely disregarded Crowe, who just seems to have had his temples greyed).  The revolution, unsuccessful as it was, happens, and multiple characters die (including Valjean and Javert), and the lovers are reunited, and in true Broadway fashion, all of the characters unite once more on the stage...err screen, at the end of the film to sing the final reprisal.  It's the sort of epic scale moment in a film that doesn't often happen, and seemed to be more en vogue in the 1990's, but it clearly pays off, as it's one of the few films that I've seen that people actually applauded at the end (the last time I remember that happening was Milk four years ago, and that was in a primarily gay audience).  All of this is to say that anyone who disregards this film from being crowned the 85th Best Picture in favor of darker fare like Zero Dark Thirty or historical biopics like Argo or Lincoln does so at their own peril.

But what did I think of it, as this film has truly divided critics, and a lot of critics that I love and often agree with have had wildly dissimilar reactions?  This is probably because, to paraphrase the most annoying cliche that Scott Hamilton throws out every Olympics, "when the film is good, it's really good, but when it's bad, it's awful' (he always says something hackneyed like that-isn't there someone better at skating announcing that NBC could hire?...but I digress).

The film has many high points, as the score is clearly exceptional, and the cast is about as pedigreed as you get.  While there are a couple of roles I would have recast or retrained (we'll get to that below), the fact that Hooper hired stage pro's who are unknown to most audiences like Aaron Tveit and Samantha Barks to work alongside movie stars like Hathaway and Seyfried was an absolutely brilliant decision.  I loved the live-singing.  Even when it didn't pay off, it still was wildly refreshing-after the last few years of lip-synching and auto-tuning everything to death, the live-singing gave it a truly fresh breath, as if you were at a live stage rather than just sitting in a darkened theater.  And for anyone who complains about "too much singing"-get over it, it's a musical, people are going to sing.

I'll also say that I think the sets were divine-this film is inevitably going to be nominated for Best Art Direction, and since the greatest limitation that Broadway has is its finite space in terms of the sets, it was rather awe-inspiring to see the film lit up with a multitude of churches and French buildings and some masterful matte painting.

The film had some exceptional, some mediocre, and some in-between performances, and so we'll start out with some of the best performances.  Anne Hathaway has been sucking up all of the oxygen in the Best Supporting Actress race, and seems almost assured of a trophy there, and there's reason behind that.  Though she only is on-screen for approximately twenty minutes (that's a guess, not exact, but it's not a long time and it's very front-loaded-she is largely absent for most of the second half of the movie), she sells every second she gets, and her "I Dreamed a Dream" is the equivalent of Jennifer Hudson's "And I Am Telling You," and just like Ms. Hudson took her Oscar for that song, I suspect that Anne Hathaway will follow in her footsteps and win here.  Hathaway is for some reason a divisive actress (and seems to be the heir apparent to Liza Minnelli's throne, what with those pipes and her joie de vivre about everything and everyone), but she's an entertainer of the highest order, and though I don't think she should slam dunk win the Oscar for this role (there are others this year that are her equal, and she doesn't quite hit the perfection that, say, Catherine Zeta-Jones did a decade ago), she's a deserving contender, and anyone saying otherwise just has sour grapes or should blame that Oscars on James Franco.

Hathaway is not alone at the top of the heap of this film, though, as the biggest surprise coming out of the movie was the remarkable Eddie Redmayne.  Redmayne was sensational as the romantic, aristocrat-turned-revolutionary Marius, who falls for Cosette, but is also loved by Eponine (Barks).  Redmayne, who won a Tony Award for Red, has a spectacular tenor voice, and manages to outdo even the human perfection that is Aaron Tveit onscreen.  His "Empty Chairs" number was divine, and I welled up during his duets with both Tveit and Seyfried.  I'm not sure that there is a lot of musical work onscreen for a man with cheekbones like a Michelangelo painting and a voice like a dove playing a cornet, but casting directors take note-hire Eddie Redmayne if you want to get the audience to "ooh" and "ahh."

Though they aren't quite of the same muster as Hathaway and Redmayne, Samantha Barks and Aaron Tveit are both excellent-in-voice, fine-in-acting as the doomed Eponine and Enjolras.  Barks, who is I believe the only cast member to have played this role on stage, sells her "On My Own" with a confidence that says "I beat both Lea Michele and Taylor Swift for this role, so I'm going to take advantage and wow everyone in the audience," but the rest of the film she's a bit overshadowed by the distracting brilliance of Redmayne and the haunted shadow of the other doomed lady of the film, Hathaway.  Also, can I just say how thankful I am they didn't cast Taylor Swift here, who would have been wildly out-of-place, and likely would have sunk that love triangle-having an unknown to romance Redmayne against the lovely Seyfried was a far better solution.  Tveit, who I've seen on Broadway and is sooooo handsome and has a beautiful voice, is strong, though his Enjolras was in some desperate need of a character arch, and he didn't take full advantage of the emotional range of the character, in my opinion.  His "Red and Black" is brilliant, though.  With both of these actors, I'm hoping that Hollywood takes note, and hires them for more work, as I'm intrigued and want more.

Amanda Seyfried is somewhere in the middle of the roles.  I feel like her character could have been considerably expanded (she oddly doesn't get her own solo number), but I will admit to being a huge fan of her in general-when she gets the material, she and her bewitching eyes take advantage, but against the more interesting characters of Eponine and Fantine, she just can't compete.

All right, so now if you're one of the film's haters, it's time to start reading and stop gagging on the gushing (that would be a bit of a tongue twister out-loud-you should try it).  The two most notable faults, and the ones that people are most consistently complaining about, are the shoddy camerawork and Russell Crowe.  The camerawork is the more unexpected complaint, but it's definitely deserved.  I'm not sure if the editor, the cinematographer, or Hooper himself is most to blame, but I'm throwing it at all three (Academy, since you're bound to nominate all three out of habit, please at least consider this when you're handing out the actual trophies).  There are far too many close-ups, too many odd shots from the floor-there is more to the cinema than giant close-ups of people's faces, and while it works with Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream," it gets very old when they do it for everyone.

Crowe, of course, was the biggest eyebrow-raiser when they announced the cast, and while critics are too-quick to dismiss him as not being able to sing (he clearly can hold a note), this is not his style, and he seems wildly out-of-place throughout the entire movie.  Considering that they cast Tveit and Barks in rather significant roles without much fame, and that they had both the wildly successful musical and Jackman as their safety nets, it's a pity they didn't mine Broadway for a Norm Lewis or a Norbert Leo Butz or a Michael Cerveris to try and play the role of Javert-someone who could sell the role and also surprise audiences by being so extraordinary.  By casting Crowe instead, the producers have an easy target for the critics who always hate musicals (there are some prominent ones, and if you follow the Oscar game, you know who they are), and likely cheated themselves out of an Oscar nomination, as Javert in the right hands could be a great launching pad for a nod.

I'm also so over Sacha Baron Cohen (who is clearly talented, but so reliant on ticks and gimicks in his acting that I sort of wish that performance art was more popular, as that is probably far more his thing), and wish that Helena Bonham Carter (who is a delightful screen presence usually) would steer clear of musicals, considering her vocal range is limited at best.  Their mugging, while probably too integral to the plot of the film to completely throw out, is so routine that it's a gigantic yawn in the second half, and you want to say "get off the screen" whenever they are not essential to the film.  Also, before I get to the end of this review, I do want to question why Gavroche sounds like an extra from Oliver Twist when he is running around the streets of Paris.  I get that they didn't want to give everyone a Parisian accent, but the British kid seems completely out-of-place (anyone super familiar with the book, if the child for some reason is supposed to be British, let me know).

Finally, I want to address the actor I've clearly been avoiding, Hugh Jackman.  Jackman is not an actor that I have ever gravitated toward.  I can appreciate him-he's clearly got chops as a singer, loves to entertain, and has biceps the size of my head, which we can all admire.  However, while Hathaway gains so much from live-singing, Jackman loses quite a bit.  His voice gets thin and pitchy during some of the "talking/singing" portions of the musical, and whether this is the musical director's fault or Jackman's, I'm not sure, but he doesn't seem to crescendo at the right moments.  He's going to be nominated for an Oscar for this, and I suspect it's because he's a genuinely nice guy and people have wanted him to get a great breakout role for a while now (not to mention that someone needs to be a first-time nominee this year, and he's the most likely bet), but he shouldn't win, and really, he shouldn't be nominated.  There's nothing extraordinary about this performance, and while he should probably still pursue musicals, he desperately needs a vocal coach to teach him to stay on key.

And so, after all that, I'm reluctant to give a ranking, because I know my opinion of such a gigantic movie is still being formed.  I'm going with a safe 4/5 stars, but I know that's not where this will stay-it could go to 5/5 stars if my memory stays on Marius and Fantine and the epic scale Hooper attains, or it could move down to 3/5 stars if I can't quite get over the Jackman and Crowe of it all.  But now I shall let you share your thoughts-what did you think of Les Miz, and for those familiar, how does it rank alongside the stage version or the book?  And also, if I don't get another post in before then-Happy New Year!