Escape to the Movies: Les Miserables

[Ghadente]

I took the GF to see it for her b-day. I have hear dof Les Mis b4 but never read nor seen it. I also don't usually like musicals with some exceptions (Newsies, Across the Universe, and a few others). Les Miserables was pretty decent i thought, now this may be because I haven't seen it performed on stage (which i hear is crazy good) or had any other exposure to it before seeing this movie. I am surprised Bob has such a strong negative review about the film, usually his reviews are fairly close to my own thoughts about the films he reviews. I'll choose to watch his reviews for movies i'm still on fence about seeing and if he gives a positive review i would tend to enjoy it. Many films i can tell by the trailers that i would definitely not want to see them, and usually bob has a negative review of them. There are few exceptions to where i havent agreed or didnt at least see his points as understandable.

Les Mis is one, i found myself actually not hating it... despite practically being dragged to see it. It was long, yes, but i tend not to mind long movies (my attention span isn't that short i guess [mind you that i saw Les Mis about 30min after i just saw The Hobbit during a double feature]) It was a musical, yes, but i don't mind singing if its done well (i enjoyed most of the acting/singing save for Crowe [i concur that his part could have been better cast]) and some parts of the film are drawn out a bit boring, yes, but i thought the story overall was good enough to merit a look into possibly reading the novel. Also i did not expect to see Borat, his and his wife's characters were quite amusing.

overall, Les Mis will not end up on any of my top ten list (excluded top ten musicals i suppose) but i would not call it a Bad film.

 

[mikespoff]

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.

It's a musical. It's all about the great music and melodrama. I don't know why you would believe Bob's opinion over your own experience.

I thought the film was fantastic. Complaining about the musical aspects is like complaining about the action sequences in an action movie or the scary bits in a horror. The music was stunning, the performances were great and the visuals were gorgeous.

It was a magnificent big-screen version of a great musical. It was everything that a reasonable viewer should have expected and could have asked for.

In my opinion.

 

[mikespoff]

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?

Go see it, it's a fantastic transferral of musical theatre to the big screen.

wrt not hearing about the book, I'm not sure what country you went to school in but generally it wouldn't be covered in English class because it is a French book, and translations tend to get passed over in favour of original English texts. Also, depending on the imprint it's generally about 1500 pages long, so it's quite a hefty chunk of work to go through in a class.

That said, I personally loved the book, certainly enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than Catcher in the Rye. Of course, as with all matters of taste, your mileage may vary.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

You can tell that Bob is serious because he's going Boston on us.

 

[sageoftruth]

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.

It's a musical. It's all about the great music and melodrama. I don't know why you would believe Bob's opinion over your own experience.

I thought the film was fantastic. Complaining about the musical aspects is like complaining about the action sequences in an action movie or the scary bits in a horror. The music was stunning, the performances were great and the visuals were gorgeous.

It was a magnificent big-screen version of a great musical. It was everything that a reasonable viewer should have expected and could have asked for.

In my opinion.

Very true. My only concern is how my expectations will be when I see it. I guess it's important for me to remember that it is still a musical, even if it's no longer taking place on a stage. Sometimes the Escapist can make me forget what I really want in films. Thanks for the save.

 

[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.