Escape to the Movies: Les Miserables

[eternal-chaplain]

The reason my knee-jerk reaction is to hate "Le Mis" is because of the people who like it and tout as some grand stage musical, and not an opera or a book. Everything Bob said is pretty much the best one could expect out of a 'third generation' rehash, and, let's face it, when he uses his real voice, you know shit is real.

 

[LonelyWizzard]

I know this is nit-picky, but it's really not the "Then-a-deers", it's something more like "Then-are-dee-ays".

Also, I generally think you're going too far in your condemnation. It had weird pacing (kind of Return of the King style multiple endings thing) but it's not a disaster by any measure. As someone with basically no previous exposure to this (beyond my SO talking about it non-stop for the past year, and lecturing me on the correct pronunciations ) I followed the story easily, and I think that Jean Val Jean and Javert at the least had some depth to their characters. On top of that I felt the "spinning plates" carried over the books real moral intelligence- noone is perfect; the revolutionaries are well-intentioned but naive, Val Jean lets obsessive desire to make amends for his crimes endanger Causette (he tries to turn himself in) and Javert most of all is beautifully complex, a perfect expression of the difference between morally right and lawfully right.

But main point, "Then-are-dee-ays".

 

[faeshadow]

Not that I really care for the movie, but Bob: Les Miserable is not set during the first French Revolution in the 18th century; it's set during the June rebellion, nearly half a century later. This should not be a difficult fact to check.

Especially since the fact that he missed is in the beginning of the movie. Which kind of shows he didn't really pay any attention to what he's being paid to review.

I started questioning my faith in Bob when he hated The Amazing Spiderman before he even watched it. My faith was then teetering on the edge when he lectured us in multiple parts about how those of us who hate Sucker Punch just didn't "get" the supposed grand art of it. When he listed this movie as one of the worst of the year, and let that Twilight abomination slide... my faith in him as a movie reviewer threw itself off the cliff. Especially when it's so glaringly obvious that he didn't actually pay any attention to what he watched and made amateurish, lazy mistakes about basic facts of the story.

From now on, I'm bringing a whole truckload of salt when I watch his reviews.

 

[Markunator]

I started questioning my faith in Bob when he hated The Amazing Spiderman before he even watched it.

He did not hate The Amazing Spider-Man before he even saw it, he just thought it looked terrible and his expectations were met.

 

[jthm]

There are so many problems with Bob's review it's hard to figure out where to begin. The biggest problem with the review is that his criticisms leveled for the first half of the review (fair or not (they're not)) apply as much to the broadway production as they do to the movie. That doesn't make this a bad film, it makes it a faithful adaptation of the musical. Bob keeps throwing pictures of and comparisons to the book, trying to compare the narrative therein to the narrative on the screen. Newsflash, the abrupt scene changes and late to the game characters he has a problem with in the movie are the same abrupt scene changes and late to the game characters in the stage production. You can't start a review off telling us how great the source material is and how tremendous the musical adaptation to stage has been and then tell us the movie is bad for being a successful adaptation of the second adaptation.

Example
"Marius doesn't turn up until the thing is well beyond half way ovah (Bob, please stop accenting your Boston accent, you didn't have it when you started reviewing and it's just distracting now)".

^also true of the broadway production

Then he goes on to be critical of the camera angles used in the film to show off the actors actually singing. Other reviewers, to be fair have been critical of this style choice too. Because man, it sure is uncomfortable to look at the faces of human beings for any significant length of time.

Earlier in the review he describes the film as an "endless, punishing 160 minutes spaced out by a bunch of song numbers". Gee, Could it be that this is a musical? That describes a lot of them. It's unfair to condemn a work because you don't like or understand the medium in which it's delivered.

Then there's Russel Crowe's Performance. Bob only hints at it here, but blasts it in other reviews and in print. Here's the problem. Crowe delivers a fantastic job acting. His bearing, his body language and facial expressions are all dead on. He just can't sing. That is an issue, and worthy of harsh criticism. He was miscast because he looks the part. But to say his overall performance was awful is demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of the problem here.

Said it before, I'll say it again. Bob is a really bad critic. Only reason I watch is to get a 5 minute or so trailer to decide if a movie is worth my time. To be honest, when Bob likes something, that is a big fat check mark in the "REASONS NOT TO SEE" column of my mental pros and cons list of going to whatever film it is.

 

[Galletea]

I somehow feel much more at ease when I'm disagreeing with Bob.
It really wasn't that bad. It wasn't great, don't get me wrong, but it certainly wasn't as bad as he made out. Anne Hathaway was amazing and having her solo strewn with pointless shots of people we're not supposed to care about would have just made it into a pointless music video, if it's oscar bait then great. Having said that, other solo pieces would have benefited from a bit of mtv-ing, and cosette just wasn't very likeable. So it would have been better having been done differently, but as it was, I still rather enjoyed it.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I went to see this movie with my fiancee last night and we loved it. I thought the sons were all great and the romance stuff wasnt as interesting but it wasnt boring at least. The only character I had a problem with was the child who seemed way too adult for his age and even that wasnt a dealbraker.

 

[Badger01]

The whole reason Movie Bob seems to think so little of this movie is because it doesn't work in the traditional form of a film in terms of plot/character development etc. But guess what, this isn't a film about this book, which is what he seems to be reviewing it as. This is the musical taken from stage and plonked on a film set with some famous actors so that people who can afford to go see Les Miserables every other weak on Broadway or the Westend, can enjoy it.

At the very start, he even says that stripping the book down works fine on stage. I don't know if he notices, but the film is just as much wall to wall singing as the stage production.

All in all, this film should be judged as a musical (which it is) with all the problems or narrative and development that have to come with having to convey everything through singing.

So if you love the musical, you will atleast like the film.

*Also, it's hardly fair to but the tag of 'Oscar bait' on Anne Hathaway as, again like you said, the character she's playing was written about 70 years before the academy awards even existed.

 

[Tormuse]

Bob's central complaint here seems to be that combining the abstractness of a musical with the realism of the scenery "just doesn't work." Well, I recognize that this is a matter of opinion, but I saw the movie the other day and I thought it worked fine. I think it's just a matter of going into the movie with the right expectations; I expected realistic scenery combined with people randomly singing at each other, so it fits my expectations perfectly.

His other complaint was that the whole idea of having uncut scenes of the actors actually singing isn't worth showcasing, but I'd say he's missing the point. Shooting the scenes like that makes the emotion feel rawer and "more real." It makes the passion come through more. Some people have complained about the extended uncomfortable close-ups in the movie and I recognize that it's not for everyone, but for people who enjoy musicals for the music will appreciate the raw passion that comes through in those scenes.

The bottom line is that if you like musicals, you will love this movie. If you don't like musicals, you probably will not enjoy this movie. I'd say that Bob's assessment that it "sucks" comes more from the fact that he doesn't like musicals than any particular shortcoming of the film. It wouldn't bother me so much if not for posts like this:

It's a shame the film is bad, I really wanted to see it. No doubt I still will go and see it, but if it's so bad it brings Movie Bob's accent out I wouldn't want to waste money D: but I love musicals so much, so I will probably end up liking it by the end.

This is someone who would most likely really enjoy this film who may not actually see it because she took Bob's word for it that it "sucks," and I think that's sad. For the record, I have many friends who are into musical theatre who enjoyed the movie immensely and highly recommended it. Padwolf, if you're reading this, I hope you ended up watching the movie.

 

[Padwolf]

Bob's central complaint here seems to be that combining the abstractness of a musical with the realism of the scenery "just doesn't work." Well, I recognize that this is a matter of opinion, but I saw the movie the other day and I thought it worked fine. I think it's just a matter of going into the movie with the right expectations; I expected realistic scenery combined with people randomly singing at each other, so it fits my expectations perfectly.

His other complaint was that the whole idea of having uncut scenes of the actors actually singing isn't worth showcasing, but I'd say he's missing the point. Shooting the scenes like that makes the emotion feel rawer and "more real." It makes the passion come through more. Some people have complained about the extended uncomfortable close-ups in the movie and I recognize that it's not for everyone, but for people who enjoy musicals for the music will appreciate the raw passion that comes through in those scenes.

The bottom line is that if you like musicals, you will love this movie. If you don't like musicals, you probably will not enjoy this movie. I'd say that Bob's assessment that it "sucks" comes more from the fact that he doesn't like musicals than any particular shortcoming of the film. It wouldn't bother me so much if not for posts like this:

It's a shame the film is bad, I really wanted to see it. No doubt I still will go and see it, but if it's so bad it brings Movie Bob's accent out I wouldn't want to waste money D: but I love musicals so much, so I will probably end up liking it by the end.

This is someone who would most likely really enjoy this film who may not actually see it because she took Bob's word for it that it "sucks," and I think that's sad. For the record, I have many friends who are into musical theatre who enjoyed the movie immensely and highly recommended it. Padwolf, if
you're reading this, I hope you ended up watching the movie.

Hey there! I did watxh the movie, went to see it shortly afyer it was released. I loved it, so very much. I thouhht it had some issues here and there but otherwise it is now one of my favourite musicals. I am glad I checked it out for myself. It wad fantastic. Sorry fpr any typos here, using my phone and it is slow

 

[Tormuse]

Hey there! I did watxh the movie, went to see it shortly afyer it was released. I loved it, so very much. I thouhht it had some issues here and there but otherwise it is now one of my favourite musicals. I am glad I checked it out for myself. It wad fantastic. Sorry fpr any typos here, using my phone and it is slow

Haha, glad you enjoyed it. And good luck with your phone; touchscreen keyboards give me trouble too.

 

[faefrost]

I found the movie improves greatly if you make the mental adjustment that this is in fact the Wolverine Origin story we have been waiting for. Just watch Hugh Jackman. He starts out as a super strong broken down wreck of a man. That steadily seems to get healthier and younger and stronger as the movie goes on. By the end he's pretty much unkillable. Jean LoGan if you will. It helps if you close your eyes when he confronts Javier and just mentally put in the Snikt. And its still 100x better than the last Wolverine movie.