The Impossible

This movie is filmed very well. It looks good.
And it is very sad. Well actually, it's heartbreaking.
But that's it.

It's based on a family who go to Thailand for Christmas in 2004 and their struggle to survive and find each other after the devastating Tsunami hits.

Naomi Watts has been nominated for an Oscar for this performance but she doesn't really do anything. At the start she smiles and then she screams and cries and is in a lot of pain. Otherwise she doesn't do all that much. I didn't really think that this was a particularly breath taking performance. I will say that to me, it seems that when acting, being in pain would be easier than acting other things. But I am not an actor so maybe I am wrong. Her character doesn't change or go through any sort of character development and she isn't really in it all that much compared to her movie son, Lucas (Tom Holland). I just wasn't taken by her performance. I wasn't a huge Naomi Watts fan before I saw this and I wanted this movie to make me like her more but that didn't happen. 

Ewan McGregor is good although maybe a little wasted in this role. I mean think back to Danny Boyle's Trainspotting. Ewan was awesome in that. Here he just seems very restrained and in my opinion, his character is pretty silly sometimes. No common sense.

But a saving grace for this movie is the kids, the two younger sons, Thomas and Simon (Samuel Joslin and Oaklee Pendergast). They are so adorable and that would have been enough but they are also really good actors. This movie is an achievement for them as it is so heavy emotionally and they are so little. And Tom Holland does well. He has most of the movie riding on him and many emotional scenes but he does very well for someone so young.

But this wasn't enough to sell this movie for me. There was something about this movie that was very off-putting. From when I saw the trailer I just shuddered and the shudder continued. It just had a dirty feeling to it and I couldn't shake it. Here is this horrific disaster where many people lost their lives and their families. This event is something that people are never going to forget and here is Hollywood putting these perfect Hollywood faces on it and making a money grubbing movie about it. I feel like they are taking this away from the people who suffered through this event.

It may be based on a true story about a Spanish family but I don't see why (apart from to make money) they have to put these rich, white faces on it. It may make people understand the horrific circumstances of it all better but I still feel that it is a little culturally ignorant or that it ignored too many other stories. To be honest, I was more interested in the stories of people around this family. I wanted to know and learn about more families and what they went through rather than this one.

I remember when this Tsunami hit. I was in England with my family. I was 11. One of the only reasons I remember it was partly because it was all the news could talk about but more because I remember coming out of seeing Mary Poppins at the theatre and they had all these donations buckets. I was just excited about putting money in a bucket. I didn't understand the severity of it at all. And this movie did make me want to go back and tell 11 year old me to put more money in that bucket, even though I was young and in a foreign country and any money I had wasn't my own but my mothers.

I have heard that Hoyts is donating $1 of every ticket sold to see The Impossible to UNICEF Australia. This is only one cinema chain across Australia and only $1. I think that this movie should be donating most of it's profits to organisations like UNICEF and disaster recovery across the world. That might make me like this movie better.

Also, the title. I mean, really?

Les Miserables

As one who has seen this musical A LOT (my siblings and I have been dragged to every production we could ever possibly attend as it is our mother's favourite musical of all time), I was skeptical when I heard that they were making this epic musical into a movie (for the second time). To be perfectly honest, I didn't think they could pull it off. But here I stand, very much corrected. You haven't seen anything like this before, unless you have seen the film and then you don't count. 

This is not just a story but an epic journey. An epic journey that takes you through so many emotional highs and lows and one that is surrounded by history (even if most historians call it a bastardisation of Victor Hugo's original novel). In summary it goes a little something like this; In 19th Century France, Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is hunted by policeman Javert (Russell Crowe) after he breaks parole. Years on, he agrees to care for the daughter of Fantine (Anne Hathaway), one of the workers in the factory that he now owns. His life is changed forever (obviously). But it's not all about him. In pre-revolutionary France there is a lot happening and this musical attempts to cover everything. It's one emotional roller coaster.

Directed by Tom Hooper, known for The King's Speech, this is a revolutionary movie (not just because of the content) but because of the way he has decided to film the entire thing. All the songs are recorded live. (This is the revolutionary part of it but this is a big thing, especially for musicals.)

What Hooper has done by recording the singing live and not having his actors attempt to do some awful lip syncing, is allow for all the emotion to seep through. You see and feel the emotion of the songs in a way that the musical can't do. After seeing this movie, if you go back and listen to the original cast soundtrack (like I did) you will find that it seems like the cast are just singing, without emotion. Just singing a pretty song. It's like comparing yourself to how you sing inside your head to how you actually sound out loud. Huge difference right? Well that's what this is like.

So how do the cast cope with this revolutionary method? Well they owned it. (pwned it really)

Russell Crowe

Russell Crowe, who I thought could be this movie's downfall gives a solid performance. I mean it's not all that great but it's not that bad either. He does well.

Daniel Huttlestone who plays Gavroche, who is normally a character that I find very annoying, was great. Huttlestone seems so comfortable around the camera and really brings out the best parts of his character. And the same goes for young Cosette, Isabelle Allen. Although neither of them get much screen time, they really shine for the moments that they do get.

Samantha Banks
(Do you see what I am talking about with the waist?)

Amanda Seyfried sings high and wobbly and fits Cosette very well. I mean Eponine is always better and that proves true again here with Samantha Barks and her incredibly tiny waist.
 

Eddie Redmayne isn't as annoying as I usually find him and has a really great voice, surprisingly. When he and Seyfried sing their harmonies, it's just so pretty. Well when anyone one is singing in harmony it's so pretty.

Hugh Jackman

 The way Hugh Jackman's character, Valjean, changes, look wise, is pretty incredible but his voice, at times, disappointed me. Everything else is fine but there are times when the haunting melody got lost behind him almost mumbling the words and not holding on to the notes. But I am being very picky cause his performance is amazing. 





Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as Thénardier and Madame Thénardier respectively are fantastic. They break up all the devastating emotional parts of this film with great interludes of comedy and they do it so well. They are so comfortable in these characters and it really shows. They just look like they are having so much fun.

Anna Hathaway

And then there is Anne Hathaway. Her performance is, well, words can't even describe. It's brilliant, harrowing, heart wrenching and any other big, complex words that portray the same emotions and brilliance as those. Her version of I Dreamed a Dream is raw emotion and it's devastating to watch. At that moment, if you are not crying in your seat in the dark cinema, surrounded by strangers, then you are the worst person to exist. Ever. I mean what's wrong with you? She is laying everything she has out to bare for you and you don't even have the courtesy, no, the compassion to shed a few tears to show that you are human. Unbelievable. This really is an amazing performance. If she does not win the Oscar for this then it will be a crime. Haters can hate but Anne Hathaway is every woman!

There was just one problem. It's not that major, it was something that really got on my nerves. And for this I must complain to cinematographer Danny Cohen and editors Chris Dickens and Melanie Oliver. The filming and the editing for some reason unbeknownst to man, decided that it was going to jump around the entire film. I must ask why? Why would you, when you have such a big, elaborate and intricate set, only have extreme close ups of peoples faces? It makes everything feel claustrophobic. And why, after such long, sustained close ups, would you have so many cuts that you are constantly jumping from one shot to the next every few seconds? It was very distracting. There will be these beautiful, still scenes filled with all this emotion and then the editors decided to go to town and undo all that emotion by jumping all over the place, moving in and out, far away, side to side, back and forth, up and down.

Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen

This film was shot mostly using a hand held camera by Danny Cohen. I am okay with the shakiness of handy cams but this was over a little over the top for me with all the cutting as well as the hand held. This all being said, it didn't stop me from getting immersed in the film and the songs and the characters. I loved it. The music is so great and everyone really did a great job on this film.


This is a great adaptation. It's not to say that I won't go and see the stage musical again because I will (probably countless times) but when it's not showing or when I don't have the money to see it, then this will suffice very nicely.