Les Misérables (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Steve Tannehill]

I am really liking Les Miserables Live! The 2010 Cast Album. Good voices, good arrangements too.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Aaron, My wife and I were fortunate to see Gwen Verdon, Chita Rivera and Jerry Orbach as the stars of the original Chicago Broadway staging. Had you seen that, you would have been razzled-dazzled by the staging (not Spartan at all), the choreography and the acting. Being 1975, the country was not in the mood for a cynical musical, and so it folded rather quickly. My wife and I found ourselves laughing hysterically when most of the audience sat stone still. It was very weird. Anyway, back to Les Miz. Yes, everyone, please read the amazing novel. I saw the musical in its original road version (late '80s?), admired the staging, but was thoroughly underwhelmed by the thin musical ideas and lyrics, so once was more than enough. Sorry, but I'm more of a Sondheim man, whose shows I can see repeatedly and gain more from each viewing.

Oh man, I am jealous. I would've loved to have seen that original Chicago with that cast! Sondheim is the King, but I did love Les Miz in its original Broadway incarnation back in the late '80s.

 

[bryan4999]

Aaron, My wife and I were fortunate to see Gwen Verdon, Chita Rivera and Jerry Orbach as the stars of the original Chicago Broadway staging. Had you seen that, you would have been razzled-dazzled by the staging (not Spartan at all), the choreography and the acting. Being 1975, the country was not in the mood for a cynical musical, and so it folded rather quickly. My wife and I found ourselves laughing hysterically when most of the audience sat stone still. It was very weird. Anyway, back to Les Miz. Yes, everyone, please read the amazing novel. I saw the musical in its original road version (late '80s?), admired the staging, but was thoroughly underwhelmed by the thin musical ideas and lyrics, so once was more than enough. Sorry, but I'm more of a Sondheim man, whose shows I can see repeatedly and gain more from each viewing.

The original production of CHICAGO was amazing. Besides the cynical content, it also had A CHORUS LINE to contend with, which eclipsed everything else that year. The "Hot Honey Rag" number with Gwen and Chita was one of the most electrifying things I have ever seen on the stage.

 

[TawnyZ]

It's like asking: Since oil paints have served artists well for hundreds of years, why should an artist use acrylics?

The big difference is that anyone who can appriciate oil can also study, as intently as necessary, acrylics to discern a preference of one over the other. Such is not the case with this "style" of filmmaking. I did not see most of the film, because I COULD not. I had NO CHOICE in the matter. I wanted to watch every second of that film, perhaps, more than anyone else in the theater, and therein lies the source of my frustration: I paid for my ticket, I sat in the theater, I wanted to watch it. I couldn't. I think a more accurate analogy might be comparing it to theme park rides. But even then, people go to theme parks knowing that either 1) they can ride everything or 2) they can only ride certain rides, because the others will make them sick. But even in that situation, the rides often post warning signs, citing jerkiness, the use of strobelighting, etc. Maybe movies should start posting "unsteady camera" warnings - atleast I'd save the cost of the ticket

 

[James David Walley]

To me the most egregious change to the storyline was showing Eponine sacrificing herself at the barricade.

Actually, that's the way she meets her end in the original novel. Of course, Hugo's Éponine is a far different and less-sympathetic -- not to mention less-important -- character than portrayed in the musical. I haven't seen the film but, judging from the "blue revision" screenplay found on the web, it would appear that many of the changes made for the film brought it closer into line with the Hugo novel.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by James David Walley
Of course, Hugo's Éponine is a far different and less-sympathetic -- not to mention less-important -- character than portrayed in the musical.

Probably a lot less hot, too.

 

[Carlo_M]

Probably a lot less hot, too. 

God I hope she's not still dating that Jonas kid. Well at least between the two of them, one can sing...

 

[Mike Frezon]

I was pleased to see Entertainment Weekly pick out Samantha Barks as the breakout star from Les Miserables:

Just 22 years old. The age of my youngest child....
Sigh.

 

[Sam Posten]

Some of you may be interested in this thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/326737/film-critic-hulk-gives-a-master-class-in-cinematography-by-raging-against-les-mis

 

[James David Walley]

Personally, I find complaints about a director "using close-up all the f***cking time ironic, coming from a critic USING CAPS ALL THE F***ING TIME.

 

[bryan4999]

Amusing review here: http://themattwalshblog.com/2012/12/28/les-miserables-taught-me-how-to-hate-again/

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Hmmm. I don't know how my opinion is going to be taken this far into the thread. I just had the opportunity to finally see Les Miserables after reading the scathing reviews and many of the comments here. I should say up front that I am a huge fan of the musical. Saw it twice on Broadway. First time was a fantastic experience. The second (which was the most recent revival a few years back ) was far less memorable due to the young cast and the production coming off as a scaled-down College production. I went into the film with the lowest of expectations. I came out of it quite pleased. For me, the film worked. Yes, just about every word is sung, but that is exactly how the Broadway show was done. Have those who are complaining about the total lack of dialogue even seen the Broadway musical? Yeah, everybody's life in this movie is a real downer. However, it's nothing I didn't know going in. I was already familiar with the character backgrounds and the words to each and every song. Making Les Miserables into a film that replicated the Broadway experience, by thought, is a near-impossible task. However, I think that Hooper mostly got it right with a few exceptions.... The film didn't seem like an ensemble effort. The Broadway show feels more like a group effort. The film seems like its catering to the individual star. The songs seem less powerful when it seems you don't have this large ensemble supporting it. I noticed this immediately when I heard the film's soundtrack album prior to seeing the film. The soundtrack seems much more hollow than the Broadway version. One of my favorite numbers in the film is "Master of the House." I would say it's one of the most rousing sequences in the show. I thought that the number was completely bastardized in the film. It felt completely dull. I do feel that the raw singing worked rather than it being lip-synched. There was far more raw emotion conveyed through the songs which is the most important element of the stage production. And the cinematography? Knowing all the criticism about the closeups and handhelds, I really became oblivious to it all. I never really became aware that any of it was a problem. In all, an admirable effort. Not perfect, but for me it worked.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I found the camerawork truly distracting when it was during singing close-ups, mainly because the actors drift in and out of focus (Hugh Jackman, I'm looking at you!). Most of that criticism has to be laid on the doorsteps of Tom Hooper. Russell Crowe is more miss than hit for his singing as Javert, his singing just stood out in a bad way for this production. Hugh Jackman's singing voice didn't really grow on me for his turn as Jean Valjean. Anne Hathaway had some really good, powerful moments in her limited screen time as Fantine. Kind of disliked how Fantine's daughter Cosette was basically used as a plot device, not as a human character throughout the story. The "love triangle" between Cosette, Marius and Eponine was just odd. Eddie Redmayne (Marius) has a Kermit the Frog singing voice, it distracted me. Amanda Seyfried (young adult Cosette) had sort of a trilly singing voice, not overloaded with vibratto, but enough to be cognizant of it. Samantha Barks seemed to be out of place as Eponine because her voice was pretty solid. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen felt like characters in a different movie when their characters show up in the film, tonally they were in a very different place. The script's pacing felt overly long, and I doubt I'll ever want to see this film version of "Les Miserables" ever again. Without Hathaway's and Barks' performances, I'd call it "Les Unmemorables". I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Quote:

Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen felt like characters in a different movie when their characters show up in the film, tonally they were in a very different place.

Patrick, I agree with you on that.
The more I think of it, it was a complete mistake casting both these actors in the film.
They and their shtick seemed completely out of place.

 

[Carlo_M]

My main misgivings were this: 1. You cannot cast someone in a co-lead role (Javert) who can't sing really well. Anyone who is a Les Miz fan (presumably a significant portion of the target audience) has heard Philip Quast's Javert. And if you've heard Philip Quast, you can't cast Russell Crowe in that role in good conscience. 2. Fish or cut bait. Are you making a film of Les Miz the book or the musical? If you're doing the musical, try and stay as true to it as possible and minimize things like switching/replacing/omitting lyrics where it isn't needed, and adding new songs like Suddenly that are pedestrian at best (and I can't believe that five other original songs weren't more worth of an Oscar Nom this year). 3. While it was "cutting edge" to pull the singing directly from the takes, we now fully understand why Hollywood has for an eternity overdubbed musicals. On that note, if you're going to cast Crowe, you hire Quast to do the musical dubbing. 4. Orchestration was lacking - there needs to be more of its presence throughout (and this may have helped mask some of Crowe's--and other singers'--deficiencies) I had less issues than most for the camera work and pacing. The original musical was over 3 hours long so I knew the film would be long. It was the casting of Crowe (whom I like in most every other movie I've seen him in) in a pivotal role, and some mind boggling and IMO unneeded musical/lyrical changes that really got me. Grade: C or 2 stars. We really need a live BD showing of the musical to offset this (preferably the Complete version).

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

RE: the pacing, I think the problem is it was mainly a matter of the film, including the music, not flowing well in general -- it has its moments, but not nearly enough. Supposedly, they shot enough for a nearly 4-hour first/rough cut. Since they were going for the live thing, editing down to ~2.5 hours was probably problematic at best. Much of the film just felt like a race to show as much as possible, which is definitely not helped by the wasted screen time on something like the mediocre new song. For some, all that might end up feeling like a drag after a while due to lack of natural flow, especially if one is not already that familiar w/ the story. And yeah, I agree they should've either gone for a faithful adaptation of the musical or just do something different instead. Hooper's choices seemed too wishy-washy here. I also wonder what kind of music background he has... _Man_

 

[Michael_K_Sr]

Eddie Redmayne (Marius) has a Kermit the Frog singing voice, it distracted me.

One of my friends described his voice exactly the same way.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Supposedly, they shot enough for a nearly 4-hour first/rough cut.

I don't see how that can be true since the complete original stage musical was under 3 hours (over 3 hours with intermission). This was back in the 80's and early 90's.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I don't know what that first/rough cut would've included, but that's what this interview mentioned: http://collider.com/tom-hooper-les-miserables-james-bond-interview/220330/ He does say he quickly got it down to ~3 hours for his so-called "director's cut"... whatever that means... before needing to make tougher decisions on cuts. I'm hoping the BD release will at least include that 3-hour cut, but that, unfortunately, won't fix the Russell Crowe problem though... and no idea about some of the other issues either... Guess I just really want to like it enough... at least until/unless we get what we really want some day... _Man_

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Wow, thanks for the link. There is not even 3 hours of music in the show (and no dialogue, it's entirely sung). I wonder if the rough cut contained dialogue?