'The Host' movie review

Yesterday, on the most homosexual day of my life, I went to see The Host, a film based on a Stephenie Meyer novel. Believe it or not, I have actually read the novel and actually liked it. Sure, it has some typical Stephenie-Meyer-sappy-bullshit in it, but the general idea is very interesting, it has this pretty clever "love quadrangle" thingy and I was generally interested in seeing this movie. I knew all along that a giant piece of shit could have been made from the book, but it also had the potential to be a decent sci-fi at its best. So The Host tells the story of Earth being overpopulated by aliens, known as "Souls", that took control of our minds and bodies and made Earth a peaceful place. There still are small groups of human resistance, and when one of the rebels named Melanie gets captured, a Soul named Wanderer is placed inside her body and is set on a quest to reveal the location of the resistance through Melanie's memories. But Melanie is still present in her mind and the two become connected.

If that sounds interesting, it's because it probably is. And in comes out pretty interesting and on an acceptable level of sappyness in the book. How about the movie? Well...let's just say I don't know where to start. The best part were, no exaggeration, the end credits, because they used the song Radioactive in it, which is way too good for this movie, by the way. But seriously, first off: I have no problem with teenage romance, if it is self-aware, not too sappy and executed good with intelligent dialogue and good acting (Beautiful Creatures is a brilliant example). The Host has none of that. Saoirse Ronan does her best and is a truly talented (and adorable) actress, but even she can't save this movie, as she's only as good as the script allows her to be, and that is "alright" at it's best. The rest of the cast is...well, terrible. I don't know how could have they fucked up that, but even the voice actress of Melanie's voice stuck inside her head was terrible. She just made those inner monologue scenes even more laughable and silly and makes me want to create a Golden Razzy category for Worst Voice Acting this year just for this movie. Now one thing I was worried about when anticipating the movie was that it would focus too much on the romance instead of the sci-fi, but I had hope because of Andrew Niccol, who is a very sci-fi director. When I was watching the movie, I didn't feel the movie focused on anything, it just kinda went along. 

The romance parts were unbeliveably laughable of course and the sci-fi ones were also incredibly odd and silly, and I really don't know how can a sci-fi director and writer of The Truman Show fuck that up. There are some changes made from the book that made it include more action, which I was happy about, because the book has no action at all. But even those action scenes are plain painful to watch. There are practically three action scenes in the whole film, the biggest and most spectacular one being a car chase with four vehicles and each of those scenes last about 20 seconds. Yup, 20 seconds. And what's even worse is, that this marks the second time in my history of watching movies, that I found the music in the movie so bad, that I have to mention it (the first time is Johnny English Reborn, so...). The score in The Host is so unbelieveably cheesy and repetitive, and instead of just making a simple, dramatic futuristic sci-fi action score (which I don't believe is that hard if you're a professional composer) The Host constantly gives us these cheesy repetitive violin score bits, that manage to ruin even those 20-second action scenes, so basically you could say there practically isn't any action in The Host.

"It's a strange world, we live in. The strangest." Yup, a Stephenie Meyer novel.

The movie isn't that bad to be honest, but it's still pretty bad. There are some cool shots of silver lotuses and a particular scene where a certain car crashes (triying not to spoil, but there's nothing to be spoiled here), which was actually a good scene, where the cheesy repetitive violin score actually fitted, but otherwise the whole movie is just bad and so sillly, it hurts. When I tought more and more about the movie, I basically realised that you can't really make a good movie out of this book. The creators of this certainly haven't tried their best, but when I kept thinking - for an example, the inner monologue is standable in the book, but even with a better Melanie voice actress or whatever, it would still look stupid in any shape or form. There are also these relationships between the characters, which just look plain stupid in the movie, because you don't enough time to establish time. Like the love quadrangle, the Wanderer starting to like Melanie's boyfriend because Melanie is a part of her, Melanie's brother starting to connect to Wanderer and Melanie inside her, etc. 

All these things sound campy, and that's because they are, but the book has 700 pages and takes time to establish those relationships and in the book...it actually kinda works. It's actually believeable in parts, while the movie just feels incredibly rushed, even tough it's 2 hours long and makes all those scenes with characters willing to die for each other just because they smiled at each other more than once look very silly (hold your horses, I didn't say it's not silly in the book, but it's a lot less silly in the movie). But than the movie would have to be 4 hours long to establish all that, so I've came to a conclusion, that The Host is a practically unfilmable book, which should just stay a book (but sadly, it was announced that it would expand into a trilogy, which means more shitty movies like this). There is one person connected to the movie (not directly connected, anways) that I do have to applaud and that is the trailer's editor. The trailers made the movie actually look kinda cool, even tough if that means showing practically 2 out of 3 of those 20-second action scenes. So in conclusion, The Host is a bad adaptation of an unfilmable book, an incredibly silly, sappy and forgettable sci-fi romance flick with terrible acting and even worse dialogue, which will sadly still probably make tons of money due to Stephenie Meyer's fans. Give the book a shot. 

Total rating: 5 / 10 

So what do you think of this excuse of a movie? How is it compared the book? Is there a thing you actually liked in the movie? Comment below and let me know...please, pretty please. 

'The Wolverine' first trailer review

After a 6-second trailer for a trailer and a 20-second trailer for a trailer, the first real trailer for the actual The Wolverine movie has arrived. Just to introduce things a bit properly, my knowledge of the X-Men franchise isn't exactly impressive. I've only seen the first X-Men film and I barely remember it and I saw X-Men: First Class twice and I loved it. So I wasn't looking forward to The Wolverine with much anticipation; I think he is a cool character, but I also think he gets a bit too much of the spotlight and I haven't heard a lot of good things about his previous standalone movie, X-Men Origins: Wolverine as well, so my my expectations for this movie were - mild. I wasn't expecting it a lot, I will still definitely go see it and I didn't have any opinion on it, neither good neither bad, pretty much leaving the amount of expectation to be boosted by the trailers. And how is it after watching the trailer? Well, still mild, to be honest.

I'M WOLVERINE MOTHAFUCKAAAAAAA!!!!

There are actually two trailers now released: a domestic and an international one. I don't know the purpose of this, since they are very much alike, except that the international one is about half a minute longer but doesn't show much more substance at all. Social analytics might dig into them, seeking out shots and elements that are not present in the domestic trailer and discover yet another flaw of the damaged social state of the U.S, but to us regular people, it doesn't change anything. Now the trailers are objectively speaking average: they reveal a bit of the story, they have a bit of cool action and dialogue, but they're also pretty cliche, with the annoying electronized Inception-horn music (that doesn't even fit, if it would be used properly like in the Star Trek: Into Darkness trailer, it would be fine) and I'm pretty sure the trailer score for the domestic trailer is a straight rip-off the Skyfall teaser trailer score. Otherwise speaking, we do get glimpses of Wolverine kicking Japanese ass, an intense claw-to-sword duel, a redhead Japanese springing around mysteriously, a shot of Famke Janssen, an old man dying on a bed (so generic, am I right?) and a slightly badly-green-screened rip-off of the train fight scene from Skyfall. 

If there is one thing that intrigues me and interests me in The Wolverine, it's the story. As revealed in the trailer and confusing plot synopsises, Wolverine visits a Japanese man whose life he has saved (I don't know when, possibly in the film's much-hated predecessor, I believe) and discovers, that there actually is a way for him to get rid of his healing powers and become mortal. He then of course gets dramatically shot and towards the end of the trailer dramatically reveals, he is no longer leaving. The subject of mortality and any kind of clever moral complex inside such a character, especially a superhero is always interesting (hence Iron Man 3), but it only works if it's done good, so I hope it will be done good. The trailer itself doesn't actually offer much substance or the tone of the film, but rather relies on a bizzare mix of story and action, that is bound to work in the actual movie. So far, it hasn't got much of my attention or interest, but I'll definitely go see The Wolverine to see how it turned out. 

So what did you think of the first trailer(s) to The Wolverine? Are you excited for the film, if yes/no, why? Do you think Wolverine should just stop getting all the attention and standalone movies finally? Check out the  domestic trailer, the international trailer, comment below, let me know!

5 Things I want in the new Batman: Arkham game

CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS FOR BATMAN: ARKHAM CITY.

Ever since the enourmous critical and commercial succes of 2011's Batman: Arkham City, rumours of a sequel and a possible finisher to the so-far amazing video game soon-to-be-trilogy started with Arkham Asylum in 2009 have been brewing around. The news have been officially confirmed and the world will indeed become a better place by getting another entry in the Batman: Arkham franchise, and we might even get it towards the end of this year. There haven't been any other official updates or news besides the game's announcement, not even a title, so fans have plenty of time to guess, argue and theorize about potential elements of the much-anticipated upcoming game. If you read my review of Batman: AC, you already know that I loved the game just as much as the rest of the world probably did and am very hyped for its sequel, so I've decided to put together a list of the top 5 things I would like to see most in the upcoming video game.

5. Robin / Nightwing co-op missions

Robin made an cameo appearance in the story mode of AC and was playable in the Harley Quinn's Revenge DLC and the Riddler's Revenge mode, but people are obviously hungry for a situation that has never really been done rightfully: Batman and Robin fighting side-by-side, brothers in arms and justice, kicking villanous ass! I don't think that the first-associated-cheesyness of this element would ruin the dark atmosphere of the games, au contraire, it would probably make for some very cool missions, where you could switch between Batman, Robin and possibly Nightwing and the game could also include an interesting multiplayer / co-op mode. It would be extremely cool, if they would do it right.

4. Hush, Red Hood and Azrael storylines

If you played through the excellent Identity Theft side mission in AC, you know that the villain Hush has now surgically reformed his face to look like Bruce Wayne. You also know that Batman lets him go and decides to go catch him "tomorrow", which could result in a kick-ass storyline for the sequel. The bad-ass character of Azrael also appears in his teasing side mission and will definitely appear in the next game in some shape or form, probably an epic shape or form, if you listen to his monumental ending monologue. Both of the games have introduced a plenty of villains, so there basically aren't much good ones left (just kidding, in case any butthurt fanboy tries to murder me), but I am rooting a lot for the inclusion of the-second-Robin-turned-villain Red Hood and the infamous Man-Bat, who might have also been partly referenced in AC.

3. Return of The Scarecrow

Scarecrow is one of my favourite Batman characters and characters in general, and I also loved his incarnation in AA, so I can't wait to get more of him. The lack of his physical presence in AC was replaced with numerous references, from his thugs to fear gas boxes and secret radio messages that decoded, spell out the words: "I will return, Batman. You will pay for what you have done to me. Fear will tear Gotham City to shreds." If that sounds epic, it's because it really fuckin is. So I guess he really wasn't eaten by Killer Croc or something and is just out there, plotting some awesome revenge plan. In any case, The Scarecrow will most likely return and possibly form an alliance with Hush, which is even more epic. 

2. Keep The Joker dead

AC made a very ballsy move by killing of The Joker at the end and it really payed off. It was an incredibly dark and poignant ending, it made me sad, it made me depressed - and I'm not use to being sad for the deaths of video game characters, barely even fictional ones in general. I just hope they don't bring The Joker back like ressurecting him with The Lazarus Pit or revealing it was Clayface who died. As much as I love The Joker, I also love the ending and the only way I want to see him in a sequel is in some kind of an emotionally affecting Scarecrow hallucination. Plus, isn't this one of the coolest endings ever?

1. Full open-world Gotham City

Of course this is the thing that fans want the most! As much as AC gave us sort of an open-world feel, I still often felt as if I was imprisoned (get it?) and would love take on a full-fledged, open-world sandbox world of Gotham City. You could also drive around with The Batmobile and have those previously mentioned Robin co-op missions, where the dynamic duo could swing around and solve regular crimes, like in the "Acts of Random Violence" mission in AC! Again, it would be much less cheesier than it sounds. And just imagine, visiting all those places in the town...agh, I'm going to start to drool. 

Whatever happens with the next Batman: Arkham game, I'm sure it will be good, I'm sure they will respect some of the things I listed here, because I am sure to share some of these opinions with many people. There are some things that raise my concerns tough - rumours have been flying around about the sequel being set in the 50's and the Silver Age comics era, meaning it will basically be a prequel, of how Batman met The Joker and so on. That seems like the biggest waste of the potential kick-ass storylines I've noted here and again, forcing Joker's return. If Mark Hammil won't voice him, fans won't be satisfied anyway. Another thing that concerns me is that reportedly WB Montreal might be taking on the game instead of Rocksteady, which is also absolute bullshit. That's like Chris Nolan not directing and writing TDKR, fucking imagine that!

So what do you think of the upcoming sequel to Batman: Arkham City? What do you want to see in the game? Do you agree with me on these points? Comment below, let me know!

'Kick-Ass 2' red band trailer review

One of my most anticipated movies of 2013, (the 8th most anticipated, to be precise), Kick-Ass 2, the sequel to 2010's ultra-violent superhero movie has got its first trailer, appopriately a red band one. So if you might be underage and can't view the trailer, you can read this review...or of course, if you just wanted to hear my opinion and analysis of it, but judging by my view and reader count, I hardly believe that's possible. Anyways, Kick-Ass 2 will reportedly follow Hit Girl training Kick-Ass onto a way of becoming a real bad-ass like she is, while also trying to balance her double life. Kick-Ass will of course remain the main character and will be put to his biggest test yet, as the former-douchy-crime-boss's-son-turned-fake-superhero-now-real-villain Chris D' Amico, now known as The Motherfucker is out to take revenge on our heroes, as he builds up an army of supervillains. Sounds quite cool, and as much as this trailer shows a bit of the cool stuff and reveals some more plot elements, I can't stop myself from thinking it looks just...inferior. But we'll get to that later.

As you know, if you might have read my Kick-Ass review (which you probably didn't, so I'll just tell you this now), I really loved the first movie and can't wait for the sequel. The anticipation is still in me, but as I said, this trailer just makes the movie look (by this I mean that the movie could not be like that, but in cases like this trailers don't lie as they seize to get the best out of a movie) inferior to its predecessor. I mean, Aaron-Taylor Johnson is still likeable as hell and Chloe Grace Moretz is still bad-ass as hell and Christopher Mintz-Plasse is still ironically-likeable and ironically-bad-ass as hell, but it all just looks...worse. It looks like it has no heart, no freshness. I don't really know who to blame here, but I'll just take director Jeff Wadlow, who replaced Matthew Vaughn. I was a bit sarcastic at this last sentence, but I just can't stop myself from thinking that a new director might just not fill the shoes and proffil the unique visual style and spirit, that made the first movie so good.

As much as the violence and comic-book feel still is present in the trailer, it just doesn't have "it". It's hard to explain, but if I can do my best, it just doesn't capture as what the first movie was about, like Kick-Ass looks way too buff for a geeky high-schooler and Hit Girl looks way too high-school-ish to still be cute and surprising and stuff. There are some things that I don't like about the trailer, that I can explain tough: a) I didn't really laugh much at any of the jokes, except the tampon one, and b): the CGI and cinemography look a bit bad in a few shots. I hope the movie will not turn out that way, because it has nicepotential, Jim Carrey is back in an actual movie role and his seems slightly odd and old and everything, but I think he'll work out. Hit Girl training Kick-Ass will probably come out pretty hilarious, Christopher Mintz-Plasse will definitely kick ass (yes, people, I went there, crucify me) as The Motherfucker and just seeing all these characters and story will be very pleasant in basis, so no matter how this trailer disappointed me a bit, I'm still incredibly pumped for Kick-Ass 2. 

So what do you think of the new Kick-Ass 2 trailer? What do you think of Jim Carrey in an actual movie role? Are you still pumped for the film? Check it out here, comment below, let me know! 

'Beautiful Creatures' movie review

Beautiful Creatures is a teen fantasy romance film about a guy named Ethan, who lives in a small town in South Carolina, where nothing happens and falls in love with a mysterious girl named Lena, who turns out to be a witch (or a caster, depending on how much you want to insult a fictional character). Now I heard a lot about Beautiful Creatures, mostly about it being some kind of a wannabe-Twilight, it heavily relied on its romance story and coming out around Valentine's Day and such, but I had some hope for it. I don't know any of the books that the movie is based on, but I was sure that this would not be some kind of Twilight. But could it be Twilight-esque? I saw the trailer and to be honest, it looked goofy as hell. I mean, there was some cool Florence And The Machine music in it, and it looked cool, but some of the CGI and the special effects looked just stupid, it's basically one of those trailers that make you feel a bit awkward when watching them. And how did the movie turn out?

Well, it actually turned out surprisingly good. There are many elements to it quality, one of its is definitely the acting. The two main actors, whose surnames I cannot pronounce or write correctly have surprisingly good chemistry and really pull off that a bit akward teenage romance. I also like the fact that the main character is a guy, so it doesn't deal too much with the typical teenage girl problems, but the female character is also likeable and important enough, so they're basically a pretty good couple that you feel okay with rooting for. The adult supporting cast is also great, Emma Thompson is a menacing villain, Jeremy Irons and Emmy Rosum are awesomely villain-ish and I also really liked Thomas Mann, the guy who plays Ethan's best friend Link. He isn't in the movie much, and I don't know if it's because of his name or his hat, but he was just my favourite character and a very likeable one. I also really grew to the Southern accent which I used to hate, but halfway through this movie, you can't imagine it being spoken differently. The movie is also a bit more appealling to more mature audiences through a bunch of very smart and witty dialogues.

An element which already attracted me through the posters, like the one above (but was kinda overshadowed by the goofyness in the trailers) is the movie's visual style. I absolutely adored the small, conservative town-setting with a forest nearby, as I'm just kind of a sucker for movies with such a setting. The directing, set design and excellent music by George Harrison's son's band Thenewno2 also help to shape up an interesting and drawing visual image of this film. Sure, the movie has a few cliches and predictable points, but the story and plot is overall interesting. A thing that I didn't like as much were the special effects. Judging from the trailer already, you can see, that the CGI is not in top-form here and a few scenes (the table-spinning) look kinda ridiculous, but there really isn't too much of these scenes and you just get used to them. They actually even look a bit less goofy as in the trailers, but they are still pretty good compared to Twilight for example. There is one more thing that I loved about the movie that I would like to adress, but it's a bit of the major spoiler-ish nature, so don't continue reading, if you haven't seen the movie yet, just skip to the final paragraph. What I would like to discuss is the film's mixed-felt ending. As I understood, the ending is different as in the book and pissed off many fans, but to me it was excellent. I was okay with the fact that Ethan forgot Lena and even tough I really wanted them to be together, but I realised that this would be a great ending, considering a possibility of sequels. The moment when Ethan stept out of the car, I was kinda afraid that they would ruin it with a cliche ending, where he would remember her, but just seeing Lena's glaring dark eyes implying her stepping to the dark side becoming normal for the second she hears Ethan's scream made me realize, it was an absolutely perfect ending. I'm actually really sad, that there probably won't be any sequels due to the movie's bombing at the box office. 

So in conclusion, Beautiful Creatures is much better then what it looks, a sweet, intelligent, entertaining and suprisingly enyoyable teen romance fantasy movie. 

Total rating: 7.5 / 10

So what did you think of Beautiful Creatures? Are you planning to see it? Did you like it, dislike it, why? Comment below, let me know! 

Oscars 2013: Predicting the winners & More

The 2013 awards season is coming to a close, with only the grandest of all the awards, The Oscars, left to be held. With me watching almost all of the nominated films this year and genuinely following the Oscar race from the near beginning, I wil definitely watch the awards show (I live in a country where it's broadcasted at 2am, so I will lock myself from all news and watch it online the next day) and will be able to comment as much as I can on this blog. So this year the race is a bit tighter then last year, when the black-and-white and silent drama The Artist was a sure win. The top Best Picture contender is Argo, winning the highest awards at the Golden Globes, Producers Guild Awards and the BAFTAs, which are all strong precursors in the world of popcorn, glitter and overly-Oscar-obsessed Huffington Post editors. But since Ben Affleck didn't get nominated in the Best Director category, there still is a little hole for a possible grand winner for other contenders, such as Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook and Les Miserables to fit in.

Zero Dark Thirty's Kathryn Bigelow wasn't nominated for Best Director as well, leaving the latter category's race mostly to Steven Spielberg, Ang Lee and David O. Russel perhaps? My bet is Spielberg, so the Director's prize, Daniel Day-Lewis for-sure Best Actor win with Best Score or something could form a possible consolation prize for Lincoln. Jennifer Lawrence has very big chances of winning Best Actress, and the Best Actor prize is a bit closed as well. But it could go down in a number of scenarios. Even if Argo wins  Best Picture, what else would it win? Editing, Alan Arkin for Best Supporting Actor? It just doesn't seem right, yet I believe it will sadly go down like this. It's not overlong like Lincoln, not controversial like Zero Dark Thirty or not a comedy or a musical like Les Mis and Silver Linings Playbook. Yet, I still hope for one of the latter two to win, since they are my favourite of them all. Yes people, this is the part where my personal opinion jumps in.

And to be honest, my personal opinion caused quite a boiling cauldron of anger inside of me when the nominations were announced, as four of my very dear films of 2012, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, The Perks Of Being A Wallflower and Cloud Atlas weren't nominated. Now before you go explaining and complaining that these are not movies that would win Oscars, as they do not reflect the economic crisis or whatever, I tell you, that I understand. But still, some of these movies had chances and would have deserved at least nominations. If I were The Academy, I'd give Best Picture to TDKR, and even tough I know that can't and never will happen, it should have been nominated for anything technical from a completely objective point of view. Perks was a clear contender for Best Adapted Screenplay, and THG's "Safe and Sound" just won a Grammy, but didn't get nominated for Best Original Song. And Cloud Atlas should have won Best Make-Up, everyone who saw the movie would agree. And yet, zero nominations for all of these. At least for TDKR, I bet it was a personal Academy thing. I mean, FUCKING MIRROR MIRROR got nominated for something! And a song from  fucking TED! The movie's hilarious and all, but does anyone remember the original song from TED?!?!?!?

My review of Les Mis.

Putting aside most of my my anger-issues-led personal opinions, I sincerely hope either Silver Linings Playbook or Les Miserables will win. The first one has a definite Best Actress win, and could come out as a big winner with Best Director and Best Picture, Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor, if everything would come out perfect. Honestly, what I would like to see the most, is Bradley Cooper getting a gold statue, and even tough that will probably never happen with Day-Lewis in the same category, it's simply a dream I have (not that kind of a dream, you perverts!). Les Mis on the other hand, have Anne Hathaway, who will probably win and all those set design-make-up-hair noms. So I guess it could still come out fine. . Maybe magical Oscar master Harvey Weinstein will bring a bunch of bipolar people to all those parties and a comedy would win after all, like in the 1998's case of Shakespeare in Love. Or maybe The Academy would announce their most heavenly mistakes and decide to give all the awards to Christopher Nolan anyways. We'll see, as this year's awards are, given after a lot of thinking, actually quite open.

There basically isn't a lot of things, that we would be absolutely sure about, except for both of the Actress categories, Adele's Best Original Song win and Life Of Pi being the technical winner. We can't be sure for any of the side-like categories either, like Editing, Original Score and Costume Design, as they could all act as fillers for a potential Best Picture winner or a consolation prize. After all, the Academy awards are never really given out simply by the quality (subjective quality, deemed by 80-yr-old men, I mean), but are usually also equally divided. A most notable example that stuck in my mind (mainly because a lot of my dear movies were participating) comes from 2010, when The King's Speech won Best Picture, Actor, Directing and Screenplay to be the grand winner, Inception was the technical winner with Cinematography, Visual Effects, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing and The Social Network was given a consolation prize in the form of Adapted Screenplay, Score and Editing. But so far we can only wait for the grand awards show, which with the arrival of Seth MacFarlane might actually prove to be an entertaining awards show in the terms of a show, as well.

So what do you think of this year's Oscar race? Which movies do you think will win most Oscars, and which ones? Comment your predictions below, let me know!

'Les Misérables' movie review

Another big Oscar contender coming to my theatres is Tom Hooper's Les Miserables, adapted from the well-known stage musical of the same name, adapted from Victor Hugo's novel of the same name. The film begins with Inspector Javert (Russel Crowe) freeing prisoner Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman). Valjean re-invents himself as a respectable mayor and decides to help factory worker / prostitute Fantine (Anne Hathaway) to provide for her daughter Cosette and falls into a stylized and epic story of love and hope. Yes, I just wrote that, because I felt like that. I was looking forward to this movie, especially being the part of my big Oscar preview (I intend to watch the show this year). I am not exactly the biggest fan of musicals, I saw a few, but enyoyed them and I also know nothing about the original Les Miserables stage musical. And its movie adaptation...has its ups and downs.

One of the ups is definitely the acting, which is just confirmed by Hugh Jackman's and Anne Hathaway's Golden Globe win and the latter's for-sure Oscar win. I'm not really sure about the singing, as I am no expert and as mentioned haven't heard anything from the original musical, but I believe they sang amazingly from my amateur point of view. Each of the actors also put a lot from emotion into their performances, which is in Hathaway's case even too much emotion, but I like her, so I think she deserves the Oscar. Pieces of the supporting cast, such as Russel Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen are also good and do not let the Oscar-nominees overshadow them. All of the music and songs are great, but that is basically an 'up' of the original musical. 

Now the film has these two kinds of scenes: some are these emotional, monologuing scenes of characters singing about their feelings, and some are these spectacular, revolutionary scenes, where the actors sing from the bottom of the throats and wawe with French flags and rise for the people and such. Some of the former scenes are very good, like Hathaway's infamous I Dreamed A Dream or the Marius / Cosette / Eponine love triangle scenes, but after 2 hours and a half, which is clearly too much, they get kinda boring. I was just hoping, that this movie would have more of the latter, more of these epic scenes, which overshine with amazing costumography, make-up and set design. I truly loved the Do You Hear The People Sing and One Day More scenes, but I really expected to be more of such. More flag-wawing, more revolution and multi-singing, a battle with singing in between? 

As much as I respect Tom Hooper as a director, I was kinda unhappy with his directing here. I don't know if this is the director's or the director of photography's fault, but in those epic scenes that I loved I simply wished that they would show more of the scenery, more shots from afar and not just the faces, a cliched, but effective 360 spin maybe? Nope, even those epic scenes that I loved the most, just didn't seem fullfilled, as I just wanted to see more, more of that epicness and less of the emotional monologue. The movie could have been around half an hour shorter, as well. But still, I must admit that I really liked this movie. I basically liked it more and more I tought about and while listening to its soundtrack realized, that it deserves a higher rating than what I originally gave it. But that is my subjective view, the movie isn't for everyone - it's long, it's artsy, everything is sung - if you love musicals, you'll love it, if you hate them, you'll hate it, if you just kinda like them (like me), then it depends. In an objective conclusion, Les Miserables is a monumental, wonderfully acted, emotionally powerful and overlong movie musical.

Total rating: 8 / 10 

So what did you think of Les Miserables? Did you like it, dislike it, why? Comment below, let me know!