Escape to the Movies: Les Miserables

[Zydrate]

why does everyone act like bob is not allowed to dislike things... its a review show...thats his review... suck it up

To me, the problem isn't that he hates things. It's that his attitude is so often "if you disagree with me, you're an idiot." See also: Amazing Spider-Man (which, while far from being a classic, I thought was at least decent), any given FPS (more true in the Game Overthinker than here).

For the record, I thought Hooper's direction during the solos was boring and sleep-inducing, even when the actor was giving a good performance. Uninterrupted solo close-ups get tiring after the first 2 minutes. More or less everything else, I really liked. Except Russell Crowe, of course, that almost goes without saying.

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 view

Bob has a tendency towards "This was stupid, made by idiots, and if you like it then you're an imbecile, too."
See: Any review related to the "Fast and Furious" franchise. I enjoyed about half of them so far (I describe them as "hit or miss") but his reviews kind of pissed me off. "A movie made by douchbags, for douchebags." Thanks, asshole!

As for the current topic; I'm still going to see this eventually. I want to see what the big deal is.
And I'm kind of frustrated that all these apparent "classics" keep cropping up that I've never heard the existence of. Not a single mention in any of my several English classes or textbooks throughout school.
What gives?

 

[daxterx2005]

So this new wolverine film is a new origin film ignoring the other origins?

 

[Avistew]

This was the first time I've seen anything Les Miserables, and overall I did enjoy the movie. Absolutely LOVED the songs, saw some really good performances, and I really liked Jean Valjean as a hero.

That being said, there was something that did bug me about the movie and I'm not sure if it's the same in the theatrical production or not (someone tell me if it is). The first half of the movie with Valjean I thought was great. It painted how fucked up France was during the time period, and watching Valjean, Fantine, and Cossette's plights was a great way to illustrate it.

But when we moved to the second half with the revolution itself, it felt really rushed. If everything we've seen before is supposed to lead up to these climactic battles, then why breeze through it all? It's like, "Oh, here is everyone now, GO FIGHT!" How can I sympathize with Valjean's struggle as a concerned father figure when I barely know how Cossette is like as an adult other than the fact that she's in love with Marius? Hell, why should I care about Marius at all? I see that Eponine is a beloved character and all, but I just couldn't get into her struggle since I really didn't give two shits about the guy she's in love with.

I kinda can't help but feel as if this should have been 2 movies, this way we could get more details and more attached to the characters before and during the revolution. But if that's how the stage version was then I guess we can't really do that. Or maybe I need to read the book.

It was my first experience with the musical (although I've read the book many times and seen many different movie adaptations) and like you I really liked the songs, and like you I found it really rushed, but since I have read the book and know the story, I can tell you the whole thing is rushed, not just the second half.
The thing is, it's a 2,000 page book we're talking about. You can't usually buy it as a single volume unless you're getting the ebook, it was originally published as 3 books, and it's divided into five parts in the text itself (so some publishers publish it as five books).
As I understand, the musical is longer than the movie. So the musical already shortened a huge story (I never even understood how people can make a movie out of it. It would work best as a series. Hopefully a HBO one) and then the movie shortened it even more.

So yeah, my one problem was that I felt you weren't given enough time to care about the characters or understand them.

However, I enjoyed the movie a lot. Sure, I was a bit surprised about the cast (physically, Jackman and Crowe look like each other's character should look. However due to their acting, they're better as their own character I feel. Valjean is supposed to have a lot of range in all the different identities he takes over the story, while Javert is always described as stiff and stoic and unchanging).

I watched the movie on its own merits, trying not to compare it to the book because it's one of my favourite books and I know anything that fits in a movie would pale in comparison with the complexity and depth of the original work. And of course I can't compare it to the musical since I'm unfamiliar with it. But seen as what it was, a musical version of the story, I enjoyed it. I think it had many very moving scenes, and I thought most of the actors did a great job.
I actually was pleasantly surprised with Russel Crowe, I expected him to completely botch the part (Javert being my favourite character, it made me cringe to see him cast as him), and went into the movie with these expectations, and in the end he definitely wasn't as bad as I expected him to.
He wasn't amazing either, but I found him ok.

In the end, I just left the theatre thinking "Les Misérables is basically the 19th Century's Song of Fire and Ice. Is HBO gonna pick it up already?" I think they'd do a fine job, and this way the characters and events that were skipped can be put back into the story.
And while I found the Thénardiers funny in the movie, I really didn't like that they were turned into comic relief. They're the creepiest parts of the books, and they're much less scary when you can't take them seriously. I understand why the person who made the musical made the decision to add some comedy to the story, but I don't think it's necessary, especially since compared to other musicals have seen (Notre-Dame de Paris comes to mind, or Roméo and Juliet), Les Misérables has a lot of happy stuff in it.

 

[Don Reba]

Had to look up Ralphie in the bunny suit. Good stuff.

 

[BigZ7337]

I completely agree with this review, I mean the songs in the movie were great when they didn't feature Russel Crowe (who sadly has some of the most singing time) and the set pieces were awesome, but as a movie it sucked. I saw it and found it to be an overlong mess of a movie. All of the characters are completely one dimensional, and constantly the characters would die without any real reason given why, especially Anne Hathaway, who goes from being a single mom working in a factory to being a dead prostitute in one song's time with no reason given as to what was wrong with her (I thought she was just asleep until Wolverine closed her eyes). There were way too many characters and secondary plotlines, but I didn't care about any of them. They were all so generic, and I didn't even know what the big final battle was about, other than a small group of college kids rebelling against the government because there are poor people in the world. The weirdest thing for me, was that once the movie finished a bunch of people gave it an ovation, so lots of people obviously like it. Btw, I generally like musicals, but only when they are also successful as a movie.

 

[arnoldthebird]

Snip

The 25th Anniversary cast would have to be my favourite ensemble, Norm Lewis is the best Javert, Alfie Boe nails 'Bring Him Home' and is my favourite Valjean and I very much enjoyed Enjolras. Everything about the cast is good...

...

Not including Nick Jonas, I give him credit for having the balls to take part in such an epic event, but he was my least favourite cast member

As for Bob's review, I agree...sort of. Once you get past some shoddy camerawork and Russell Crowe the movie is still rather magical, could have been done better though. But the Thernadier's were perfect, Sacha and Helena nailed the roles.

 

[MrGalactus]

So confused....Is The Wolverine a sequel to Origins, or a reboot??

 

[comet5002]

I agree that the movie was bad. I wouldn't say it SUCKED, but yes, it was bad. I'd give it a C+. But my reasons of thinking so are different.

As an actor (primarily in musical theatre) who loves Les Mis and has seen and been in the stage show, the movie took the stage show, tried to mix it with the book, and then poured two thousand gallons of Hollywood into it. And I'm sorry, you can't take a musical and do that. Have we not learned from Mamma Mia and Rock of Ages, musicals as movies generally suck. Stage shows are written for the stage for a reason.

I feel it's not fair for someone who admits they hate musicals to review a movie musical, because they're already biased against it. My problems with it:

- Russell Crowe should never have been allowed near Javert. It should have been Ewan McGregor.
- They downsized Eponine's role and made the audience not like her, which is the exact opposite of her point in the musical.
- They added songs. That were bad.
- The cinematography was weird. I agree with Bob on this one. The solos were boring because all they were were closeups of the actors.
- Hugh Jackman did not have the vocals to play Valjean.

On that last note, I like that they put so much emphasis on acting, especially when musical theatre is stereotyped as having sucky actors. But...you can't sacrifice vocals for that in a show that's ENTIRELY sung, or as vocally demanding as these roles are.

Yes, Anne Hathaway was fantastic and will be showered with awards. But that's all I can give this movie.

 

[DalekJaas]

Couldn't finish the review, the Boston accent was way to annoying to listen to.

 

[sumanoskae]

Saw it the other day. Pretty much agree with Bob, though I didn't find it bad, just uninspired and generic. Functional and entertaining but nothing special. Same problem as Avatar really; an okay movie, but so disgustingly overrated that the bad parts are all that's left to talk about.

 

[Joel Bridge]

One stop going after king speech. That one best combo me French mm'sene I butcher right now, and story.

OK get record straight the English unbridge transition is 1400 hundred pages long. And goes into great of know ever character have importants, for example Bishop the first book in the fist volume he has whole book to himself.

Book broken down into 5 volumes which are roughtly broken down into about 12 books. sometime 13. So yea novel as entire book that 19 character deciated to battle of Waterloo.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I loved Les Miserable. It's touching, and a fantastic story, and whilst the pacing is schizophrenic and Javert seems a little wooden ... Well ... I liked it. Frankly I cried, though not a hallmark awartd for any even remotely touching moving. I was happy and I was sad, and it it's not often a movie can make you weep and then make you question 'why?'.

I don't know about you but I wept when Jean was removed from his cooling body to enter the realm of Heaven to the tune of Red and Black and such ambivalence between sad and joyful leaves you wondering.

The movies cinematography isn't bad, and honestly I do believe the movie was always attempting an aspect of the fantastic, Bob. I think you're doing the movie discredit by saying that it attempts otherwise ... like when the chain gang is roping the French Galleon onto the dry docks. Or when Javert throws himself upon the stones and dashes himself upon the dykes.

In passing ... I liked the film for what it was.

 

[JudgeGame]

One gripe I have with the film is that Anne Hathaway doesn't look ugly enough as Fantine. By the end of her story, she's bald, bruised, has no teeth, is malnourished and is up to the brim in STDs, oh and she hasn't washed in 2 months. She looks more like a SMBD porn actress than a dying, destitute hooker. It kind of undermines the whole point of that story.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

"A lot of hardcore fans" is a funny way of saying "a culturally significant linchpin of stage musicals and composition." Maybe Bob's ignorant to who this film will actually appeal to, but the idea of seeing pretty images and famous actors sing all those Les Miserables classics is exciting. It's more like a really expensive music video, right? It's not trying to comprehensively and interestingly tell the story of the book; it's a motion picture of the stage musical. By those standards it surely achieves its modest goals?

I get it. It's not good at storytelling in a cinematic medium. But that isn't what the film is doing. It's an excuse to see Les Miserables on a big screen with a bunch of well-known faces filling in well-known roles and hearing booming orchestral renditions of the songs. As far as direct adaptions of stage musicals go... I mean, I haven't seen it, but I don't think it can fail that. Not with the pedigree of the source material on its side.

 

[Barciad]

Bob, I have a lot of respect for you and work, but. If you're going to slag it off, at least do it properly. It's 19th Century, not 17th Century, and kindly learn how to pronounce the names properly. I know speaking French is will get you beaten up in the States, but still. Its not like any of us here know you or what you look like. That is without going into the overarching issue behind this.
All critics have preferences and agendas. All enjoy different genres more than others, yet they don't (mostly) let it get in the way of the critical judgement. You have an axe to grind with grand MOR Oscar-baiting showpieces. Fair enough, I can understand that. I quite liked The King's Speech. It wasn't groundbreaking, but it was well acted and well made. However, whether or not it deserved all those Oscars is a moot point. Personally, I felt Colin Firth (despite his often lousy role selection) is one of Britain's best character actors and was owed some recognition sooner or later.
Yet it also seems obvious (in your point of view) what should receive all the big awards this year. Now this is an entirely different kettle of fish altogether. I haven't seen Django Unchained yet and I still haven't seen Cloud Atlas, despite dearly wanting to. I have seen The Avengers, twice, and I loved it. As a piece of popcorn entertainment, it was magnificent. Yet, does that make it the best film? You could devote a whole thread to that question so I will leave it there.
What I will say is that despite how bad you think Les Mis to be, can it be any worse that Prometheus was? If ever there was a film that exemplified bad story structure, it was that one. Yet, why do you give that a free pass (not to mention the highly disappointing Dark Knight Rises) whilst laying the boot into the mainstream favourite. What I am saying is, snobbery can cut both ways.

 

[putowtin]

The stage musical is superb!
Honestly and I don't like musicals, but on stage this is a moving production with enough character development that you don't over-look anyone story-line

This film version sucks!
Actors who look uncomfy with everything their doing, no character development, just cardboard cutouts in nice looking enviroments and Hugh Jackman:

As Dr Cox said:
"You know things I would rather see than you becoming my daughter's godfather? A nuclear war, a sequeal to High Floats, Hugh Jackman winning an oscar...

 

[Bazaalmon]

First off, I don't have a problem with Bob's accent. I can understand if some people do, but some of the vitriol seems like a bit of an overreaction. That said, my girlfriend's family saw Les Miserables, and I decided to take a miss and go hang out with a friend instead. Her mother thought it sucked, she thought it was OK, and her teenage sister-who's the head of the theater group at her high school-thinks it was the greatest thing ever created by man. Although all three loved the Hobbit. So there you go.

 

[lord.jeff]

I agree with your points, except the cinematography I that the movie looked great, you made but much like if a comedy makes you laugh you can over look other elements and have a enjoyable time the same goes for music numbers in musicals and the musical numbers are great here. Not saying it's a great movie but it's enjoyable.

 

[hydroblitz]

Okay, Okay you weren't just being ahltunative. You really don' like this movie do you.
Can't say I'd like the idea of a constantly sung movie either, especially since I've seen one of the old black and white versions (not sure which but it was one of the American ones)

But I thought Russell Crowe was miscast as Javert.

If anything he should be the one to play Jean Valjean.

If anything, he shouldn't be in the movie.
<spoiler=Two video at once>
<youtube=fB1OgS0MuBs>
<youtube=TN9SQAcW5Dw>

THAT is how you perform Jarvert.

<youtube=Iz13cWUokOs>
Here's the whole concert. Guess the guys like it up on youtube or something.

I don't want to sound like a dick, but that is a concert. Stage acting is so much more than standing in one spot singing, and that can hardly be used as an example of how to perform.

 

[Farther than stars]

The film aside, how does Batman of all things constitute legal absolutism? He definitely adheres to moral absolutism, but legal absolutism takes things a little too far. Batman's entire image, after all, was created because pretty much everything he does is illegal.