Les Misérables

I go into this blind, although not blindfolded (there’s a thought). I have no idea about the story, as I haven’t seen either the musical, any of the previous film versions or read Victor Hugo's book. Naturally I knew there was going to be a lot of singing in it or rather, as is often the case, elongated talking. Something I’ve experienced before, the awful Sweeney Todd springs to mind, but that is often better than sitting through a singing frenzy, like say Evita. OMG I’ve done so many musicals, I sound like an expert.

Set in post first Revolution France, the film tells the story of prisoner 24601 Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) who stole a piece of bread and got sent to do hard labour for 19 years. Well, it turned into 19 years after several escape attempts. He is then released on parole which he breaks. He then steals from the only man who wants to help him, a priest. He gets caught but the priest forgives him, tells him to keep his ill gotten gains, as long as he makes something of his life. We fast-forward in time and I reach for Wikipedia, I’m confused already because Hugh Jackman doesn’t look like Hugh Jackman.

That ‘making something of his life’ translates to taking in Anne Hathaway, which is way beyond the call of duty even for an ex-convict. Give that man a royal pardon please but no, he is set to be constantly hounded for the rest of his life by a rather jobsworth of a police inspector called Javert (Russell Crowe).

Hathaway’s character Fantine gets sacked from her job for reasons I didn't fully understand, then sells not only the desirable bits of her body but also her hair and teeth to feed her child. The really odd thing is that someone wanted to buy these. Becoming a prostitute for money I can understand, that's a service that sells, but hair and teeth? Hmmm. Is this just an excuse to get a teeth pulling scene in, which is a good analogy... Meanwhile I’m still trying to work out why the supposedly reformed Valjean was hanging around the red light district in the first place.

Thankfully within minutes of being on screen Hathaway has died, again not quite sure of what, without us even finding out anything of note about her. With her dying on his watch, Valjean’s task to make something of his life is already looking a bit ropey. This is why I guess he decided to take care of Fantine’s daughter Cosette.

Then we’re into the lesser known second French Revolution. Which I’m sure there must have been more to than some students piling a load of furniture up in a side street whilst they were between lecturers. Amongst them, and clearly lost in France, is a little street urchin kid with a worryingly broad Cockney accent.

Mid-Revolution the rather feeble Marius (Eddie Redmayne) sees Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and instantly falls in love. They don’t actually speak, words are not necessary. Unbelievably Marius hasn’t noticed the far more gorgeous female beside him, her friend and his, Éponine (Samantha Barks). Who would opt for the incredibly plain Cosette over her, not me. It can’t be because of her personality because; well they still haven’t spoken to each other. No wonder Éponine is so upset. Forget him love, he’s into precious, boring, rich girls who wouldn’t be seen dead on the frontline, you’re too good for him girl.

Valjean is initially worried Marius is going to take his adopted Daughter away from him, for about twenty seconds that is, then clearly he realises how expensive Daughters are and changes his mind. Suddenly he is so intent on getting her married off that he carries the now wounded Marius through the sewers to safety.

Only to come up against the mad singing policeman again. Finally, having been shown mercy himself several times, Javert has a moment of enlightenment and lets them go. Then promptly throws himself off a bridge, still singing. You couldn’t make it up. Well clearly someone did, didn’t they Mr Hugo but I guess if you’d précised your own book, which clocks in at 57 hour 51 minutes on audiobook (I checked), you’d have perhaps done it a bit differently.

Moments later, Valjean dies too, not that we even knew he was ill and that’s the problem really. We don’t know much at all. Les Mis isn’t into character development and therefore we know jack all about everyone.

It’s a shame because I got the impression there was a really good story in there somewhere fighting to get out but there was so much plot missing that it simply didn’t make any sense. Clearly they expected people to know the story and/or had seen the musical. It's has, however, made me want to see one of the film versions (with no singing obviously) to find out more.

Still, it wasn’t as bad as I expected and although lightweight, it was broadly entertaining. Cast wise, my expectations of Russell Crowe were that low, I actually thought he did alright. Hugh Jackman was ok too, while Anne Hathaway was, as you’d expect, distinctly average. Helena Bonham-Carter was as brilliantly maniacal as ever and along with Sacha Baron Cohen brightened up the whole affair with their comical supporting roles. Ah Corgette, how we laughed. 

Both have musical previous of course, in the aforementioned Sweeney Todd and are much better in this. Meanwhile Eddie Redmayne looked simply lost, Amanda Seyfried was, shall we say, very hard on the ears and Samantha Barks, well, I’ll have nothing said against her.Cue gratuitous photo.

Singing wise, the men sang low which worked, the women sang high, which generally didn't. The street urchin child showed them all how to do it, albeit in Cockney. There were also a few actors who had done the stage show, good on you Sammy, and you could tell.

Clearly Les Misérables is a film you’ll either love or hate. If you aren't a fan of musicals, skip it. It’s a total mystery to me as to why the score has been such a hit. If you are a fan of a decent plot, err, I would definitely skip it too.

Overall I feel rather proud that I got through it and if they were selling ‘I survived Les Misérables’ t-shirts outside, I would have bought one.

Rachel Getting Married

'Rachel Getting Married' was a film I was looking forward to because on paper it sounded so promising. Take a typical dull family wedding and toss in the hand grenade of a young, unstable female who also happens to be a drug addict, an alcoholic and the sister of the bride, stir well, then stand back and watch the fireworks but...

Of course, it would have been hard for the estranged sister, Kym (Anne Hathaway), to throw a spanner in the workings of this affluent, privileged family from Connecticut because it was already adequately dysfunctional without her intervention.

Kym is back from a spell in rehab and returns home for her sister Rachel's (Rosemarie Dewitt) wedding. All the family's friends and relations have gathered for a whole weekend of eating, drinking, music and vomit inducing declarations of love for each other. That is when they aren't arguing. Director Jonathan Demme invites us to this wedding but just as you often wish you could, when you're invited to a real one, this invite should have been declined. It's like being forced to watch someone else's wedding video. It's even filmed like a home movie, with a hand held camera.



Honestly, you don't want to be there. They have a pre-wedding 'rehearsal dinner' that lasts longer and has more excruciating speeches than most of the worst weddings you've ever been to. Problem is we have to sit through it twice because they do it all again the next day during the wedding itself, which is the most culturally diverse wedding you'll ever see, it ticks every race and religion box on any council application form.

Other people's weddings are usually boring, that is until something 'happens' and not enough happens in this. You think go on Kym, kick some ass, burn the whole place down but it doesn't get that exciting. There's far too much love and hugging for my liking, as well as the arguing. Where was the misery I was expecting?

You just want the wedding all over, so that you can get back to the story, but it never works out that way, there's always another speech just around the corner.

We learn little about Kym, who looks like she's had a colourful past, a seriously baggage laden one but little is elaborated on. When the film starts, she appears clean of drugs and sober, so you can't even reconcile her as an addict. One of her first moves is to get off with the best man, whom she also met at a rehab meeting and I wonder at one stage if she'll kick things off by jumping the groom but no, that would be far too interesting.

Because we learn little about her, there's no reason to like her, feel sympathy for her or even really to hate her. The same can be said of the other characters, who pretty much all come over as unlikeable and self absorbed. It makes you wonder why the groom, a seemingly nice guy called Sidney, wants to have anything to do with them.



Then there's the arguing, two bloody hours of it, which never seems to lead anywhere. Interestingly, Rachel is about to become a doctor of psychology, but she seems to have no insight into the psychology of her own family.

Debra Winger plays the sisters' equally estranged mother, who has chosen to turn her back on the family and to block out her guilt over the death of their youngest child, Ethan. Ethan died whilst in Kym's care, in a car accident, after her Mother engaged her drug addict Daughter as a babysitter. Truth is, she probably left Kym in charge so that she could slope off for a quickie with the man who is now her second husband but they didn't bother filming that bit, their loss and ours.

There's also some inconsistencies, Kym and her mother have a fistfight (nearly exciting that) from which the mother appears without a scratch, whilst Kym takes off in her car, crashes it into a large rock but later we see the car towed away without a mark on it...

Then once the wedding is over Kym simply goes back to rehab. It was such a disappointment; it had so much unrealised potential.



The film would be nothing without Anne Hathaway, who puts in an exceptional performance but she was really the only thing worth seeing. That's not quite fair, as there were other good performances but they just weren't as pretty as her. As a film though, it could have been disturbing, thought provoking, edgy, controversial... but it was none of those.