Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Raul Marquez, Jun 1, 2012.
Amen. I said that a few pages back.
That's exactly what I thought when I heard him. I almost laughed outloud when he would sing.
Ouch - Sacha Baren Cohen calls out Russell Crowe at last night's Golden Globes! "Russell Crowe had four months of singing lessons...that was money well spent"
I still liked him better than Nick Jonas.
I like Eddie *AND* Kermit more than Nick Jonas.
I totally agree about Samatha Barks -- she gives the best performance in the film . Im glad EW singled out her work. She should be getting Oscar notice but Hathaway has gotten the press + public notice.
I'm all for parodies but I couldn't make it through that one. Didn't find it very funny. My first piece of advice to that writer is: if you're going to make fun of a screenplay in screenplay format...format it correctly! He has dialogue off to the left, which is usually for action, and action in the center which is usually for dialogue. It took me a minute to figure out why Hugh Jackson was ordering crew to throw more water in his own face!
That's actually the formatting Broadway librettos use.
Interesting, so I can understand now why he chose that. But if he's making fun of the film, then shouldn't it be in screenplay format?
Finally got around to seeing this last night. Must admit I came away feeling disappointed. Apart from Ann Hathaway the leading roles seemed to lack passion. There was just no passion for the cause. Compared the the 25th anniversary performance the whole film felt rather lack lustre. Felt it would heave been better if the main actors had stronger singing voices or, at least, dubbed the main roles. Rather disappointing as I had been looking forward to this film for quite a while.
I have mixed feelings about Hollywood bringing Broadway to the screen. On the one hand, it is often the only widely available form of the stage production but sometimes the result is abysmal. I think that in some cases it has to do with casting and direction and in other cases it has to do with the show itself---some musical just play better on the stage and don't transfer well to the screen. Les Miserables, the film, seems an adequate production although despite the hype about the actors "singing live", the voices are not as good as they might be (including Hugh Jackman whom I saw on Broadway in The Boy from Oz where he was fantastic.) The visuals are certainly stunning and the intensity of some of the scenes are gut wrenching and that I think has all to do with the film medium. Anne Hathaway, especially, deserves the accolades she is getting in my opinion. All that said, I greatly prefer the stage version although eventually I know the Bluray of the film will be in my collection. Hollywood has destroyed some great musicals...case in point is what Rob Marshall (after creating a film of Chicago that was, I believe, better than the stage musical) did to Nine. I saw both productions of Nine on Broadway, the first in the early 1980's with Raul Julia and later in 2003 with Antonio Bandares, Chita Rivera, Mary Stuart Masterson and Jane Krakowski. Marshall's film while beautiful to look at eviscerates the spirit and heart of the play and even takes the parts of the best songs out. This show which is one of my all time favorite Broadway musicals was reduced to one of my all time disliked movie musicals. Here I blame the casting and the director. Rent is another example of the feel and essence of the stage show loosing a whole lot on the screen. The cast was essentially the original stage cast. The direction was more than adequate. The show just doesn't transfer really well. Thankfully, aficionados of Rent have the superbly made Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway to treasure. I am both eager and hesitant to see what gets done with both Avenue Q and Wicked. And discussion have been ongoing about Billy Elliot the Musical being transferred back into film---that would be interesting.
I saw Avenue Q on Broadway and Wicked on tour. Avenue Q would work best if they just film a stage production. I think audiences would be more appreciative of the puppeteers if they were filmed performing the show. Although, if they shoot it like the recent Muppets movie, masking the puppeteers, that would work, too. As for Wicked, I would love a good screen translation. I would love to see it with the original cast. And I would love to see Elphaba fly. Billy Elliot would be interesting, indeed.
Saw it today and loved it from start to finish. It completely worked for me. My second favorite film of the year after Silver Linings Playbook. :star::star::star::star:
Tino, I really enjoyed it as well, though saying it goes against the grain of most opinions you will find on this forum and I understand why.
Did I miss something about an Avenue Q production? Love that musical. I was glad to hear that Book of Mormon is apparently on track for a film version. I think it's a script that is ready made for film.
Finally saw this. I liked it and I didn't.
There is a time and a place to experiment with speak-singing. Les Miz is not it. Nobody ever watched this show and said "gee, that music just doesn't express enough emotion." Well, maybe Tom Hooper did. This score is famed for its melodrama and bombast. Characters drifting into speech and over-emoting their way out of tune was just jarring and inappropriate.
Hugh Jackman was a disappointment. I know he has the musical theater chops for this, but he was wildly inconsistent, veering back and forth between singing, speaking, and sing-speaking, seemingly at random. He is Exhibit A as to why movie musicals have their vocals recorded in a studio. This is not a stage show, where things are a little different from night to night. This is a single recording, preserved for posterity.
Russell Crowe was a pleasant surprise. Although he doesn't really have the voice for this, he was clearly giving it his all. Of course, my expectations were low.
I wonder if that cracking noise when he hit the deck was an homage to the grody stuff in Sweeney Todd.
Anne Hathaway was very, very good, although I Dreamed a Dream was the weak point of her performance, IMO. On the other hand, Samantha Barks was better. "On My Own" blew IDaD out of the water. To be fair, it pretty much blew every other song out of the water as well. They should develop more movie musicals, just so they can cast this adorable young lady in them.
I wasn't a fan of the changes to Eponine in the story, even if they were faithful to the novel. She is maybe my favorite character in the musical.
Eddie Redmayne was excellent. Don't think of him as Kermit; think of him as an "Irish" tenor. This kid is going places. (Check him out in Black Death, a surprisingly good, if extremely dark, movie.)
Amanda Seyfried was decent. The warble gave me Callas flashbacks though. On the other hand, Isabelle Allen (young Cosette) was great. Look for her in something with Eddie Redmayne in the future.
I thought Borat and Timmette Burton were fine. Although for some reason, he kept switching between an English and a French accent. Very Costnerian. And why does everyone in France speak with an English accent, anyway? Didn't the French win the 100 Years' War?
The overused handheld camera was mildly annoying. Not enough to ruin things, but enough to be noticeable. The incessant closeups were irritating too, especially considering the incredible production design -- most of the time it was hardly visible!
All that said, the movie overall was still pretty enjoyable. Maybe someday they'll re-record the vocals and re-edit the closeups and it'll be really great.
The irony about the speak-singing is that one of Les Miz's [the stage musical] calling cards is that it is sung all the way through, unlike other musical like Phantom which does have talking parts. So Hooper is actively choosing to go against this, and the result IMO hurts the movie.