'Les Miserables'. What in the world did I think of this film? First I will say I think I built this film up a tad bit too much having heard a couple Broadway performers sing a couple songs based on the story. The performers were absolutely amazing and brought real emotion into their voices, but did the film live up to the expectations I built? No. Am I saying it failed? No.First I will dig into the lead performances. The film is carried by 2 men, Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush. Liam Neeson proves again to be a superior actor in Hollywood and it is a wonder why and how he isn't in better films than those he stars in. Neeson really does take the workload of the film on his own back from start to finish. His emotional moments are shared with his viewers, his eyes provide enough emotional element to carry any scene without dialogue while we are fully aware of what he is enduring.
The one big problem with Neeson should probably have the blame cast onto the director, Bille August. The problem is that Neeson doesn't appear to age at all in the film, from the beginning to the end he remains to appear the same age while the film feels to have moved about 30 years or more.
The second, and only other better than good performer in the film is Geoffrey Rush, and again like Neeson, is able to reveal his passions in just his eyes while we also are aware of his mind. The performance by Rush is absolutely and fully satisfying. I wouldn't place him on the same categorical shelf as Neeson as an actor in this film, but he does indeed satisfy.
Just like Neeson, there is also a problem, and the problem is in the end. I do not want to give away the ending or reveal any spoilers because the film should be enjoyed by those who have not seen it without tampering or possibly ruining the build. I am unfamiliar with the story as it is written and am not sure how accurate the ending is portrayed in the film, but I didn't feel the actions of Rush's character were believable and understood by the story that was told specifically in the film. Maybe it was just me, but I didn't pull from it an obvious reason.
I really don't want to talk about Uma Thurman, like I don't want to talk about anyone else in the film. Thurman's performance can be summed up in 3 words, "mediocre at best". The other actress, who plays the young girl, Cosette, portrays a snobby teenager who I think we have all come in counter with in middle school. I really wasn't convinced in her performance than she was raised in the time which was claimed. The sets were good, sometimes great, but its too bad we rarely got 2 key elements accomplished well in the same scene. For example, it was either great imagery OR great performance.
The film had moments of good and great costumes, while others were just terrible. For a quick example of terrible, the guards who appear in all portions of the film have unrealistically clean and brand new outfits. I would like to see a Cohen brothers' take on this film as they have a much keener eye for realistic costume.
If I were to stop the film half way and rate the film based upon what i had been given so far, I would rate it about a 9/10. As the film continued, the second half dropped off and I would find myself rating it around a 6.5/10. As soon as Neeson arrives at the tavern (again, don't want to reveal key elements) after a confrontation with Rush, the story drops. The film had been up to that point carried almost entirely by both Neeson and Rush, but after this point, other actors start invading the screen with mild or worse performances. The closer to the ending of the film I got, the more disinterested I became.
Overall the story was phenomenal, but I just wasn't convinced the second half of this director's storytelling was correctly interpreted.
When the film really wants you to feel the emotions of the story, you feel them.
"Les Miserable"
7/10
7/10
