Search
Search results
Colorimetry PRO
Lifestyle and Education
App
Colorimetry PRO is the first assistant to image consultants and professionals related to the world...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King of Comedy (1983) in Movies
Jun 2, 2020
While I vaguely knew the name of the film I'd never seen it and didn't really get the vibe that I wanted to, after seeing the Joker though I was hit by so many comments on it in reviews that I really needed to see it.
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fight Club (1999) in Movies
May 7, 2020
Subversively Funny
The first rule of this review is that I cannot talk about this movie.
The second rule of this review is that I CANNOT TALK ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
So...I'm going to talk about this movie.
David Fincher's 1999 mind-tripping epic about 2 friends who join forces to create chaos is not the movie that you think it is. Not even if you've seen it.
Directed by one of the my favorite Directors of all time, FIGHT CLUB tells the story of Edward Norton's character (who's name is never mentioned in the film) who is suffering from insomnia and an all around lack of enthusiasm for life - that is until he runs into 2 people that will profoundly change his life - Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) and, especially, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt).
This film was poorly marketed by the studio at the time of it's release - focusing on the "FIGHT CLUB" aspect of this film - and if that is turning you away from this film, then you are missing out, for the "Fight Club" aspect is only one sliver of what this film is about. This film is an incredibly funny parody of society and "fitting in" with over-the-top scenarios and characters masquerading as people and events in "the real world".
David Fincher is perfectly suited for this work. He handled the pacing, style and subject matter with aplomb balancing seriousness and absurdity perfectly to create a subtle parody. It is a masterwork in that you don't notice his Direction - always a mark of a good Director.
Edward Norton, of course, is wonderfully cynical as the Narrator. When this film came out, I went to see it because of him - he was (is?) an actor that (more often than not) picks quality material and delivers a quality performance. Brad Pitt, of course, has the "showier" role and he nails it. This film marked the "coming out" of Pitt as an actor for me - and he hasn't stopped (right up until his deserved Oscar this year for ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD). But, it is the performance of Helena Bonham Carter that caught my eye on this re-watch. Fight Club is one of those films that becomes a different film upon a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and 5th...) watch - mostly because of the change in perspective of the Marla character. I've now seen this film multiple times and in this viewing it was Marla's journey that captured my attention. It is a terrific performance that is an optical illusion.
This film is not for everyone - so be warned - but if you give it a shot, I think you'll find a richly rewarding - and subversively funny - movie going experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The second rule of this review is that I CANNOT TALK ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
So...I'm going to talk about this movie.
David Fincher's 1999 mind-tripping epic about 2 friends who join forces to create chaos is not the movie that you think it is. Not even if you've seen it.
Directed by one of the my favorite Directors of all time, FIGHT CLUB tells the story of Edward Norton's character (who's name is never mentioned in the film) who is suffering from insomnia and an all around lack of enthusiasm for life - that is until he runs into 2 people that will profoundly change his life - Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) and, especially, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt).
This film was poorly marketed by the studio at the time of it's release - focusing on the "FIGHT CLUB" aspect of this film - and if that is turning you away from this film, then you are missing out, for the "Fight Club" aspect is only one sliver of what this film is about. This film is an incredibly funny parody of society and "fitting in" with over-the-top scenarios and characters masquerading as people and events in "the real world".
David Fincher is perfectly suited for this work. He handled the pacing, style and subject matter with aplomb balancing seriousness and absurdity perfectly to create a subtle parody. It is a masterwork in that you don't notice his Direction - always a mark of a good Director.
Edward Norton, of course, is wonderfully cynical as the Narrator. When this film came out, I went to see it because of him - he was (is?) an actor that (more often than not) picks quality material and delivers a quality performance. Brad Pitt, of course, has the "showier" role and he nails it. This film marked the "coming out" of Pitt as an actor for me - and he hasn't stopped (right up until his deserved Oscar this year for ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD). But, it is the performance of Helena Bonham Carter that caught my eye on this re-watch. Fight Club is one of those films that becomes a different film upon a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and 5th...) watch - mostly because of the change in perspective of the Marla character. I've now seen this film multiple times and in this viewing it was Marla's journey that captured my attention. It is a terrific performance that is an optical illusion.
This film is not for everyone - so be warned - but if you give it a shot, I think you'll find a richly rewarding - and subversively funny - movie going experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I-Doser Premium
Entertainment and Music
App
I-Doser is the world's top binaural brainwave, lucid dream, mediation, yoga, chakra, kundalini and...
Texture Canada
News and Entertainment
App
Texture is the only app that gives you unlimited access to over 200 top magazines. Enjoy full issues...
You Can't Spell America Without Me: The Really Tremendous Inside Story of My Fantastic First Year as President
Kurt Andersen and Alec Baldwin
Book
Political satire as deeper truth: Donald Trump’s presidential memoir, as recorded by two...
politics comedy
How to Hypnotise Anyone - Confessions of a Rogue Hypnotist
9.0
Rate It
Book
The number 1 Amazon kindle bestseller on hypnosis is now available in paperback! Finally the hidden...
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
Amy Norman (1048 KP) rated Ready Player Two in Books
Jul 23, 2022
I didn't want the reviews to be true but unfortunately I feel they were correct. I went into this with an open mind and ready to form my own opinions but alas this time I side with the majority.
***No direct spoilers as such but you may infer some details from what I have said***
I didn't struggle with the referencing and overexplaining that some people felt occurred in the first book but this was something completely different in the sequel.
In the first book, there was passion and a sense of urgency, and it drew you along to a satisfying conclusion. There were specific parts to the book that stood out, and it felt like a fully realised story that could almost happen.
I was really invested in the first book but this time round it was missing something.
Although the stakes were set higher it never felt like there was any real danger. There are some truly dramatic scenes but at no point did I feel like Cline had the heart to go all Game of Thrones on us.
I think Cline overstretched himself with trying to cram in 7 fantastical quests, world's, and puzzles to solve, that all the magic of the first book was completely lost.
He could have made this work well but the sped up timeline forced him into a corner there was no escaping from.
Rushed in places, where fans of the first book would have adored more detail and reveled in it, and then hyper focused and drawn out details of some really odd choices, means this book just falls flat.
There was so much potential here, but it felt like Cline was trying too hard to pay lip service to his peers and people he admires in a Halliday-esqe way, this can be felt if you actually read the acknowledgements. The comparison to Cline and some of the characters becomes quite apparent there, and are almost beyond cliche.
There is still ongoing talk of a movie adaptation for this sequel, and I feel like Cline really leaned into the idea of this (after the success of the first one). As this book would probably work better as a screenplay. I feel like this may be one of those extremely rare occurrences where the movie has the potential to be better than the book.
I often try to leave balanced reviews and can find a positive to end on but I was mostly disappointed by the end of reading, so I am struggling to end on a positive!
How about this?
There is no mention of a part three in the future but I feel like Cline has given himself the opportunity to have a fresh start, if there were to be a Ready Player Three, there are so many avenues he could explore, and bring the magic back! So I am hopeful for the futute.
***No direct spoilers as such but you may infer some details from what I have said***
I didn't struggle with the referencing and overexplaining that some people felt occurred in the first book but this was something completely different in the sequel.
In the first book, there was passion and a sense of urgency, and it drew you along to a satisfying conclusion. There were specific parts to the book that stood out, and it felt like a fully realised story that could almost happen.
I was really invested in the first book but this time round it was missing something.
Although the stakes were set higher it never felt like there was any real danger. There are some truly dramatic scenes but at no point did I feel like Cline had the heart to go all Game of Thrones on us.
I think Cline overstretched himself with trying to cram in 7 fantastical quests, world's, and puzzles to solve, that all the magic of the first book was completely lost.
He could have made this work well but the sped up timeline forced him into a corner there was no escaping from.
Rushed in places, where fans of the first book would have adored more detail and reveled in it, and then hyper focused and drawn out details of some really odd choices, means this book just falls flat.
There was so much potential here, but it felt like Cline was trying too hard to pay lip service to his peers and people he admires in a Halliday-esqe way, this can be felt if you actually read the acknowledgements. The comparison to Cline and some of the characters becomes quite apparent there, and are almost beyond cliche.
There is still ongoing talk of a movie adaptation for this sequel, and I feel like Cline really leaned into the idea of this (after the success of the first one). As this book would probably work better as a screenplay. I feel like this may be one of those extremely rare occurrences where the movie has the potential to be better than the book.
I often try to leave balanced reviews and can find a positive to end on but I was mostly disappointed by the end of reading, so I am struggling to end on a positive!
How about this?
There is no mention of a part three in the future but I feel like Cline has given himself the opportunity to have a fresh start, if there were to be a Ready Player Three, there are so many avenues he could explore, and bring the magic back! So I am hopeful for the futute.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Les Misérables (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Words cannot express how amazing this movie is. For those of you who have shouldered through the modern-day musical revival; suffering through the questionable singing talents of many stars as “Phantom of the Opera,” “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Sweeny Todd,” and that abysmal rendition of “Nine” – I can assure you, that “Les Mis” will change that perception. For once, the casting crew took the time to select a cast capable of the repertoire’s vocal demands (and Les Mis is very vocally demanding – as most operatic pieces are). It’s apparent that each singer was heavily vocally coached and trained, some faring more so than others. While this is no replacement for raw talent, I can assure you that the cast was downright fantastic.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.