HUGH JACKMAN WHATS WITH ALL THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS

[bryan2]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 8:07am

I keep reading all the negative comments on Hughs voice -Yes it is very vibrato..but he still has a strong voice..then I hear he should have lowered the keys for his voice instead of singing in the higher keys...well everytime they change the keys everyone complains about that (MADONNA) .....but he is the ONLY Hollywwod star that could have pulled this off...and I think he did an amazing job..Name one other Hollywood Star....who could have done this...I know there are many great singers but this required star power and he had and has that in spades......

Updated On: 1/28/13 at 08:07 AM

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 8:25am

Guys, can we please make "spadee" a thing on this board?

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 9:04am

It turns out that star power is not enough.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 9:34am

I thought he was fine. The only weak song, I thought, was Bring Him Home, but that's just because I prefer a softer tone at the beginning and end for contrast. It is, after all, a prayer.

I even took the "well, I don't know who else could have done it" with Russell. Anthony Stewart Head maybe would have been great. Also, I'll take Russell's Javert over Pierce's Sam Carmichael.

[JRybka1611]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 9:56am

The group I was with actually didn't have a problem with either of the voices.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:08am

"I'll take Russell's Javert over Pierce's Sam Carmichael."

I'll take Pierce's Sam Carmichael over Russel's Javert at any time. Because while their "singing" is exactly the same, a comic role is the only way to get (sort of) away with it.

[bryan2]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:17am

My biggest problem with Russell Crowe is that he gets to sing probably the best song STARS and he should have done it in a studio to make it great 1 time..his voice isnt awful just bland and no power in such a powerful song...In a studio he could have sang it 70 x to get it right 1x

[Wynbish]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:18am

Fair enough. At least they didn't add an extra song just for Russell's character to sing.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:27am

Dave 19, star power is not enough for what exactly? Not enough to give a critically acclaimed performance? It seems he has done that. Not enough to help contribute to one of the highest grossing movie musicals of all time? Nope he has done that too. Quit being a petulant child about this.

[jo]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:29am

Hugh's fine! The movie has grossed over $ 313 million after only a month of release. He has won a Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Musical. He has been nominated for an Oscar Best Actor for the role and Goldderby concedes that he has the best chance of upsetting Daniel Day Lewis. The soundtrack has topped the Billboard 200 and the UK Charts - firsts for a film soundtrack for quite sometime. Pretty ironic after all the "complaints" of the singing

He will be singing with others in the Les Miserables cast at the Oscars as part of the tribute musicals portion...and likely to represent the new Les Miserables song, Suddenly.

Not bad!!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:33am

No one is going to notice that bryan now knows how to capitalize? That's my big boy!

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:34am

Thanks to the success of Les Miserables, more movie musicals will be made. Thank you, Hugh Jackman, and thank you to the entire Les Miserables team.

And thanks to the success of Les Miserables, 'theater people' like Tveit and Barks will probably continue to be cast around Hollywood stars. Again, thanks.

[Johnnycantdecide]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:42am

Stop giving Dave opportunities to be a twat.

[mamaleh]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:54am

Hugh's superb acting and singing in LES MIZ have enough power to light up a major city. He more than ably carries the film from start to finish. This past weekend he appeared as the guest artist with the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra, one of the greatest orchestras in the country, and they don't bother with anything less than exemplary talent. I was fortunate enough to attend and witnessed a performance of "Who Am I?" that blew away a highly discerning audience.

Those who can't, gripe.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 11:11am

I love Pierce as Sam. It's ABBA, not Pucini or Sondheim, so he does not have to "sing." His performance was honest and raw and real and I love him even more for doing it.

I also love Russell as Javert. His voice is strong, but it was his acting that was top notch. STARS is a very iconic and beloved song. People will nit pick. I thought he was great. Not Philip Quast, of course, but he was a decent Javert.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 11:36am

He's got a strong voice, I just don't like it.

[emida]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 12:26pm

Wynbish, I totally feel the same.

I thought he was spectacular until Bring Him Home. That's the only moment where I was like «Dude, the song is too big for you».

He was amazing in the rest of the movie though.

[kec]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 12:35pm

For most of the film Hugh was fine. BRING HIM HOME was a disappointment to me; mostly because he was straining on the upper notes. Even Hugh said it was difficult in this interview with Michael Reidel. As for Russell Crowe, I was pleasantly surprised by his STARS. It was better than I expected.
Happy Hugh Year

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 12:38pm

Stop giving Dave opportunities to be a twat.

OMG, this comment is so me! LMAO!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 12:52pm

I love Jackman's voice. I'll grant that his "Bring Him Home" isn't the best version I've ever heard, but that's one song out of how many?

And Russell Crowe wasn't nearly as bad as I expected from reading here.

But LES MISERABLES isn't a "sacred" show to me. I can understand that for those of you who love the show so much, disappointment is almost inevitable. But the thing is the studio and producers knew you people would attend no matter what. Jackman and Crowe are there to bring in the general public.

As for MAMMA MIA!, anybody willing to appear in that nonsense should get a pass from us and points for keeping the film musical form alive for another year.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 1:08pm

I didn't particularly love his voice in the movie, but like Gaveston, I don't hold the show sacred. Granted, I've loved it since I was teen, but even then I always thought it was a bit bombastic and overwrought (while still enjoying it nonetheless).

I thought Jackman, especially on the higher notes, sounded really thin and nasally in the movie. I was surprised, because I was expecting a stronger voice when I went in.


Updated On: 1/28/13 at 01:08 PM

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 1:44pm

To me, Hugh Jackman sounded like Hugh Jackman- the nasally voice with strong vibrato and slightly flat tone. I don't dislike his voice at all- I grew up hearing it on cast recordings. But to say people were disappointed seems to suggest people haven't heard Hugh Jackman sing a lot before the film.

As for "Bring Him Home," I feel like the reason it was changed stylistically for the film may have been a pragmatic one. Onstage, that number stands out as an exception to Valjean's usual vocal style. In the film, due to the close-up singing style, much of the score was sung quietly and freely in an intimate mix of head and chest voices. The "specialness" of "Bring Him Home" would be gone, so filming it and singing it in a more "active" mode, as a struggle for Valjean emotionally and a cry of weakness, rather than as an intimate moment of silent prayer, made it distinct again.

Whether it works or not is an individual thing, but I didn't mind it too much.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 3:36pm

I thought Jackman, especially on the higher notes, sounded really thin and nasally in the movie. I was surprised, because I was expecting a stronger voice when I went in.

Despite what I said above, I actually agree with Phyllis' observation. I wonder if the more low-key, almost recitative-like, form of singing used in the film was difficult for Jackman. He is, after all, basically a "self-taught" singer.

That being said, it certainly didn't ruin the movie for me.

[jo]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 4:45pm

From the KEC link --

>>>But the hardest scene to shoot was my final scene [Jean Valjean, surrounded by Cosette and Marius, is dying; Fantine reappears to bring him to heaven]. We shot it in a chapel. It was 40 degrees. You’re singing a song, and then you die at the end. Acting-wise, there’s a lot going on.<<<

Ironically, when he reprises BRING HIM HOME here is when the most emotionally-charged moment in the movie ( probably on par with I Dreamed a Dream and Empty Chairs) hits home. He sings it softly but it is not the singing style that drives home the message of our own mortality. Very well-acted and sung piece!

[Plum]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 5:11pm

If the movie couldn't have been made without Jackman - which is fairly plausible - then they should have just lowered the key on "Bring Him Home," end of story. I'm a huge fan of his, but talent and hard work don't change a baritone into a tenor. Valjean carries a ton of recitative and relatively staid music while everyone else is getting showoff solos, so the fact that his showoff solo was out of Jackman's range was...not a good thing.

That said, yeah, the folks who are surprised by his singing voice are probably ones who haven't heard him before. He sounded like he always does.