Aw, you didn't enjoy it? Lol everyone I know who saw it loved it. But then, you and they have vastly different tastes. I'd like to know, tho--is there a movie musical out there that you do enjoy, MovieBob?
Escape to the Movies: Les Miserables
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Musicals are like going to a bar. I never really get the urge to go, but once I get dragged there I have a good time. For me, the music heightens the emotion of the scene and has a tendency to "lock it in". Hearing the song in the future brings back the emotional state of the acted scene pretty easily.Frybird said:
As an old straight dude, this frightens me more than I can say.
Love your avatar by the way! Scary Smash! Joss was a real sport for squatting through that one.
I read some of the original book in my French class a few years ago, and then we watched a movie based off of the book rather than the musical. It focused a lot more on Jean Valjean's transformation, and a lot of characters such as the inkeepers and Eponine (is that her name?) got all but written out. Also, the final time period, leading up to the battle at the barricade, lasted a lot longer, and people like Marius, his friend, Cosette, and that little kid got a lot more time to round out their characters.
So when I went to see this musical, I realized just how much all the potential of Les Miserables had been gutted. It really is all about the songs, as can be seen by the completely stationary camera focusing on a person's face and nothing else whenever someone starts to sing. As someone who prefers instrumental songs to anything with lyrics, the songs didn't even do much for me. I wanted to listen to the notes, but I was afraid that stuck in was some sort of character development that would come up later. Spoilers: that didn't really happen.
So when I went to see this musical, I realized just how much all the potential of Les Miserables had been gutted. It really is all about the songs, as can be seen by the completely stationary camera focusing on a person's face and nothing else whenever someone starts to sing. As someone who prefers instrumental songs to anything with lyrics, the songs didn't even do much for me. I wanted to listen to the notes, but I was afraid that stuck in was some sort of character development that would come up later. Spoilers: that didn't really happen.
Hate to nitpick, but it's a 19th century melodramatic social justice polemic, not a 17th. It was written in 1862, and takes place starting in 1815 and ending with the 1832 rebellion. Very much the 19th century.
Anyway, the story itself is fantastic, but I've only ever seen it done properly once, and that was with the French miniseries staring Gerard Depardieu. Would have liked them to do the story itself rather than the musical, but even then I don't think it would have topped the miniseries, just because the book has far too much to cover and it can't be watched in the limited time of a single movie. The damned thing is nearly 2000 pages long!
Anyway, the story itself is fantastic, but I've only ever seen it done properly once, and that was with the French miniseries staring Gerard Depardieu. Would have liked them to do the story itself rather than the musical, but even then I don't think it would have topped the miniseries, just because the book has far too much to cover and it can't be watched in the limited time of a single movie. The damned thing is nearly 2000 pages long!
Maybe its just me, but i dont get the "your stupid" impression at all he is just a guy that is very passionate about his opinion like most "nerds" (i use the word kindly as i identify my self as one) i feel like he is more just drawing his line in the sand saying this is where i am your with me or your not but i have never got the "your stupid" impression... guess its just a difference of viewSlightlyEvil said:
I like it too, not sure why it bothers some people or "takes them out of the review", like they need to feel immersed in a movie review anyway, haha.Alcaste said:
Well, I don't know if it would have made the movie work any better, but it makes the stage version flow a lot better than most musicals. Rather than awkwardly transitioning from traditional script to 'Big Musical Number' at every convenient plot point with no regard for pacing, having singing all the way though changes the singing from a token distraction to a narrative technique. That way, the 'story' doesn't have to suffer for the benefit of the 'show'.DVS BSTrD said:
Being a big fan of the musical I will probably go to see this for myself regardless, but thanks to Bob I'm not going in there with my expectations set too high.
and this is why they shouldn't make movies out of stage musicals; both have such different sense of flow that things have to be heavily adapted in order for them to work.
Also, this all but confirms to me that Hooper didn't get his Oscar because of his actual skill as a director.
Also, this all but confirms to me that Hooper didn't get his Oscar because of his actual skill as a director.
I agree. Pick an accent and stick it, Bob. You were doing so well until recently, now there's this schizophrenic voice thing going on. If you want to use your MovieBob standard voice, do it. If you want to have a whole video comprised of your roots Raging Boston self, do it. Stop slipping on ice with it throughout one video like you can't make up your mind. It only moves to distract at this point. There's nothing cute or endearing about it.foxtrot3100 said:
Amazing how he can pull the curtains out from in front of my eyes like that. I had always been a fan of Les Mis, but I guess I was just distracted by the great music and the melodrama. I guess Bob's right. The story is pretty wonky when considered on its own merits, with Valjean becoming mayor through a hunk of silver and a divine epiphany. I guess some things just aren't meant to be adapted like that.
I like the accent slip-ups, it means bob is really passionate about the subject and his true emotions are breaking through his professional veneer and it takes a lot to make that happen.
And I agree, this would have been much better as a movie. Just because someone made a successful stage musical out of the book doesn't mean that's the only way to do it.
It's a good story, just tell the story!
And I agree, this would have been much better as a movie. Just because someone made a successful stage musical out of the book doesn't mean that's the only way to do it.
It's a good story, just tell the story!
Speaking as someone who first saw the stage production waaaaay up in the nosebleeds on Broadway, there is one thing this film excelled at beyond any stage version I've seen. On a big stage with half your audience hundreds of feet from the action, performers can't really do nuance or subtlety. Even vocally, they can't get too dramatic in their dynamics. The only real acting tool they have is exaggerated gestures. Whereas the film format means the performers can actually act. The way Jackman's voice goes from weak and broken in the early numbers, to strong and sure as Valjean becomes more resolute is extremely effective. He does a lot with just his eyes, too. And before Hathaway, every version of "I Dreamed a Dream" I've heard sounded like wistful regret. Her version was utter soul-crushing despair. There wasn't a dry eye in the house.
Let's see, he had two of the best actors of this generation in a single room with a great script. Giving him Best Director was the equivalent of giving the guy who took this picture credit for winning World War II:Aiddon said:
Oh boy, this song and dance again...
Okay, yes, as a huge blockbuster film, Les Mis isn't the best thing you could choose to go see. I agree that Hooper's directing, particularly during big solo or duo numbers, is extremely boring.
But as a musical, the film works just fine.
It captures the inner turmoil of the characters far better than the Liam Neeson/Geoffrey Rush Les Miserables, which was a 'traditional' film that most of the people who like the stage production didn't like, because it wasn't a musical.
Yes, it feels a bit rushed, and they definitely did a worse job of the connection between Marius and Cosette than the Neeson Les Mis, but I feel it's a bit disingenuous to judge it purely on the merits of how it exists as a film when it's an adaptation of a stage musical that wasn't attempting to be a normal film. It's not even trying to be a 'normal' musical, where the big numbers are placed in between expositional speaking segments, it almost completely omits any non-music segment and instead opts to be completely about the music.
I get that as a film critic, Bob has to judge it as a film, but I can't help but feel that something is lost in translation when doing that. And, quite frankly, it sounds like Bob isn't the biggest fan of musicals in the first place.
EDIT: I feel I should mention I've never seen the stage production, either.
Okay, yes, as a huge blockbuster film, Les Mis isn't the best thing you could choose to go see. I agree that Hooper's directing, particularly during big solo or duo numbers, is extremely boring.
But as a musical, the film works just fine.
It captures the inner turmoil of the characters far better than the Liam Neeson/Geoffrey Rush Les Miserables, which was a 'traditional' film that most of the people who like the stage production didn't like, because it wasn't a musical.
Yes, it feels a bit rushed, and they definitely did a worse job of the connection between Marius and Cosette than the Neeson Les Mis, but I feel it's a bit disingenuous to judge it purely on the merits of how it exists as a film when it's an adaptation of a stage musical that wasn't attempting to be a normal film. It's not even trying to be a 'normal' musical, where the big numbers are placed in between expositional speaking segments, it almost completely omits any non-music segment and instead opts to be completely about the music.
I get that as a film critic, Bob has to judge it as a film, but I can't help but feel that something is lost in translation when doing that. And, quite frankly, it sounds like Bob isn't the biggest fan of musicals in the first place.
EDIT: I feel I should mention I've never seen the stage production, either.
Hmm, holds 71% at Rotten Tomatoes. Anyway, you can't force someone to like something or not. What Bob should do, is drop the stupid Boston accent, it makes him sound like an idiot with speech impairment. Before about 2 months ago I would never have guessed by his accent where he is from, but now I get a feeling that he is nearly exaggerating it.
From what I've heard about this film, it would've been better if they did more than one movie. If you're going to adapt a huge book with so many characters, you would probably need to give things a bit more time to develop. ... And Russel Crowe would've had a lot more practice for his scenes.
-Did you miss the part where he said that there's too much characters with not much time to develop them?
-Did you miss the part where he said that Anne Hatawhatever's part is pretty much a fat Oscar bait?
-Did you miss the part where he wasn't surprised that the movie sucked because it was the King's Speech's director?
Amongst other things...
Note*Sorry if it sounded like I was pissed at you.
Um...Have you watched the review for only 15 seconds?samus17 said:
-Did you miss the part where he said that there's too much characters with not much time to develop them?
-Did you miss the part where he said that Anne Hatawhatever's part is pretty much a fat Oscar bait?
-Did you miss the part where he wasn't surprised that the movie sucked because it was the King's Speech's director?
Amongst other things...
Note*Sorry if it sounded like I was pissed at you.
Wait, Bob, you're telling me you didn't go see Texas Chainsaw 3D? Why, I'm shocked... shocked, I tell you, at your lack of journalistic integrity! How can you ignore such a guaranteed seminal work of the highest art in favor of some movie version of a Tony Award-winning musical based on an old book that snobs worship? That's so much worse in the remake department than anything Platinum Dunes pumps out for a quick buck. I don't care if Lionsgate refused to show it to critics to fool the plebs into seeing it, you should be ashamed for denying us the most important review of the year!
As a film, I can maybe see some of these criticisms. But the reason it "is good" and "will be seen by people" is because it's Les Frackin' Mis. Bear in mind (and the posted youtubes attest to this) that their idea of an anniversary reunion is to get the original Broadway cast and/or some dream cast of portrayals, forego the stage play altogether, and just have them stand there at the mics and sing the songs in costume. THAT'S IT. And the Les Mis people (like my wife) just LAP THAT STUFF UP.
These people will not care how the movie is staged. If the actors pull off the songs, it's "shut up and take my money" time.
Speaking of which, no way was Russell Crowe as uncomfortable wearing those costumes as we were listening to him try and sing Javert.
These people will not care how the movie is staged. If the actors pull off the songs, it's "shut up and take my money" time.
Speaking of which, no way was Russell Crowe as uncomfortable wearing those costumes as we were listening to him try and sing Javert.
Not really, no. In a musical of this caliber, at best he should have been cast as the key grip. Definitely not Valjean; he was already in his "head voice" trying to sing a baritone part, and Valjean is a tenor role.DVS BSTrD said:
Or Dishonored. I see dogs attacking my arm and myself throwing some bourgeois on the floor in my sleep now, all to the tune of some 10yo Other-Cultured girl singing nonsense.Leximodicon said:
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,160
- 125
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Well, it looks like my prediction a couple of weeks back has been confirmed, not that I was expecting Bob to like this sort of movie anyway. It's not actually out in the UK yet but I'll be off to see it as soon as it finally rolls around here.
I'm glad Bob had a bunch of qualifiers this time around. And I TOTALLY get why he doesn't like the movie. I still enjoyed it, even though it did have it's fair share of problems. I honestly think that this movie is STILL all about Jean Valjean, even WHEN Marius comes into play. I couldn't care less about the romance, but I DO care about seeing Marius live so that Jean can have him and Cosette together so that Cosette doesn't have to constantly be on the run with Jean. It's all part of Jean's redemption, and I totally buy it. I don't get why Bob was so bored by the whole thing, though... I was pretty entertained... by the songs anyway... And the songs that WEREN'T just the camera starting at the actor's head while they sing their heart out. Yeah, that's a big selling point of this movie, and it totally doesn't work... That's something both Bob and I can agree on. Also, Russell Crowe sucks as Javert... surprised Bob mentioned nothing about him... Except at the end, where he mentioned he "looked uncomfortable. [...] Like 'in a bunny suit' uncomfortable". That would make sense, seeing as it felt like he was half-assing it throughout the movie.