Saving Mr. Banks (or How Mrs. Travers Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Mouse)

Walt Disney Pictures is no stranger to schmaltz and sugar-coated narratives, and Saving Mr. Banks is no exception.  The new film starring Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks, tells the story of how Walt and Co. convince the uptight author P.L. Travers to sell the rights to her beloved Mary Poppins.  The film walks a delicate line between genuineness and schmaltz and, for the most part, it succeeds.

Fearing (rightly so) that Disney will turn her characters into cartoonish, singing and dancing fools, Mrs. Travers embarks to Los Angeles to make sure her Nanny and more importantly, the Banks family, remain true to her vision.  After two decades of hounding the poor author for the rights to her book, Walt finally succeeds in getting the stiff-upper-lipped Travers to LA to show her what they have in store.  It's clear she comes begrudgingly and out of necessity (her funds, as well as her creative juices, have dried up) and she is not going to give in easily.  She demands no animation, no singing and no dancing.  In short, everything Disney stands for is unfit for her story.  She claims her characters are family and the staff, including ol'Walt himself, don't quite get what that means. 

The audience slowly gets clued-in, though, as the film flashes back to P.L.'s childhood in Australia and her relationship with her father Travers Goff (Colin Farrell).  Goff is a drunk and a bit of a mess, bouncing from job to job, trying to provide for his family.  Still the young Travers (born Helen Goff, Ginty to her dad) adores her father.  Being old enough to understand some of what is going on Ginty is torn between wanting to help her father get better and being his enabler with alcohol and with shirking his work responsibilities.  These moments are really heartbreaking and help us understand why it is that the adult Ginty is so unwavering with her characters.

And while there are dark moments, much of the film is light and fun and even quite funny.  It's fitting that the happy moments take place at Disney's studios in the rehearsal room as the Sherman Brothers (Jason Schwartzman and a delightfully gruff B.J. Novak) treat Travers to the now iconic songs.  It's fun to see how the famous duo crafted the lyrics and music we all know and love.  And while the same beats are hit again and again, it is fun to see Travers battle it out with the Brothers and Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford), the script writer.

The strength of this film lies in its cast.  Emma Thompson is a formidable P.L. Travers and she commands every scene she is in.  She is one of those actors who is able to be both strong and vulnerable at the same time.  The film succeeds or fails on the central performance and Ms. Thompson is more than up to the challenge.  Making Tom Hanks Walt Disney was a stroke of genius as well.  While the physical similarities between the two are slight, Hanks embodies the everyman Disney was, or at least appeared to be.  He is probably the closest thing we have to a Walt Disney today, in temperament and demeanor at least.  And while the two leads do a splendid job, the real stand out is Colin Farrell as Travers father...Travers.  We've seen Farrell do mean, angry, funny, and crazy, but never have we seen the kind, compassionate, loving Colin Farrell as we do in Saving Mr. Banks.  His portrayal of a father ill-equipped to take care of a family is absolutely heartbreaking.  He's a loser and he knows it, but for the sake of his beloved Ginty he puts on a good face, but the audience can see it's an act; an act that will not end well.

Saving Mr. Banks is good family fun.  And while it succumbs to some of the weaknesses Mrs. Travers saw in Disney's work, it rises about the sentimental trappings and earns its genuine emotional beats.  The direction is a bit heavy handed (John Lee Hancock of The Blind Side fame is not one for much subtlety) and the film ends much happier than what really happened (P.L. Travers disliked the film so much that in her will she made it so no other adaptations could be made of her books), but these are minor quibbles in a film that is just so likeable.  The design, music and cinematography are all top notch and the supporting roles by Schwartzman, Novak, Whitford and Paul Giamatti as an always cheerful chauffeur are spot on.

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom - I Mean, We're Talking Loooong Walk

This may be the most appropriately titled movie of the year.  Perhaps ever.  There were such high expectations for this film.  On paper it's a knockout - a Nelson Mandela biopic with Idris Elba in the lead?  Come on, that's a no-brainer.  To be fair, Idris Elba hits it out of the park with his portrayal of the South African anti-Apartheid leader.  You just end up wishing he had been given a better film to work with.

The film spans most of Mandela's adult life, from his beginnings as a lawyer in segregated South Africa to his years as a revolutionary and then his subsequent arrest and imprisonment for 28 years and finally his activism after being released, ending with his election as the first Black President of South Africa.  The scope of the film ends up being its biggest problem.  Rather than focusing on some pivotal moment in Mandela's life, this perfunctory and cursory overview of his whole story feels shallow and moments that should make heart race or your blood boil felt hurried and trite.

Being someone who doesn't know much about Nelson Mandela, particularly his early role in South African politics, I found myself wanting the film to stay put on one time in Mandela's life and really flesh-out what impact it had on the man he would become.  I didn't know that Mandela was a radical during the 60s.  I didn't know he was arrested because he was involved in bombings of government buildings.  I found those scenes really compelling, but that whole era of his life is covered in about 20 minutes of a two-and-a-half hour film.  I'm also a sucker for courtroom dramas and I found myself thinking, "I would love to see a whole movie with just the court battle."  But again, the movie brushes past that part.  In fact it took awhile for the movie to settle on what the majority of the film would be about.  It ended up spending the most time on Nelson's 28 years in various prisons.  Now granted, this is a pivotal and important part in Mandela's life and the shaping of his worldview, but it doesn't make for gripping cinema.  The end of the film picks up a little as he negotiates his way out of prison and eventual gets elected President, but again, we've spent so much time on other things that this part of his life feels rushed.

Now not everything in the film was awful.  As mentioned before Idris Elba gives a towering (quite literally, Mr. Elba is a broad-shouldered 6' 3") performance as Nelson Mandela.  He commands each scene and often makes the character rise above the uneven script.  He is joined by Naomie Harris (Skyfall) as Winnie Mandela in a touching and often heartbreaking performance of her own.  In fact their relationship and Winnie herself are very interesting parts of the film that could have a film all their own.

After Nelson is freed from prison, he finds his relationship with Winnie strained.  This shouldn't be surprising as they have been married for decades, the overwhelming majority of which they have lived apart; both spending time in prison.  Also, Winnie becomes much more militant after her time and torture in prison while Nelson's views have softened towards pacifism.  These added strains cause the couple to eventually separate (and ultimately divorce, though not shown in the film).  It's an interesting pairing that was founded on love, but seemed to have been sustained through political necessity.  If only there was more time to explore these ideas.


So, while not without its charms, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, suffers from narrative overload and doesn't offer anything new to the biopic genre or to life and story of Nelson Mandela himself.  Even with the wonderful performances this film can't escape falling victim to one of the most important rules in storytelling: Whatever you do, don't be boring!

Thor: The Dark World - He Will Rock You!

Chris Hemsworth is back as the titular demigod of Thunder, Lightning and Hitting Things with a Big Hammer in the latest from Marvel's Avenger universe, and for the most part, he's back in big, impressive way.  The original Thor (2011) was one of my personal favorites in the Marvel canon.  The idea that a super hero (a god even) would have to come down to earth and learn to be human in order to inherit his rightful place as a king, resonates with me and the film was also funny, it had some heart and some great action.  Now Thor has moved beyond his boyish whining and headstrong arrogance, and with that you lose some of what made him such an intriguing character at first, but in the end this film is none the worse for it.

This time out Thor is back on his home planet of Asgard (after the events of the Avengers) bringing peace to the Nine Realms (other planets under the protection of Asgard).  Since the events of the first Thor the Bifrost (a magical Rainbow Road that transports people between the Nine Realms) has been fixed and Thor and his posse can travel instantaneously between the worlds to fight off any and all badies.  And they do it with aplomb.  After securing the freedom of all the people, however, Thor isn't in the mood to celebrate.  His father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), has made it clear that it is time for Thor to take his rightful place as King of Asgard, and as such should look for a Queen.  Odin hints that Sif (Jaimie Alexander), the lone girl warrior and resident Thor-ogler, would be the perfect match, however, Thor's thoughts are more earthly-bound.  He can't wash the mortal Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) from his perfectly coiffed golden locks.  He worries about her and goes to the Guardian of the Bifrost, Heimdall (Idris Elba) to see how she is doing, but Heimdall who can see everyone in the Nine Realms, can't find her.

Turns out Jane stumbled across a portal between realms where millenia ago Odin's father hid the Aether, a really bad liquidy thing, that the Dark Elves, led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) tried to use to destroy the universe.  And wouldn't you know it?  They're back and ready to take the Aether (which has now possessed Jane) and get back to their original task.  See these Elves believe that the Universe as it is now was never meant to be.  Before the Nine Realms, we're told in a prologue, there was darkness and the Elves want the darkness back.  Why?  Well because they're Dark Elves and that's what they like.  Pretty one dimensional, but they look great and Christopher Eccleston (the first Doctor of this generation's Dr. Who) does a great job of being menacing.

However, despite the Elves being designed so well, their goal is so impersonal and their actions so apocayptic that it's hard to get too invested.  Luckily the story makes a few small personal choices that bring the story down to relatable levels.  But I've spoken before about my aversion to the new trend of destruction-based superhero movies and the effect I think it has on us.  Luckily the stakes are kept mostly personal and the finale isn't so loud and destructive as to dull you into a noise coma.

To protect his earthly love Thor brings Dr. Foster to Asgard so his physicians can take a look at her.  Odin isn't happy with Thor's actions, but is shocked to find Jane infected with the Aether.  Here we get one of many gobbledy-gook explanations about the evil and the darkness of the Aether and how it can't be destroyed.  Thor is concerned for Jane's life, Odin is concerned for the fate of the universe.  Both of their concerns come to fruitition when Malekith and his badies come crashing into Asgard looking for the Aether.  And Thor and his warriors are able to fight off the Elves, but not before Malekith is able to strike a huge blow to Asgard.  Now Thor is determined to hunt down the Elves so they can extract the Aether from Jane and he can destroy.  But Odin has ordered the Bifrost closed and there is only one secret way off of Asgard, known only to one prisoner.

Enter Loki (Tom Hiddleston), likely the reason for a lot of fans returning to the film.  Loki has been imprisoned for his actions during the Avengers and Thor comes to him for help only because he is most depserate and Loki similarly has cause for revenge against the Elves.  This is where the movie really takes off.  A daring and treasonous escape from Asgard, a brutal battle with tricks and double crosses on the Dark World and a great finale.  Loki and Thor have a great back-and-forth and it's nice to see the film take a less serious tone in the latter two-thirds.

The funniest stuff of the film, though, goes to Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard).  After having, in his words, "a god in [his] head" for most of the events preceding and during the Avengers, Erik is a little off his rocker, but he has figured out how to stop the Elves from using the Aether to destroy the NIne Realms.  It's one of those easy fixes that you don't have to explain because the science doesn't actually exist, but it has to do with placing poles that create a gravitational field around the source of the Convergence (the aligning of all the realms that the Dark Elves plan to use as a portal to unleash the Aether) so you can manipulate and close the portals.  It's convoluted, and convenient, but it makes for a pretty cool space jumping finale.

Overall, Thor: The Dark World is a fun ride.  The plot is a little convenient at times and the villain isn't as fun or compelling as Loki himself, but it doesn't much matter when a film looks this good, is this strongly directed and has this much heart and humor.  It's pretty spectacular that Marvel has had this much success and kept up the quality of films this well for a series of interconnected super hero movies for this long.  Thor is one of my personal favorites in the series and The Dark World proves there are stories left to tell from Asgard.

Despicable Me 2: Papoy!

Everyone really goes to see Despicable Me for the Minions, right?  And in the sequel the Minions have a larger role, both in on-screen time and in story.  As with any film that seeks to make a peripheral character the focus of a sequel, there are many dangers (see Cars 2), but Despicable Me 2 does a fine job of walking a fine line.  The genius of the move is to make them crucial to the plot, thereby justifying the added on-screen presence, but the danger is you might overdo the fart and butt jokes, and this movie gets awfully close to just that.  I don't know, though, maybe it's just my inner 14 year-old or the fact that those jokes are often played a little tongue-in-cheek, I still laughed.

Minions aside, the story focuses on the ever lovable baddie, Gru, who after adopting three little girls has given up a life of badness to be a good stay at home dad while trying to start his own line of jams and jellies which he doesn't seem to have a knack for. Gru is satisfied being the world's best single dad, but it becomes obvious very quickly, at least to his girls and the neighborhood moms, that he is missing something, namely the love of a good woman.  As if his life were scripted (hey!) Gru meets Lucy an ever-perky secret agent that works for an Anti-Villain agency tasked with bringing Gru in to help them track down a super villain who is planning a really bad thing (which escapes me at this moment, something about turning the minions evil and ruling the world probably).  At first Gru is reluctant, both to the job and to the advances of the lovely Lucy, but he eventually comes around to both proposals.

A lot of the humor and heart in this well crafted sequel comes from relationships.  Gru and Lucy have a wonderfully awkward repartee for sure, but the real humor comes from Gru's paternal instincts kicking in once his oldest daughter, Margot, starts liking boys, one flirtatious latin boy specifically.  Grounding the ridiculous plot in real emotion and relationships like this that make Despicable Me 2 really fun and engaging.

Steve Carell is in characteristically strong form as the voice behind our villain hero and Kristen Wiig brings a delightful foil to Gru's grumpy personae with Lucy's endlessly optimistic, brightly colored Secret Agent.  The Minions continue their almost intelligible babbling to great comedic effect, particularly a great send up of Backstreet Boy's "I Swear" and the Village People's "Y.M.C.A." at the end of the film.

It's not a perfect movie by any means.  The story was a bit predictable and there weren't any great surprises like I hoped there would be.  Gru also felt like a secondary character with so much going on and I don't think he had as central (or humorous) a role as he did in the first film, this is partly due to the increased role of the minions and various subplots.  Also, how are these three girls, none of them older than 13, alone so often?  I guess the bumbling Minions double as babysitters?  All that said, it's a thoroughly enjoyable family film with a lot of heart and plenty of laugh-out-loud moments.  Most of my criticism comes from the fact that the first film was so surprising and I love it so much that it's hard not find fault with a film that is "merely very good."  But nostalgia can be a very dangerous drug when judging sequels.

Monsters University: We're OK! We're OK!

Monsters University is a cotton candy-colored return to form for Pixar after the poor Cars 2 and the fine, but overly childish Brave.  MU takes place an unspecified number of years before the 2001 Monsters Inc. at the titular school where Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan meet as competitors for the Scare Program.  The story is simple, Mike has book smarts while Sully has a natural ability for scaring.  The two become natural enemies as they prepare for their scare final which will determine whether or not they get to continue in the program.  After an unfortunate accident, however, the two are forced to become allies when they are banned from becoming Scarers.  Now they, along with their ragtag teammates from the nerd fraternity Oozma Kappa, have to compete in the annual Scare Games against the school's finest sororities and fraternities in order to win back their place in the Scare Program.  Familiar, for sure, but lots of fun.

Much of what happens is standard college movie fare.  The rivalries, the miracle victories, the cheating, the pranks, etc.  But it's all done with such panache and humor that it's easy to enjoy.  Really the biggest issue I had was that there wasn't a strong enough antagonist.  Like many college films, the bad guy here is the Dean.  Devilishly voiced by Dame Helen Mirren, Dean Hardscrabble is a formidable foe; frightening even to her fellow monsters, she's certainly menacing, but there lacked an ever-present villain.  Some of the other fraternities have typical jock-types (awesome voice work by the always charming Nathan Fillion and the geeky Bobby Moynihan), but none of them felt threatening enough.  They could have used Randall (Steve Buscemi) from the first film, there was a great set up with Mike and Randall being friends and roommates at the beginning, but the filmmakers made the smart choice of not referring too much to the original.  Just enough nods and winks without over doing it (watch for a subtle wink to the original with a throwaway gag involving the accident prone George Sanderson).

As with all Pixar films, the visuals are state-of-the-art.  The colors in MU jump off the screen (even in 2D) and the action set pieces are thrilling.  The new characters are great as well, particularly the hapless brothers of Oozma Kappa (perfectly abbreviated to OK).  Don, Squishy, Terry, Terri and Art are all unique and memorable, which can't be said of all the other characters in the film.  Each member of OK has their time to shine and is able to use their unique abilities to help the team in the Scare Games.  My personal favorite is the flighty Art, a New Age Philosophy major who can't wait to laugh with his brothers...and cry with them.  Squishy also has some wonderful moments as he constantly scares Mike by sneaking up on him, blank faced.  This leads to a great moment in the final act as the members of OK test their scaring abilities.

The sight gags and throwaway lines made this film a delight to watch and it's fun, as always, to play "Guess the Voice" as you spot John Krasinski, Aubrey Plaza and the other top-notch performers.  This film has great rewatchability, because so many of the jokes are quick one liners or visual jokes you miss on first viewing.  Like the joke from the improv club president.  I know I missed some great joke about never saying No in improv, but I was too busy soaking up the campus along with Mike on his first day.  The story is well structured and it moves along nicely, I never once checked my watch.  And while there is a lot that is familiar, there are still plenty of surprises to keep you engaged.  The third act, especially takes some nice turns.

So while many people will be bemoaning the fact that this isn't one of Pixar's "best" (although I might disagree) the film is solid.  It's fun, it's heartfelt and it's enjoyable.  In fact the story seems to be a metaphor for the movie itself and its place as part of the Pixar canon.  Sometimes it's good, maybe even noble, to be OK.  The brothers of Oozma Kappa learn that teamwork and supporting each other are more important than book smarts or natural ability alone and while it takes Mike and Sully a bit longer to realize this, they embrace their weakness and use it to become a strength. I also can't praise enough the epilogue that teaches a brilliant lesson: sometimes you can still fulfill your dreams with little time and a lot of hard work.  Maybe with some work and in enough time Monsters University will reach its rightful place among the best of Pixar.

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's...Loud.

The worst thing you can do with a franchise as marketable and branded as Superman is make it generic.  When the story and characters feel like they've been pieced together from stronger sources, it's time to rethink your strategy.  This was exactly the problem with Zack Snyder's Man of Steel; the climax is loud, and unstatisfying, and a lot of the story feels like a retread, nobly intentioned for sure, but rote.  Visually it's a feast.  Henry Cavill is superbly suited for the role of Kal-El and the rest of the cast is top notch as well.  You just have to wish they were given better material.

My problems are these: Superman is so well defined and known in the American (and now Worldwide) mythology, so why waste such an impressive budget on an origin story?  We live a narrative saturated world, I was once told, and writers don't have the luxury of exposition anymore.  If something is known, you don't have to state it.  So much time in Man of Steel is dedicated to telling us things we already know.

Also, there's only so much you can blow up or knock over before you lose the humanity of your characters.  But Superman isn't human, you say?  Well this movie does a fine job showing us that he really is as much human as he is Kryptonian.  The reason Superman is a compelling character, as I see it, for two reasons: 1.  He's an alien trying to live as human being and 2. He's an immortal being while all the people he loves are mortal.  These two paradoxes create symapthy for a character that is basically invincible and make him someone we can root for.  There is a lot in this film that gives us cause to cheer and weep with him.  The moment when Pa Kent (wonderfully played by Kevin Costner) reassures a young Clark that he is in fact his son, is touching.  Jor-El (another strong performance in Russell Crowe) telling Kal he can be the best of both these worlds is inspiring.  So why then do you waste these beautiful moments of mythology with a bombastic ending that could have come out of Transformers?  Two alien "robots" duke it out amongst the ruin of a city that is suddenly devoid of human life.

Which gets me to my third and biggest gripe with Man of Steel, how can you justify that much destruction in a movie about a being who represents a Savior?  There was no real world cost to Supe's and Zod's slugfest.  I told a friend, if, in the sequel, they don't address the fact that over half of Metropolis is destroyed it will be criminal.  That statement is partially a moral one and partially a narrative one.  There has to be a cost for this "victory."  If they do account for it in the next one (and yes, there will be a next one) it could be a huge opportunity for Mr. Kent to reflect on what his choices (huge theme in this film, more on that later) mean for those he loves and those he has sworn to protect.  Until then, I stand by the fact that the third act (the final showdown) is just too much.  Too much blowing up, too much punching, too many buildings collapsing, too much noise.  Maybe I'm just an old fart now, but I left the theater with a slight headache.

I also had problems with the story, but I also enjoyed great parts of it.  The overall story is a bit convoluted.  Something about Zod creating a new Krypton and something called a Codex (there's an awful lot of technobabble).  That's ok, I could follow it for the most part.  One thing I found myself really taking note of was the dialogue, and lack thereof.  I feel like a lot of the filmmakers working today are of the film school variety where you're told, "Don't say it.  Show it." And because of this we have a generation of people who think characters scowling into the sunset has meaning.  This happens a lot in Man of Steel.   For the most part this is ok, but I like dialogue.  I LOVE dialogue.  Good dialogue sends shivers up my spine.  So wasting all your dialogue on exposition shouted by military men of various intergalactic races only to have your lead character hardly say a word seems like a waste.  I understand that this was supposed to be an introspective film for Clark, Kal-El and Superman (all the same person, in case you didn't know), but give the guy some stuff to work with I think Henry has it in him and when you've got David Goyer as the writer you can do great things.  I mean, this is one of the guys responsible for Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.

Now I need to be fair, I've only discussed the films weaknesses (as I see them), but there is also a lot to like about this film.  And I did like it.  I may have even loved it.  Repeat viewings might be needed to fully come to terms with it, but only after my headache goes away.

First of all, I really like what they did with Lois Lane.  Her trying to track down Clark is great.  I like that he's become a vagabond while he has been finding himself.  I wish that were more of the movie.  The "relationship" between the two happens a bit quick, but I like that they cut that corner and didn't waste time on a love story we all know already exists.  If they followed this example with the rest of his origin, it may have helped.  I think that Lois Lane is also one of the great things in the mythology of Superman that humanizes him.  And it's the human moments, like Perry White and his staff as they look death in the face, or Clark finally understanding why his father hid him from the world, that make the movie really soar.

I also love the themes in the film.  The biggest one that stood out to me was that of choice versus destiny.  David Goyer does a great job of creating a conflict inherent in Superman of what his choices are and what his destiny can be.  Without giving anything away, the conflict between Zod and Superman is the conflict between what is expected of us by our society and our ability to choose whether or not to live up to those expectations.  Again, if the sequel is done right, Superman's choices will haunt him and cause him to question his destiny.  I was worried that this movie would become a Nolanification of a superhero that represents hope and optimism, but I think a lot of hope is given while not overlooking the difficulty and Catch-22 nature of being Superman.

And above all the film looks great!  The design and the cinematography and the effects are all top notch.  Some of the fight scenes were a little concussive and I wish Mr. Snyder would have brightened some of the hues, but overall the film is spectacular to watch.  Not just the design and look of the film, either, but the actors.  I think this is one of the best cast superhero films ever.  Each part was played well and everyone looked great doing it.  Oh and the ending!  Sublime.  Even though I still wonder, do the glasses really fool anyone?

So while the film had a lot of issues, I think the good stuff won out for me.  Like Superman himself, this movie struggles to understand what it wants to be.  As I reflect, I see that its aspirations may exceed its grasp, but that doesn't make the aspirations any less noble.  Just as the Man of Steel is trying to find his place on Earth, Man of Steel tries to find its identity in an overwhleming sea of superhero movies and, hopefully, the next film will show us that this rocky step was worth it.

A Case for Les Misérables

I am an unabshed fan of this musical.  That needs to be stated upfront.  I saw it for the first (and really only) time when I was 8 years old.  The Monday night before my family went to see it, we sat around our old CD player as my father told the story and we listened to all the most important songs; though we skipped Lovely Ladies (and the thus the subsequent explanation of what that song is about) and Master of the House.  I don't really remember actually watching the play at Raleigh Memorial Auditorium.  I'm pretty sure I fell asleep.  It doesn't matter though.  Since that night I have listened to the original Broadway cast soundtrack over and over and over.  I've memorized every song and on the right tracks I belt it out along with Colm and Terrance.   So when I heard they were making a movie I was excited (read: extremely upset someone beat me to it) and after seeing the film the for the first time in theaters, I, like many people, was disappointed to a certain degree.  I felt like there were moments that were good and some that were great, but I had problems with the directing (so many close-ups!) and the performances (Wolervine stop being so nasally!).  I still felt, however, that the central messages were there and as a religious person it is refreshing to see those make it ever-so-rarely into big studio films.  I told people, "I liked it, didn't love it."
   But see, I have a problem.  I buy movies.  Too much.  And so when this one was coming out I thought, why not?  And I bought it.  My lovely wife had not seen the movie yet, so on another Monday evening some 19 years after my parents sat me and my siblings down, my wife and I sat with our daughter and watched.  And you know what?  I love this movie.  I love the music.  I love the messages and I love the performances.  It was great.  Wonderful.  Beautiful and moving.  I found myself forgetting (maybe just forgiving) some of its flaws.  Problems I had melted away.  I will get to my theory on why a little later, but first here are the things I love about the movie (and musical) in no particular order (there may be some spoilers):

THE MESSAGE
Hollywood loves a good revenge story and, truth be told, I do too.  The day I proposed to my wife I saw Taken in theaters and it was a revelation.  There is somthing cathartic about seeing people who deserve to go down get their due.  But Les Miserables is a story about forgiveness.  A much harder act both to perform and to portray in a film.  The character of Javert is the antagonist, but he's not a bad guy.  He's trying to do what he feels is right.  He believes in law and justice.  Of course it's ridiculous that he's hunting down a man who broke parole over stealing a loaf of bread, but that's the point.  Javert is the Old Testament law coming into conflict with Jean Valjean, an embodiment of New Testament compassion.  He represents what Javert cannot fathom - reformation and change.  It's heartbreaking, then, when Javert does the only thing he can think to do to make amends for a lifetime of misguided justice.  The ending of this film is sublime to me.  It's didactic for sure, but a message like this often is.  Faulting a film like this one for being didactic though is a bit like going to Church and complaining that it's too preachy.

DREAMING DREAMS
I just want to say that even from the first trailer I've defended Anne Hathaway's performance.  Singing live during the filming was a risk and I think it paid off more often than not.  When Fantine begins to sing "I Dreamed a Dream" you see the physical toll her choices and situation have brought down upon her.  My heart breaks every time I hear her choke out the words, "I dreamed that God would be forgiving."  I've heard plenty of criticism of Ms. Hathaway's perfomance and subsequent Oscar win, but that scene alone was worth the price of admission for me.  I never loved the song "Lovely Ladies," because I thought it took a serious situation and made a joke out of it.  This rendition, tied to the subsequent aria, made the song have relevance and context.  It was no longer a joke, but a sad story of a fallen woman.

VIVE LA CROWE!
This will probably get me into trouble, but I loved Russell Crowe as Javert.  His voice is gravelly and he doesn't have the gravitas of many of the stage performers who have played the role, but I think he was great.  People have told me they felt like he seemed too nice in the film and when he was supposed to be menacing, he just came across like a teddy bear.  Maybe I've watched Gladiator enough times to see he can mean business, or maybe I just like the fact that he played the role with some compassion to it.  Javert has always been my favorite character because he sticks so doggedly to his beliefs, but ultimately does the right thing.  A tear comes to my eye every time he pins his medal to the body of little Gavroche.  My wife turned to me at this point and said, "Best scene of the movie."  It was a little touch that helps round out a character that easily could have been very flat.  For those who think Russell Crowe was a bad choice because he can't sing, go back and watch the film.  His pitch is pretty good, even if he still lacks some of the showmanship of a professional singer.  It helps that I love the character so much, but I'll defend Russell anytime.

HOME VIEWING
My last thought is one that might be a bit of a stretch, but...well here it goes.  After finishing watching the film from the comfort of my couch, with a few interruption for ice cream and putting babies to sleep, I thought, "Wow.  That was so good."  For some reason the extreme amount of extreme close-ups didn't bother me.  The performances felt stronger.  Hugh Jackman's high notes...well those still bothered me, but not nearly as much.  And then as I got ready for bed I came up with a theory, and hear me out on this one.  I think home video is closer to theatre than going to the movies at the cineplex.  Think about it.  Theatre is live, it's organic and it's intimate.  Broadway theatres are smaller than you would think and you really feel like you're part of the show.  Sitting on my couch, with my wife close by, felt more like going to a play than watching a movie and I think that improved the experience and also the film as a whole for me.

Now this film, like any, is not without its flaws, but for me it's pretty great.  I would say that if you've seen the film and didn't like or it, or liked it but didn't love it, give it another try on DVD or Blu-Ray.  Maybe you'll find more to like.  Maybe you won't.  I'm not making any promises.