Rate & Discuss
Rate & Discuss
I gave it a 3 because I do like the music and Hathaway's big scene lived up to the hype. The rest is garish, hideous crap with dreadful makeup and production design punctuated by ugly green screen work and some very odd shot compositions occasionally freed only by hokey virtual camera work. I just didn't get what Hooper was going for at all and the cast was very underwhelming for me.
Hmm, 3 or 4? It's funny because I thought the criticisms of Hooper would be overstated, but they're not, he fucked this up. I'll go with 4 out of sympathy because others appeared to be making worthy efforts but were utterly wasted because of Hooper's incompetence.
I'll give it a 7. It's the bottom of the barrel for me of the nominees this year, but I'm a huge fan of [good] musicals, and this one isn't terrible, so I can't let myself hate it, even with all of its obnoxious flaws. Redmayne should have easily been nominated, and it's a shame he's overlooked in the same cast for the miscast Jackman and the hyperventilating Hathaway.
6. A huge meh. I can't even muster enough hate for it, even though Jackson was bad and Crowe was god-awful.
The Beautiful and Talented Godgend Se˝or El Diablo Blanchitto
Returning to Hollywood with a Vengeance in 2013
Showcases the best AND worst of Tom Hooper simultaneously.
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION - INOCA 2012
I am a huge fan of the musical. I gave it a 7, because I am so glad this is a semi-decent representation of the play. Hooper is completely out of his league with technique, but manages to tell the story quite well.
I rounded down because of McYouKnowWho.
"Keep yoah paint outta my pahhking spot aaaahhhht depaaahhhhhtment!!!"
A 5. A few good songs and great performances by Hathaway and Redmayne are about the only positive things this has to offer, but it's still reasonably powerful occasionally.
Yeah - a 5. Hooper is a one-trick pony and this was at times fitting but mostly dull. Maybe a four?
So. I did actually love this - but that doesn't make it great or anything. The good stuff, of course, is from the source material, both the timeless novel and the amazing musical, and the acting was great all around, although I will say that Jackman's perf hasn't aged well, but I dunno, I still kinda like it. Hathaway is amazing and I also nominated Redmayne while Barks is my #7. The singing, well, Jackman overdid it at times and HBC could have been better, but whatever, all good. Crowe's voice is good but doesn't fit here at all, and he fails miserably with "Stars".
The real problem is Tom Hooper. Don't interpret this as "without Hooper this would be great", because it's not what I mean. He obviously brough the film up to the level it is - he's an amazing actors' director, first and foremost, and there are some great choices and scenes there - the "plot-less" songs such as "I Dreamed a Dream", "Master of the House" and "On My Own" and so on are directed very well.
But generally, his directed is just very heavy-handed. As with The King's Speech, he doesn't trust the audience to be involved emotionally without the horrid dark visual style and 'intense' close-ups and dutch angles, which only come off as unnecessary messing with the musical itself. A more assured director that handled this with more restraint would've been a better choice.
But at the end, it kinda doeesn't matter. I love the movie, as I always knew I would, I guess (I do have a thing for this sort of films). 8.
I know I've got a big ego, I really don't know why it's such a big deal, though.
3.5/10, which I rounded down to 3
Pretty much the definition of a fiasco. Hooper fails his material in every way he can except coaching the actor's performances. It's just a pity that I could not have cared less about any character's fate after having to sit through his leaden, turgid adaptation.
An epic of intense emotions.
A 2. Horrid movie. :throwsup:
"Now my life is sweet like cinnamon..."