Les Misérables (2012)

Let me start by professing my cultural ignorance when it comes to musicals.  My top three musicals are South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and How the Grinch Stole Christmas.  My least favorite musicals are Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Chicago and Rent.  Suffice to say, if you are a fan of movie musicals, then my opinion may mean nothing to you.  I normally wouldn't go out of my way to watch this movie, but Les Mis is apparently the most successful musical of all time and I knew nothing about it.  Musicals may not be my cup of tea, but that sort of gap in my knowledge is inexcusable.  And who knows?  Maybe I'll be one of the millions who love Les Misérables.

Les Misérables is the first musical adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel to reach the big screen, although there have been a few dramatic big screen adaptations already.  In other words, if you don't know the story by now, SPOILER ALERT.  The story begins in 19th century France with Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a convict whose crime was stealing bread for a starving child.  After serving a mere nineteen years for his crime, Valjean is paroled by Javert (Russell Crowe), the French equivalent of Boss Godfrey.  Valjean quickly realizes that there are not many opportunities out there for someone who's spent more of his adult life in prison than free, so he chooses to skip bail and start a new life with a new name.  Years later, Valjean is living under an assumed name and is living the good life; he is a factory owner and the mayor of a town.

I wonder if he ran on a "tough on crime" platform?

In his factory, one of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), is fired.  Why?  As far as I can tell, it is because A) she won't sleep with the foreman and B) she has a child, to whom she sends a sizable chunk of her paycheck.  Neither reason would pass muster nowadays, so I'm not exactly sure why being a parent mattered.  Whatever the reason, Fantine is fired and quickly starts selling parts of her body for cash; her hair and teeth are the first to go, but it isn't long before she is a bald, toothless prostitute.

Why so glum?  Now you don't have to brush your hair or teeth!

The next thing you know, Fantine is dying.  Jean "I'm totally not Jean Valjean" Valjean and Javert discover her, and Valjean takes her to the hospital and promises to take care of her daughter Cosette if worse comes to worse.  In a movie called "The Miserable," I wonder how likely that outcome is?  Simultaneously, Valjean learns that someone (specifically, not Hugh Jackman) has been arrested and is sentenced to die for being Jean Valjean.  Because he's a master of planning ahead, Valjean reveals himself to the court and basically says "Yeah, yeah, I'll serve my sentence," and then tells the dying Fantine that he'll be the father to her child.  Those two don't go hand in hand, so when Javert shows up to arrest him, Valjean fights and escapes, finds the child, and takes her with him to live a new life under yet another identity.

You know a kid's got a tough life when this guy is the less creepy option

We then jump forward in time again, until Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) is an eligible young lady.  Unfortunately, she falls in love with a French radical in the 1830s.  While her love seems doomed, Javert is seen sniffing around their neighborhood for Valjean once more.  Toss in some an unrequited love, a dirty kid, and some comic relief, and this decades-long plot is ready to come to a head.  And if you want to know the effect of open sewage on gunshot wounds, this movie might not be the most scientifically accurate.

Little known fact: Valjean dips everyone he carries in open sewage.  It's a fetish.

Here's a factoid that everyone who talks about this production of Les Misérables cannot help mentioning: the cast sang each take live, with only piano accompaniment.  Most musicals record their soundtrack several weeks ahead of time and later mime their performances for the movie cameras.  In other words, the actors of Les Mis had a better opportunity for onscreen chemistry because they had the freedom to change things up from take to take.  Did they make the most of it?  Well, I have to admit that the emoting in this film is pretty good.  Hugh Jackman did a reasonably fine job in the acting department; his character goes through the most changes and Jackman doesn't ever seem silly in the process.  Russell Crowe played "stern" capably, although I would argue that this is one of his more wooden performances, overall.

Russell Crowe: making movies, making songs and fightin' around the world

Anne Hathaway was a scene-stealer with limited screen time, even though I really didn't like her character at all.  Who sells their teeth before their flesh, anyway?  And why does anyone want to buy her teeth?  Sure, Hathaway seems to have roughly five rows in her mouth, but that's just weird.  I'm not a huge Amanda Seyfried fan, but she played her (to be fair, totally bland) role well.  I don't know what it is about Eddie Redmayne, but his face genuinely bothers me in this movie; I think it has something to do with his awful brushed-forward/There's-Something-About-Mary-gel-scene haircut.  He's okay as a youngster rebelling and falling in love.  The more I see of Sacha Baron Cohen, the less impressed I am by him.  He's not bad or annoying in this movie, but he doesn't seem to have the ability to play anything resembling human.  I liked Helena Bonham Carter well enough, though, and the two paired up decently well.  I was impressed by Samantha Barks, even though her part was fairly small. 

...and, apparently, underclothed

But Les Misérables is a musical!  What about the singing?  I would have to say that the best singers in the cast were the supporting women.  Hathaway and Barks were pretty impressive, and Seyfried was pretty good except for too much vibrato in her falsetto.  I didn't care for Hugh Jackman's songs.  He's a bit too "musical theater" for my tastes.  And yes, I know that this film is probably the best place for someone with a musical theater background, but that doesn't change how much I liked him.  I was surprised to hear how strong Crowe's voice was, until I remembered he had a finger-quotes rock band.  Bonham-Carter and Baron Cohen were comedy relief, so their voices were intentionally at odds with everything around them; I wasn't a big fan, but they served their purpose. 

Their purpose: to look like a Christmas hangover

Tom Hooper chose Les Mis as his directorial follow up to The King's Speech.  He could have gone for another British period piece, but he chose to bring a musical that is entirely singing to the big screen instead.  This is only the second film of his I've seen, but I'm going to go ahead and say that Hooper is a pretty damned good director.  The choice to not pre-record the vocals was interesting, and I think he got some of the best acting-while-singing I've ever seen.  The camerawork was very good and the set designs were impressive.  Since the film jumps around so much in time, there were a lot of different sets, and each one looked great.

I'm pretty sure this building was only in about 15 seconds of film

From what I can tell, Hooper did an admirable job bringing this huge musical to the big screen.  Too bad I didn't like it.  Despite that, the final scene still hit me like a ton of bricks, out of absolutely nowhere, which just goes to show how effective Hooper is at working his script.

So, I didn't like Les Misérables.  The directing was good, the acting was fine, and I liked some of the singing (just not particularly the two male leads).  What's my problem, then?  If I had to narrow it down to one reason, it would have to be the songs.  I didn't really like any of them.  There were a few snippets, here and there, that I enjoyed --- Anne Hathaway's signature song, and the beginning to the love song of Cosette and Marius --- but they served as segues to larger medleys that I didn't care for.  My overwhelming impression of the songs in this musical was "Shouldn't these rhyme more?"  My imagination tried to help fix the songs, too, by pairing any line ending with "gone" or "on" with "like Jean Valjean."  Not surprisingly, it didn't help.  It also doesn't help that the entire film is sung, so I could not truly enjoy the downtime between medleys, either.

I also had some major problems with the story.  Ignoring Javert's insatiable bloodlust for Valjean --- which seems more than a little out of proportion, especially given all the other criminals Javert had met that were worse --- still leaves me with points that I just couldn't comprehend.  Fantine's storyline confused the hell out of me.  I think she was fired from her crap job because she had a child; this somehow turns into accusations of prostitution, which still should be nobody's business but hers and the police; once she's out on the street, Fantine almost immediately contracts a fatal dose of prostitution.  I think that's the gist of her story, but the logic behind it escapes me.  Almost as bad was the little revolutionary street rat, Aladdin Gavroche.  That little shit caused more trouble than anyone else in the movie (with the possible exception of that loaf of bread Valjean stole before the first scene).  This film would have 70% fewer casualties if he hadn't essentially shamed the rebels into fighting to the death.  I also don't understand Javert's motivation when he pinned a medal on Gavroche's corpse; for someone who viewed crime as black and white, that felt very uncharacteristic.

For the record, cute girls in newsboy clothes are hot, while revolutionary boys with girl hair are little shits

Obviously, I am only speaking for myself.  Countless people have seen and heard this musical and love it to shreds; if there is going to be a movie that satisfies that audience, this is it.  I can appreciate the work that went into this production, and the craftsmanship of Tom Hooper and the cast is undeniable.  It just didn't tickle my fancy.  If you're into musicals, you'll probably dig this one.  If not, then this won't change your mind.  If you're somewhere in-between, I think the artistry will win you over.  But for me, it falls into the realm of barely worth watching.

Why didn't I like the songs?  I think I just have a problem with people singing different songs at each other:

Brian's Best of 2010

Why is this Best of 2010 list being posted at the end of February 2011?  If the Academy Awards can wait until then, so can I.

Of course, I don't follow the same rules as the Academy and I don't watch all of the same movies.  I'm going to give you my Top 10 and Worst 5 movies of the year, the best and worst actors and actresses, as well as best director, bit part and biggest surprise and disappointment.  I should point out that, at the time of this post, I have not seen The Fighter, 127 Hours, Machete, or Piranha (2010), so you might notice a discrepancy between my lists and most critical listings.  For a complete list of the 2010 films that were considered in my 2010 wrap-up, check my review index; I will have reviews for Black Swan, The Social Network, Toy Story 3 and The King's Speech later this week.

Let's begin with the bottom of the barrel...
Worst Actor: Joaquin Phoenix in I'm Still Here.  The movie was awful, and all it did was follow him around being awful.

Word!

Dishonorable mention goes to Channing Tatum in Dear John, mostly for his godawful monologue about coins.

Worst Actress: Amanda Seyfried in Dear John.  I'm just tired of her stupid face.

Why does she have a belly bra?

Dishonorable mention goes to Tiffany in Mega Piranha, but only because she actually looked like she was trying to act in that awesomely bad crap-fest.

Biggest Disappointment: It had to be Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.  It wasn't bad, and it was visually spectacular, but I expected more from Burton and Johnny Depp.  This was their chance to get really, really inventively weird, and they half-assed the story.  Even the spectacular special effects would have been more impressive if they were a little more bizarre.  The last thing I expected to feel after watching this movie was indifference, but that's what I got.

Worst Five Movies
5. A Nightmare on Elm Street - Yeah, I know remakes suck.  Yeah, I know that the people who brought me the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake produced this, too, but it managed to get Freddy Kreuger exactly wrong.  He's not scary because he's a killer, he's scary because he's in your dreams.  This also has one of the lamest "twists" I've seen in a while.

You know it's bad when the NES version is scarier than the 2010 movie.

4. Leap Year - Romantic comedies are terrible.  Case in point.  Amy Adams is generally adorable, but not when her character is obnoxious.
3. Unthinkable - There's nothing like bringing up a controversial issue, not arguing both sides equally and still not taking sides by the end.  This movie is my all-time winner for ending a film before key plot points get resolved.  If you thought The French Connection ends abruptly, this conclusion will blow your mind.
2. Dear John - Manipulative drivel with awful acting.  I hate you so much, Nicholas Sparks.  But hey, at least he made the point that autism is not the same thing as mental retardation.  Consider me schooled.
1. I'm Still Here - Self-indulgent tripe of no value.  By far, the most painful viewing experience of the year.  When the highlight of your movie has somebody pooping on the star, you know you've hit rock bottom.

Okay, that gets some of the bile out of the way.  Now on to the fun stuff!

Best Bit Part: This award absolutely had to go to someone from Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, because the movie was chock full of great minor roles.  I'm going to give it to Chris Evans for two reasons.  First, the posters for his fictional movie roles were amazing.  Second, I loved his response to someone saying they're a fan: "Why wouldn't you be?"  That was great.

Best Supporting Actress: Chloe Moretz in Kick-Ass, primarily because her character was awesome, but also because her fight with Mark Strong was the only time the movie's gratuitous violence disturbed me.

Best Supporting Actor: Geoffrey Rush in The King's Speech.  I'm a huge fan of Rush in supporting roles, and this is some of his best work in years.  Silly and touching at the same time, his performance was the perfect compliment to Colin Firth's.
This is my favorite category because there are so many great small but memorable roles every year.  Honorable mentions goes to Eddie Marsan in The Disappearance of Alice Creed for the purity of his performance in a crime movie.  It wasn't terribly complex, but it was very well executed.

Mrsan may look like a hobbit here, but he was scary in Alice Creed.

John Hawkes deserves some recognition for his work in Winter's Bone, too --- he has the most character development I have seen in any supporting character this year.


Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone.  She was just terrific.  Sure, the character was pretty good, being all tough and determined and whatnot, but Lawrence gave her redneck character real dignity.  That is no small task.
Honorable mention goes to Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit.  I realize that she received Supporting Actress nods (probably because teenage girls don't win Best Actress anythings), but hers was definitely a co-starring role, and she deserves the credit for her work.

Best Actor: I didn't have a clear-cut favorite in this category this year until I watched a marathon of Oscar-nominated films this weekend.  Now, it seems pretty obvious that Colin Firth deserves to be considered the year's best actor for The King's Speech.  I'm not a huge Firth fan, but he managed to make me care about the personal problems of a foreign royal, and I didn't laugh at his stutter once in the whole movie.  And I'm a jerk, so that's doubly impressive.

"You want me to sing into this tin can?": NOT a British remake of O Brother Where Art Thou?

Honorable mentions go to Michael Cera, for his stunningly perfect work in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, and Jesse Eisenberg, for his fast-talking asshole performance in The Social Network.

Best Director: Christopher Nolan for Inception.  The movie was smart, visually fabulous, well-told, and well-acted.  Nolan is responsible for all of that greatness, so he wins.
Honorable mentions go to Martin Scorcese, for his beautifully directed (but a tad predictable) Shutter Island, Edgar Wright for making THE GREATEST comic book adaptation ever (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), and Tom Hooper for directing the Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor performances in The King's Speech.

Top Ten Movies

10. The Crazies: For my money, this is the smartest, most well-crafted horror movie of the year.  It's not Oscar-worthy, but the main characters seem reasonable and don't act stupidly.  That might sound a little simple, but it makes a potentially fun horror-watching experience into a thrilling one.
9. The Expendables: Old men make boom punch pow.  Violence good.

Fashion by Stallone.

8. Iron Man 2: It wasn't as deep as the first movie, but I love me a good sequel and IM2 delivered.  Well-directed, -paced, and -acted, this is a sequel that had only a few moments of Sequel Stupidity.  Thankfully, it balanced those moments out with Sam Rockwell being obnoxious and dudes fighting other dudes in robotic (you might even say iron) suits.  I don't know about you, but I got what I paid to see.

I can't believe they replaced Terrence Howard with that guy.

7. The Social Network: It's hard not to love a whole movie full of fast-paced witty dialogue, and it was a pleasure seeing Jesse Eisenberg step out of Michael Cera's shadow with this film.  Good performances and great dialogue --- I just wish the real Mark Zuckerberg was anywhere near this cool.
6. Kick-Ass: It answers the question of why there aren't superheroes in the real world --- because they would get ass-kicked on day one.  It's not a deep movie, but it is fun and violent.  As an added treat, Nicolas Cage doesn't ruin the film.  What are the odds?
5. Toy Story 3: Just because it makes you cry doesn't make it sad.  One of the most touching dramas about family and growing up you can see.  This is probably the best artistic statement of the year, even if it's not my favorite movie.  Pixar is the Alan Moore of animation.
4. True Grit: Certainly one of the best remakes of all time and a return to gorgeous filmmaking and quirky supporting roles for the Coen Brothers.  It doesn't quite shake off reminders of the original, but it certainly offers another argument for the importance of the Western in modern filmmaking.
3. The King's Speech: Impressive performances make this potentially boring subject matter thoroughly entertaining and emotional.  It's just really, really good.
2. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: This movie was an 8-bit love song, aimed directly at my heart.  Goofy, stupid, fast, and video gamer-friendly, this movie was perfect for what it is --- a movie about comic books and video games that is as much fun as reading comic books and playing video games.

Actors holding original comic art of their characters is pretty sweet.

1. Inception: Don't ask questions about the ending.  Just smile and laugh.  The always interesting Christopher Nolan crafted his masterpiece here.  The acting is very good, with many actors doing a lot of little things well; the plot is labyrinthine to explain, but understandable when you see it; the visual effects are unique and awe-inspiring.  This is a film that dreamed big and achieved everything it reached for.  It is absolutely the most impressive film I have seen all year.

Dear John

Interesting fact: Dear John was the film that knocked Avatar out of the #1 box office spot and eventually grossed over $110 million.  Whoops...sometimes I get "interesting" and "depressing" mixed up.

Dear John is the film adaptation of tearjerker extraordinaire Nicholas Sparks' book of the same name.  A solider named John (Ooh!  Part of the title is explained!) meets a girl while on leave from the Army Special Forces in 2001.  John (Channing Tatum) and Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) fall in love within a matter of days, for reasons that are hard for viewers to explain.  Sure, they're attractive, but their relationship moves fast enough to make Fatal Attractions-era Glenn Close say "Maybe you two should think this through a little longer."  Still, John only has two weeks of leave, so they truck on like it's nobody's business.  John is soon introduced to Savannah's family and friends, including local rich jerk Randy (Scott Porter), her neighbor Tim (Henry Thomas), and his autistic son.  John reciprocates by introducing Savannah to his father (Richard Jenkins), a shut-in that isn't much of a father to John; instead, he is obsessed with his coin collection.  Savannah points out that John's dad might be autistic, since he seeks comfort in patterns, schedules, and predictability.  John apparently doesn't know the difference between autism and being retarded, and chooses to get really pissed off over Savannah's suggestion.  This leads to some other stuff, but in the end, John and Savannah part when he returns to the Special Forces with the promise to write each other bushels full of letters.  Oh, now I get it..."Dear John" refers to the beginning of her letters to him!  And here I thought it would refer to the infamous "Dear John" letter, where a woman tells her man that she's met someone new.  Silly me.  Well played, Mr. Sparks.  Well played, indeed.

John seems ready for this to be his last year in the military, but then the September 11 attacks happen.  John is briefly conflicted, but Savannah tells him to do what he thinks is right, so he re-enlists.  Over the next two years, Savannah's letters become rarer, until she finally sends him a final letter.  Sadly, she has become engaged to an unnamed man and won't be writing John any more.  Oh, snap!  Do you see what happened there?  The movie's title initially referred to the beginning of her letters to John, but then they turned it around and used that same title to refer to the brush-off letter!  I did not see that one coming!  On behalf of all movie watchers, I now crown thee Lord Nicholas Sparks the Unpredictable.  You may rise.

John handles this the most rational way he can and re-enlists for another four years.  Eventually, John is forced to take some leave to attend to his dying father, who dies after John reads a heartfelt letter to him.  It has been six years since he last saw Savannah, but they meet again and John learns that she has married Tim, who is dying of cancer.  John goes to visit Tim in the hospital, where Tim explains that Savannah still loves John more than she ever loved him, and that he is happy he married Savannah because now his son will not be orphaned.  Savannah tells John that there is little hope for Tim, because the insurance companies won't pay for experimental treatments and they only live on a ranch with several horses --- they can't possibly pay for his treatment!  John then cashes in his father's coin collection and anonymously pays for Tim's experimental treatment.  How you do that for treatment that hasn't been administered yet, I'm not entirely sure.  This is where John says goodbye to Savannah, and she gets the feeling that he really means it.  The treatment gives Tim enough time to get well and then die at home.  Savannah writes to John to tell him Tim's fate, which motivates John enough to leave the Army after his tour of duty is over and return home.  The last scene shows John and Savannah catching each others glance in public and then they hug.  The end, thank God.

If nothing else positive can be said for this movie, I will say that it is brave.  I can't think of any other film that tries to handle autism, cancer, and post-9/11 military stresses at the same time.  You can call that ballsy, stupid, or just plain insensitive, but it takes no shortage of confidence to attempt.

I am a little surprised by the way autism is treated in the movie.  Rain Man was made 22 years ago.  Everybody, even Channing Tatum, is at least aware of the movie, even if they haven't seen it.  I realize that I am moderately educated, but equating autism and mental retardation is fairly ignorant.  I will even acknowledge that my understanding of autism isn't terribly deep, but Dear John just comes across as stupid because it doesn't delve much deeper than "uh...I thought you meant my Dad was a 'tard, but I guess you're right, maybe.  Let's bang before I have to shoot things."

Another peculiar thing about this film is the treatment of Tim's character.  He might seem like a pretty nice guy, but he enters a loveless marriage, and only after Savannah realizes that "he needs" her; I'm not sure if that is a reference to his son's autism, or his cancer.  It doesn't matter, though.  I guess there's nothing as romantic as feeling like a weight chained around your loved one's neck.  My understanding for Tim's motivation here is that he just wanted to give his son some security after his death.  Maybe I misread that, but I think it's kind of douchey thing to do, especially when you're friendly with your wife's true love.  I don't know if the filmmakers were just hoping that his cancer would generate enough sympathy to negate this or what, but it didn't quite work.

Speaking of not quite working, Amanda Seyfried contributes to the soundtrack.  It's a song that is played during a montage and then cuts to her playing it for Channing Tatum.  It's not a bad song, but it doesn't really come off as very natural, especially since it's the only time she sings or plays guitar in the entire movie.  It could have been worse, though...imagine Channing Tatum's singing voice.

There are things that don't quite work in this film, and things that are outright stupid, though.  One of these is the numbering of Savannah and John's letters.  The movie takes the time to have the couple figure out that, with John moving from location to location in the Army, their letters might arrive out of chronological order.  Okay, that makes sense, right?  Their solution is to number their letters.  So, that would end up with the letters being numbers as "Dear John 1, 2, 3, etc." and "Dear Savannah 1, 2, 3, etc."  Otherwise, if they were numbering the letters as "John luvs Savannah 1, 2, 3," they would both have to wait to write their next letter until the next sequential letter arrived in the mail, which could take weeks with John's Army stuff.  That might sound fair initially, but do you remember what the number was to the last check you wrote, off the top of your head?  Neither do I.  This is a plan doomed for failure.  You know what would have worked better?  Writing the date on the letter.  Just an idea.

About those letters...they're awful.  Never mind that this is yet another Nicholas Sparks story where the couple manages to avoid telephone calls, text messages, and email, using only handwritten letters to communicate.  The big pledge after John and Savannah's two-week romance was to "tell [each other] everything."  Okay, that would make for a lot of letter writing.  It's good to give the troops something to read, so that's cool by me.  The only problem is that they don't tell each other everything.  Their letters are all sappy stuff and lame dreams.  Nothing about their friends or everyday lives.  Gee, I wonder how John got blindsided by her marrying someone else, if they only wrote about things like "wherever you go, the moon is smaller than your thumb."  No, it's not.  It's a moon.  It controls the tides.  Read a book.  Not a Nicholas Sparks one, though.

That reminds me...John and Savannah meet when her purse is knocked into the ocean from a dock.  She says something about her "whole life" being in that purse, so John makes a twenty-odd foot dive into shallow water to save it.  If only it had been shallow enough, the rest of the movie could have just been Amanda Seyfried sitting in a hospital room while Channing Tatum napped in a coma.  Strangely enough, we never find out what made that purse so important.  If she was upset because her purse fell in the water, that's one thing, but to claim that your whole life was in the purse...?  That's a touch melodramatic, unless you explain it away with a "I keep my arterial hypertension medication in that purse," or "I'm literally addicted to cherry Tic Tacs."

Is it just me, or does this movie try to feel like other successful projects?  I can't have been the only one to equate Savannah's desire to marry a dying man with Jennifer Morrison's character on House.  The opening voice over from Channing Tatum was definitely reminiscent of American Beauty's beginning, too.  Of course, Kevin Spacey's voice over was not a strained metaphor about being a "coin" that was "minted" by the Army, only to become "tarnished" by...something.  Who cares?  It's dreadful.  It only gets worse when the entire voice over is performed on screen by John, while his father is dying.

Enough about the stupidity of this film.  Not every movie is brilliant, but sometimes movies can overcome poor scripts and plots with virtuoso performances or on-screen chemistry.  Sometimes, but not always.  I have no major problem with Amanda Seyfried in general, but she really doesn't bring much to this movie aside from her body.  Channing Tatum can only offer his body to any role he plays because he can't wake up convincingly, much less act.  He has a terrible speaking voice, too.  When he was giving his "I am a coin" speech, he sounded kind of like Patrick from Spongebob.  I will admit that Seyfried and Tatum are an attractive couple, but their chemistry is lacking here.  That's not a huge surprise, given their grasp of science and the size of the moon.  As far as the supporting actors went, Henry Thomas came across as a limp wuss, which was better than Scott Porter's one-dimensional jerk performance.  The saving grace to this movie's acting was Richard Jenkins.  He played John's autistic father convincingly and sympathetically.  He's only on the screen for fifteen or twenty minutes, but he is definitely the highlight.  Had the plot been about him, this movie might have worked, even if you kept the rest of the cast.  As it stands, though, Jenkins' performance just highlights how low the acting quality was for the rest of the film.

These awful performances are especially shocking, considering that Lasse Hallstrom was the director.  This is the guy that did What's Eating Gilbert Grape, The Cider House Rules, and Chocolat.  The fact that he did such a good job with those films and ended up with this tripe makes me hope that the man is getting a divorce and needed some quick cash.  I could have gotten better performances out of the cast by whipping them and screaming "Emote, damn you!"

I could go on and on, fueled by hatred and spite, but I'll leave that to the experts.  It may seem superfluous to spell this out, but this was an awful, awful movie.  Don't watch it.  The only thing keeping this from zero stars is Richard Jenkins.